----------
> From: Steven Eguina <seguina@unionfundingusa.com>
> To: Brian Berryhill <brianberryhill@flashmail.com>; Autox
<autox@autox.team.net>
> Cc: SEB@SCCA.org; DuncanSCCA@aol.com; tashaG@sonmpuserve.
> Subject: Letter to SEB / ESP
> Date: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 12:32 PM
>
> Dear SEB
>
> With regards to the M-3 move to BSP or ASP its been tabled by the SEB
with
> no recommendation for 2001! We are not trying to "protect" certain types
> of cars in ESP. Its called "keeping the class alive". ESP lost several
> pony cars to SM at Nationals and several just didn't participate. I
spoke
> to 5 or 6 drivers of FS cars who wanted to move up to ESP but did not
want
> to compete in ESP against a car that should be in BSP or ASP. A petition
> was signed on the grid at Nationals by most of the ESP competitors who
felt
> the M-3 was not in the proper class. Letters have been sent by most of
the
> competitive ESP drivers in the country to the SEB, all year long. Many
of
> these letter have contained pages of statistics and technical
information
> What does "lacking firm technical foundation" mean?
>
> I do have one other question. What was the "firm technical foundation"
for
> moving the M-3 from CSP? Maybe this will give us an idea what you looking
> for. I hope it wasn't because the M-3 was loosing, or because the M-3
was
> to big or heavy to be competitive in CSP. If that was the case its time
to
> move all the pony cars out of ESP and into a separate class as you
> basically have with FS. Prior to moving the M-3 to ESP last year maybe a
> test with Hoosier tires would have been in order. Once the M-3 was shod
> with Hoosiers Vs the BFG's it sure was a lot fast. As most of us know,
the
> BFG's were not competitive in 1999. The "firm technical foundation" for
> this, I would think, would have been the National results.
>
> In final closing, I was told by Howard Duncan at the beginning of this
year
> that one reason the M-3 was moved to ESP was because the M-3 drivers
> thought it was a "good idea" and since the ESP existing drivers weren't
> heard from it was "ASSUMED" we didn't care. The communication to the
> drivers on this issue last year was POOR at best. The SEB has had plenty
> of driver feed back this year.
>
> Please review all the information you have received. Look at last years
> results (in particular review how many times the M-3 would have won the
BSP
> class and in some cases the CSP or ASP class), Consider the effect on the
> class ( ESP was one of the few classes at Nationals that was smaller,
> despite a 20% increase in Nationals participation.) Please review all
the
> information and tell the us the M-3 is going to stay in ESP or move it.
>
> After a year of debate we deserve more than four lines at the end of Item
> 10 in the SEPT 26th minutes which addresses "CLUTCH ASSEMBLIES"!
>
> The current BSP cars are much more in line with the M-3 than the majority
> of the ESP cars. I feel last year you made a poor discussion in moving
the
> M-3 to ESP. Lets not let it stand another year. I don't want to see a
20%
> to 40% reduction of the class at Pro Solo, National Tour and Nationals.
>
> Thank you, Steve Eguina #86 ESP
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Brian Berryhill <brianberryhill@flashmail.com>
> > To: Autox <autox@autox.team.net>
> > Subject: Re: ?!?What does this mean?!?!?
> > Date: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 8:23 PM
> >
> > "Change the first part of 14.10.L to read "Any metal clutch assembly,
> metal
> > flywheel, or metal torque converter that uses the standard attachment
to
> the
> > crankshaft may be used. Non-metallic friction surfaces (e.g. clutch
> disks)
> > are permitted." Comment: the intent of this change is to prohibit
> > non-metallic (e.g. carbon fiber) clutch assemblies in the Street
Prepared
> > category."
> >
> > Does this mean that Aluminum flywheels are legal in SP? Since
> technically,
> > an Al flywheel isn't "lightened" it is usually lighter than its steel
> > counterpart.
> >
> > "The proposal pertaining to pulleys has been dropped. Comment: the
> current
> > wording permits any material including plastic, and this is seen as
more
> > realistic with the emergence of plastic as a common material for both
OEM
> > and replacement pulleys."
> >
> > Hmm.. tupperware pulleys!
> >
> > "Proposals to move the BMW M3 from ESP to BSP or ASP have been tabled
at
> > this time, and no action is recommended for 2001. Comment: The SEB
> currently
> > views these proposals as lacking firm technical foundation, and as
being
> > primarily based upon perceptions that certain types of cars in ESP
should
> be
> > "protected"."
> >
> > Sounds good I guess...
> >
> >
> >
> > > The Quote was directly off of the SCCA website....
> > > http://www.scca.org/news/tech/seb/9-26-00.html
> > >
> > >
> >
|