Kevin Stevens wrote...
> You miss the point. How many of those people HAVE that particular car
> just because it is presently the car for the class?
How many of those people HAVE that particular car just because it is
presently one of the cheapest competitive cars?
"What? A cheap competitive car? We can't have that! Let's make a
rule so that *everyone* has to spend at least as much we do!"
> How many would be changing cars within three years anyway if the
> classifications changed IN ANY WAY such that their car was no longer
> "competitive"?
Many, and they'll be looking for another cheap, old, competitive car.
> Now, for the people LEFT, for how many is the depreciation cost of
> trading up a significant percentage of their autocross budget for tires,
> travel, and entries? Remember, we're talking nationals. That small,
> small group is the one whose ox is actually being gored.
"Depreciation cost of trading up"? You mean the $15K difference
between my old, competitive car, and a new competitive car? Plus the
depreciation that new car is going to see, versus the minimal decrease in
the value of my old car? So, you're saying that autocrossing is
expensive, so no one will mind if we make more so?
Let's put it this way; it'd be cheaper for me to buy a set of $4K
shocks every couple years and keep running old cars.
--
D a v i d H i l l m a n
hillman@planet-torque.com
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|