On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 10:33:18PM -0400, Smokerbros@aol.com wrote:
> I disagree. STX doesn't allow unlimited flywheels and clutches (a
> big impediment to a streetable SP car), unlimited fuel injection and
> ignition controls, wheel and tire sizes. That's a short list but
> huge in scope...
I'll buy that. Most people wouldn't run any of those modifications in
a regional Street Tire class, because the appeal is to be able to
drive to the event and not change tires. I suppose there's no harm in
making the above restrictions a formal requirement though.
> > However, a street-driven SP car is probably a lot farther from the
> > maximum prep level than a street-driven stock car, so an SP car
> > competing in the PAXed Street Tire class is really at a disadvantage.
> > The PAX index is based on cars that are prepared to the extent of the
> > rules. Perhaps it would make sense to split the ST class into stock
> > and Street Prepared sub-classes. Would that accomplish the same thing
> > as ST2?
> I'm not really sure what the PAX index has to do with a new ST class,
> either...
It doesn't really have anything to do with ST2 directly. It's the
only rationale I could think of why people who would run in ST2
wouldn't just run in Street Tire under the SP PAX: their car can't
live up to the SP index and still be street legal.
I didn't realize you were interested in creating a Nationally viable
class, and I agree that having an indexed class isn't likely to fly in
that venue (although aren't the ProSolo ladies' classes just that?).
--
john@idsfa.net John Stimson
http://www.idsfa.net/~john/ HMC Physics '94
|