Heyward, I have lots of respect for you as a person and a driver. But I
have to respectfully disagree with you on this subject. See my specific
replies to your questions below.
On Thu, 13 May 2004 10:06:39 -0400 Stand0nIt@aol.com writes:
> A few questions for Mr. Thatcher, Mr. Andy and Mr. Mitchell
>
> 1. In view of the fact that nearly zero of the nationally
> competitive SP cars are streeted on any kind of a regular basis is
> is a bad thing for a category called "Street Touring" to shy away
> from from the concept of Streetable SP and stay closer to bolt on
> stock?
No, I thought the original intent was to make a more streetable SP. If
you recall, there was lots of complaining that SP had strayed away from
the "Street" by allowing mods that did away with smog control devices.
>
> 2. As it is my understanding the original vision of STS was to be a
> strictly bolt on mod class.
That wasn't the way I understood it, at all, and that isn't the way the
rules were written, either. That is what STS drivers believed and so
started a campaign to make it that way.
STU (Now SM)was created to provide a
> home for more radical modifications. Do you believe that junkyard
> engine swaps (as a means of being competitive rather than simple
> economics) belong in the ST concept?
Yes, I do. This is an economical way to keep a car competitive for a
longer period of time. Since this is an amateur sport this helps keep the
cost down for those of us who don't like buying new cars every few years.
The FrankenCivic scared you guys to death, yet it didn't prove to be an
overdog in the class. Also, consider the guy who blows up his motor. Now
he has to find a motor from a year/model that exactly matches his car.
Even if motors are identical in every way except for the serial numbers
they won't be legal if that serial number match isn't exact.
>
> 3. ST was designed to attracted new members (whether or not it has
> is a different debate). Given that UD/BD generally helps older cars
> more than new due to availability, weight and price of parts is it
> good for the club as a whole to give anymore of an advantage to out
> of date cars that are already dominating the class? (Close you eyes
> and try to see a frankincivic being featured in Sport and Compact
> Car... Sneak Preview-- He dropped a D16A in this little bad boy and
> boosted the power all the way to 108!)
Remember that UD/BD would be limited to the same line restrictions as SP
so unlimited engine swaps wouldn't be allowed. The alternative (that we
have now) is that new cars *could* get the advantage, instantly
obsoleting the older cars. At least with UD/BD some creativity in
assembling parts makes those of us who like to prepare some incentive to
do so. A "bolt-on" stock class doesn't appeal to me at all. It's
expensive enough in Stock to replace cars every few years (except in ES)
I wouldn't want to have to do that PLUS buy the new bolt-ons, too.
>
> And Finally...
> Why is it that this is such a hot button for the three of you? Do
> you have plans to compete in ST?
You never know what direction I might head in the future. Is it wrong for
us to have an opinion about the category you are running in even though
we aren't running there right now? It's a Hot Button for me because you
guys keep harping about "The Original Intent of ST" is the vision that
y'all WANT for the class, when it is clear the original intent for ST was
to allow UD/BD. I think the SEB took the easy road by bowing to the
drivers' wishes on this issue. Obviously, though, this is a dead issue as
you guys got what you wanted and there is no turning back, now. My desire
to ever build a car for ST has evaporated as a result, however. It's a
bolt-on stock class and it will live or die with those rules. Right now
ST looks very healthy. But we'll see how healthy it is when a new overdog
car comes along.
>
> Heyward Wagner
> 48 STS Civic Si
> Tows with a Tundra
Ben Thatcher
http://ApexBenefits.biz
|