| KC | 06-20-2006 03:42 PM |
July '06 Fastrack
�
�
w00t!!
[url]http://scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/06-7-fastrack.pdf[/url]
Tech Bulletins:
Stock: The Subaru STi Limited is covered by the existing WRX STi listing (ref. 06-144). (Which means this carries up to BSP for UD/BD as they are considered the same car.)
Street Prepared: Last month's new listing item covering the Subaru Legacy 2.5 GT should read "Subaru Legacy 2.5 GT ('05+)"
Member comment:
Proposal to allow SM2 to allow Elise/Exige/Esprit.
Proposal to move the BMWs and IS300 out of DSP into BSP...
[QUOTE]- Re-class the following cars from DSP to BSP:
- BMW 323, 325 & 328 (E36 chassis); combine with M3 (E36), M3 Lightweight listing in BSP on the same line
- BMW 6-cylinder (E46 chassis), except M3
- Lexus IS300[/QUOTE]
They also define the differences between the CBV and Blow Off valve.
Lots of hot topics covered in that one. :)
--kC
[url]http://scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/06-7-fastrack.pdf[/url]
Tech Bulletins:
Stock: The Subaru STi Limited is covered by the existing WRX STi listing (ref. 06-144). (Which means this carries up to BSP for UD/BD as they are considered the same car.)
Street Prepared: Last month's new listing item covering the Subaru Legacy 2.5 GT should read "Subaru Legacy 2.5 GT ('05+)"
Member comment:
Proposal to allow SM2 to allow Elise/Exige/Esprit.
Proposal to move the BMWs and IS300 out of DSP into BSP...
[QUOTE]- Re-class the following cars from DSP to BSP:
- BMW 323, 325 & 328 (E36 chassis); combine with M3 (E36), M3 Lightweight listing in BSP on the same line
- BMW 6-cylinder (E46 chassis), except M3
- Lexus IS300[/QUOTE]
They also define the differences between the CBV and Blow Off valve.
Lots of hot topics covered in that one. :)
--kC
| maxQ | 06-20-2006 04:13 PM |
I thought the minimum weight for SM being based upon engine displacement is interesting...
Seems to me that's a very favorable change for hondas and a very unfavorable ruling for mustangs....
Seems to me that's a very favorable change for hondas and a very unfavorable ruling for mustangs....
| speedyHAM | 06-20-2006 04:16 PM |
Crap- I get my car down to a nice light weight for SM and now they tell me I have to make it heavier. Why not let the current rules run until there is actually a problem instead of changing the rules to keep the BMW M3 the king of SM? I'd love to see someone else win, be it a turbo civic or Evo- engined Mitsubishi Mirage, or STI powered Impreza. Some variety would be nice.
| rankink | 06-20-2006 04:33 PM |
[QUOTE][B]Tech Bulletins:[/B]
Stock: The Subaru STi Limited is covered by the existing WRX STi listing (ref. 06-144). (Which means this carries up to BSP for UD/BD as they are considered the same car.)[/QUOTE]
So this means the STi's in BSP can get rid of the big factory wing?
Stock: The Subaru STi Limited is covered by the existing WRX STi listing (ref. 06-144). (Which means this carries up to BSP for UD/BD as they are considered the same car.)[/QUOTE]
So this means the STi's in BSP can get rid of the big factory wing?
| Pacobeagle | 06-20-2006 04:35 PM |
That's what I take it to be. SO, eliminate that xx lbs worth of wing if you don't need it and replace it with a stock or wingless.
| rankink | 06-20-2006 04:40 PM |
[QUOTE=Pacobeagle1]That's what I take it to be. SO, eliminate that xx lbs worth of wing if you don't need it and replace it with a stock or wingless.[/QUOTE]
Only if I was in BSP. Doesn't apply to you anyway, so get back to ripping all the sound deadning material out of your car. I better not see any left in it. ;)
Only if I was in BSP. Doesn't apply to you anyway, so get back to ripping all the sound deadning material out of your car. I better not see any left in it. ;)
| ULLLOSE | 06-20-2006 04:56 PM |
[QUOTE=Pacobeagle1]That's what I take it to be. SO, eliminate that xx lbs worth of wing if you don't need it and replace it with a stock or wingless.[/QUOTE]
I would not say wingless. Means you can use the wing from the limited which is smaller. Unless the limited can be had without any wing you still can not go wingless in BSP.
I would not say wingless. Means you can use the wing from the limited which is smaller. Unless the limited can be had without any wing you still can not go wingless in BSP.
| KC | 06-20-2006 05:00 PM |
[QUOTE=ULLLOSE]I would not say wingless. Means you can use the wing from the limited which is smaller. Unless the limited can be had without any wing you still can not go wingless in BSP.[/QUOTE]
Correct... the new limited replaces the wing for a more subtle spoiler.
--KC
Correct... the new limited replaces the wing for a more subtle spoiler.
--KC
| Patrick L | 06-20-2006 05:15 PM |
They forgot too include the E30 3 series DSP to BSP or ESP.
| sciolist | 06-20-2006 05:18 PM |
So, I presume it would be kosher to pick up a blank OE Impreza deck and install the limited spoiler on that (?). Then we have to split hairs over the '06+ trunk badge, I guess.
We are limited (I think) to an OE Subaru deck in some form, so no CF deck with limited spoiler atop.
I expect it would be easier and likely cheaper, to get the Impreza deck and just the trim piece from the limited edition. Then I can finally sell off the rice thresher and be done with it. :)
We are limited (I think) to an OE Subaru deck in some form, so no CF deck with limited spoiler atop.
I expect it would be easier and likely cheaper, to get the Impreza deck and just the trim piece from the limited edition. Then I can finally sell off the rice thresher and be done with it. :)
| maxQ | 06-20-2006 05:23 PM |
[QUOTE=Top_Dog]They forgot too include the E30 3 series DSP to BSP or ESP.[/QUOTE]
They have a proposal to stick them in CSP in that fastrack... is that what you meant?
They have a proposal to stick them in CSP in that fastrack... is that what you meant?
| Patrick L | 06-20-2006 05:32 PM |
Well either way. One in DSP last year.
| Scooby South | 06-20-2006 05:34 PM |
:devil: BRING ON Flanagan... :devil:
| SloRice | 06-20-2006 05:43 PM |
[quote]Minumum Weight
A. Engine Classifications
1. Four-stroke cycle and two-stroke cycle, naturally aspirated internal combustion engines will be classified on the basis of actual piston
displacement.
2. Turbocharged or supercharged versions of the above engine will be classified on a basis of adding 1.4 liters to the actual piston
displacement.
3. Rotary Engines (Wankel): These units will be classified on the basis of a piston displacement equivalent to 1.8 liters plus the volume
determined by the difference between the maximum and minimum capacity of the working chamber, times the number of rotors.
B. SM Minimum Weight Calculations
All listed weights are without driver.
FWD: 1550 lbs + 125 lbs/liter
RWD: 1800 lbs + 200 lbs/liter
AWD: 1800 lbs + 275 lbs/liter[/quote]
This is for SM if you didn't know already
So basically what this is saying is turbocharged engines add 1.4 liters to the actual displacement. So in my case 1.4 + 2.5 = 3.9liters
Now based on the weight calculations, do I go by 2.5liters or 3.9liters for the calculation??
If 2.5liters, 1800 + 275(2.5) = 2487.5lbs
If 3.9liters, 1800 + 275(3.9) = 2872.5lbs
I personally don't think the 3.9L option is fair because you can make some pretty nasty naturally aspirated engines and that's a big weight penalty for someone with a turbo or supercharger.
:confused:
A. Engine Classifications
1. Four-stroke cycle and two-stroke cycle, naturally aspirated internal combustion engines will be classified on the basis of actual piston
displacement.
2. Turbocharged or supercharged versions of the above engine will be classified on a basis of adding 1.4 liters to the actual piston
displacement.
3. Rotary Engines (Wankel): These units will be classified on the basis of a piston displacement equivalent to 1.8 liters plus the volume
determined by the difference between the maximum and minimum capacity of the working chamber, times the number of rotors.
B. SM Minimum Weight Calculations
All listed weights are without driver.
FWD: 1550 lbs + 125 lbs/liter
RWD: 1800 lbs + 200 lbs/liter
AWD: 1800 lbs + 275 lbs/liter[/quote]
This is for SM if you didn't know already
So basically what this is saying is turbocharged engines add 1.4 liters to the actual displacement. So in my case 1.4 + 2.5 = 3.9liters
Now based on the weight calculations, do I go by 2.5liters or 3.9liters for the calculation??
If 2.5liters, 1800 + 275(2.5) = 2487.5lbs
If 3.9liters, 1800 + 275(3.9) = 2872.5lbs
I personally don't think the 3.9L option is fair because you can make some pretty nasty naturally aspirated engines and that's a big weight penalty for someone with a turbo or supercharger.
:confused:
| Pacobeagle | 06-20-2006 06:43 PM |
Slorice- So basically I can get my kiester kicked again by a N/A, 1900lbs, 1978 VW Scirrocco like I did at the Ft. Myers tour. What is the point in those rules? Make it an N/A fest?
| zzyzx | 06-21-2006 01:07 AM |
July Fastrack: BMWs go to BSP
�
�
[url="http://scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/06-7-fastrack.pdf"]July Fastrack[/url]
[quote]
Re-class following cars from DSP to BSP:
- BMW 323, 325 & 328 (E36 chassis); combine with M3 (E36), M3 Lightweight listing in BSP on same line
- BMW 6-cylinder (E46 chassis), except M3
- Lexus IS300
- Re-class from DSP to CSP, BMW 325 and 328 (E30 chassis), on separate line from M3 (E30)
[/quote]
Please send your letter to [email][email�protected][/email] to show your support for or against.
Also, please vote in the poll - might as well make it obvious what people think.
I'm for it as it's well demonstrated that the BMWs belong in BSP based solely on results. The data's there, and it'll be nice to see DSP now have more than one car that can be competitive.
[quote]
Re-class following cars from DSP to BSP:
- BMW 323, 325 & 328 (E36 chassis); combine with M3 (E36), M3 Lightweight listing in BSP on same line
- BMW 6-cylinder (E46 chassis), except M3
- Lexus IS300
- Re-class from DSP to CSP, BMW 325 and 328 (E30 chassis), on separate line from M3 (E30)
[/quote]
Please send your letter to [email][email�protected][/email] to show your support for or against.
Also, please vote in the poll - might as well make it obvious what people think.
I'm for it as it's well demonstrated that the BMWs belong in BSP based solely on results. The data's there, and it'll be nice to see DSP now have more than one car that can be competitive.
| Draken | 06-21-2006 01:12 AM |
[url]http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1029748[/url]
Despite being older than Moses, KC is quick on the draw.
Chris H.
Despite being older than Moses, KC is quick on the draw.
Chris H.
| zzyzx | 06-21-2006 01:14 AM |
Damn, didn't see it.
Looks like he still doesn't know how to post a poll, though. ;)
Looks like he still doesn't know how to post a poll, though. ;)
| zzyzx | 06-21-2006 01:20 AM |
Damn, KC beat me to it... though my post is more "factually corrrect" than his:
[url]http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1030121[/url]
;)
Oh, and vote in the poll!
[url]http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1030121[/url]
;)
Oh, and vote in the poll!
| Storm | 06-21-2006 03:02 AM |
My letter is sent. Combining the E36 with the M3 should only mean [I]another[/I] motorswap for those who've already gone to the 2.8L. The E30 to CSP is an interesting move. I'm not sure how it'll do initially on a widespread scale, but I'm sure Shchipkov would be on pace in that class.
Jay Storm
Jay Storm
| steverife | 06-21-2006 07:53 AM |
I voted no, because I don't want to hurt the current DSP gang for something that doesn't directly influence me. With that said, it sure would be exciting to see what comes of a WIDE OPEN new DSP. I wish I had the throw away cash to give a 1.8T MKIV Golf a shot --- 24xx lbs (maybe 23xx), 225whp, 275 wtq, all kinds of room for tire. I bet I could roll over one of those real good. ;)
| speedyHAM | 06-21-2006 07:58 AM |
[QUOTE=SloRice]This is for SM if you didn't know already
So basically what this is saying is turbocharged engines add 1.4 liters to the actual displacement. So in my case 1.4 + 2.5 = 3.9liters
Now based on the weight calculations, do I go by 2.5liters or 3.9liters for the calculation??
If 2.5liters, 1800 + 275(2.5) = 2487.5lbs
If 3.9liters, 1800 + 275(3.9) = 2872.5lbs
I personally don't think the 3.9L option is fair because you can make some pretty nasty naturally aspirated engines and that's a big weight penalty for someone with a turbo or supercharger.
:confused:[/QUOTE]
You go by the 3.9L calculation. The change to the rules do make it look like they want an N/A only party in SM. Write a letter, tell them not to change it. I like the old rules better, and if anything I would like to see the minimum weights go down.
I don't expect them to change the rules to make my car more competitive, but I really don't like them changing the rules to make me less competitive vs. the existing class champ.
So basically what this is saying is turbocharged engines add 1.4 liters to the actual displacement. So in my case 1.4 + 2.5 = 3.9liters
Now based on the weight calculations, do I go by 2.5liters or 3.9liters for the calculation??
If 2.5liters, 1800 + 275(2.5) = 2487.5lbs
If 3.9liters, 1800 + 275(3.9) = 2872.5lbs
I personally don't think the 3.9L option is fair because you can make some pretty nasty naturally aspirated engines and that's a big weight penalty for someone with a turbo or supercharger.
:confused:[/QUOTE]
You go by the 3.9L calculation. The change to the rules do make it look like they want an N/A only party in SM. Write a letter, tell them not to change it. I like the old rules better, and if anything I would like to see the minimum weights go down.
I don't expect them to change the rules to make my car more competitive, but I really don't like them changing the rules to make me less competitive vs. the existing class champ.
| Scooby South | 06-21-2006 08:27 AM |
[QUOTE=Draken][url]http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1029748[/url]
Despite being older than Moses, KC is quick on the draw.
Chris H.[/QUOTE]
Which is now merged...:)
Bill
Despite being older than Moses, KC is quick on the draw.
Chris H.[/QUOTE]
Which is now merged...:)
Bill
| Scooby South | 06-21-2006 08:29 AM |
my only question would be if that happens....would Vic Sais's Car become BSP Legal then...????? Or the like....
| rankink | 06-21-2006 09:08 AM |
[QUOTE=Scooby South]my only question would be if that happens....would Vic Sais's Car become BSP Legal then...????? Or the like....[/QUOTE]
Isn't it supercharged in its current form?
Isn't it supercharged in its current form?
| PhilC | 06-21-2006 09:13 AM |
Thinking about this weight proposal last night. Vic's car is N/A and I think that it still displaces only 3.2 litres (although I'm not sure about that). So his new minimum weight is 2440, which is actually less than the existing minimum of 2500. Basically the only car that came close to keeping up with him in SM most of the time was Bob's old car that ran a supercharged 3.0 engine. So that car's new minimum weight would be 2640, up from the 2400 it could run last year. Now I don't know if either of those cars were actually down to or near minimum weight but think about the fact that if they were Vic's car could drop another 60 pounds and Bob's car would have to add 240. Ooof.
| KC | 06-21-2006 09:18 AM |
Vic would have to add 60 if his weight is 2440.
| jcroy66 | 06-21-2006 12:11 PM |
My post from SCCAForums, for those who didn't see it there:
[quote=jcroy66]While I think it would require the current DSP BMWs to shell out quite a bit of money to stay competitive, for the most part, I think it makes sense to have the M and non-M on the same line in SP.
However. That said. I'm not at all sure that that suddenly makes DSP an open playground. This post mentioned the Cooper S as having no place to play. I disagree. Seems to me that Craig's car has shown the JCW Mini can be competitive with the current DSP crop of cars. And his car isn't a full-blown SP car - it's an ST car with DOT-R rubber. But the race rubber is likely limited by the ST-legal wheel sizes, ST-legal bodywork. I'm curious to hear what Craig and Courtney think the JCW could do in full SP prep.
So what happens if those other cars leave but the JCW stays? I'm concerned this proposal has the potential to turn DSP into a one-car class, instead of making DSP more competitive.[/quote]
[quote=jcroy66]While I think it would require the current DSP BMWs to shell out quite a bit of money to stay competitive, for the most part, I think it makes sense to have the M and non-M on the same line in SP.
However. That said. I'm not at all sure that that suddenly makes DSP an open playground. This post mentioned the Cooper S as having no place to play. I disagree. Seems to me that Craig's car has shown the JCW Mini can be competitive with the current DSP crop of cars. And his car isn't a full-blown SP car - it's an ST car with DOT-R rubber. But the race rubber is likely limited by the ST-legal wheel sizes, ST-legal bodywork. I'm curious to hear what Craig and Courtney think the JCW could do in full SP prep.
So what happens if those other cars leave but the JCW stays? I'm concerned this proposal has the potential to turn DSP into a one-car class, instead of making DSP more competitive.[/quote]
| Draken | 06-21-2006 12:17 PM |
[QUOTE=KC]Vic would have to add 60 if his weight is 2440.[/QUOTE]
Vic was 256x at Atwater Tour, with horrible cross weights. And yes, i was there, actually working the scales. In fact, there weren't many SM and SM2 cars that were very close to their minimums.
Chris H.
Vic was 256x at Atwater Tour, with horrible cross weights. And yes, i was there, actually working the scales. In fact, there weren't many SM and SM2 cars that were very close to their minimums.
Chris H.
| KC | 06-21-2006 12:59 PM |
Ok, so the original post that I quoted was a typo.. and wasn't 2440, but 2540(ish).
Got it. That's why I made the post. :)
Got it. That's why I made the post. :)
| Mhyrr | 06-21-2006 02:52 PM |
God no, aside from "E36 (all)" and "E46 non-M" being on different lines, Vic's car is so far beyond SP trim its not even funny. It is also not supercharged.
| zzyzx | 06-21-2006 03:24 PM |
[quote=jcroy66]
So what happens if those other cars leave but the JCW stays? I'm concerned this proposal has the potential to turn DSP into a one-car class, instead of making DSP more competitive.
[/quote]
DSP is currently a one-make class, mostly E36 BMWs. The BMWs have demonstrated they outclass the other DSP cars. The Mini has no such record at this point in time.
That said, having posed a possible threat to the "new" DSP, you haven't outlined what you'd propose as a solution.
So what happens if those other cars leave but the JCW stays? I'm concerned this proposal has the potential to turn DSP into a one-car class, instead of making DSP more competitive.
[/quote]
DSP is currently a one-make class, mostly E36 BMWs. The BMWs have demonstrated they outclass the other DSP cars. The Mini has no such record at this point in time.
That said, having posed a possible threat to the "new" DSP, you haven't outlined what you'd propose as a solution.
| jcroy66 | 06-21-2006 03:48 PM |
I don't know yet what I think is the best solution - that's why my letter hasn't been written. I wanted to bring up the issue for consideration, and hear possible refutations and solutions from others.
How long have the E36 BMWs been in DSP? Is this a problem now because they are fairly recent additions to DSP? Or just because people have developed the cars to SP trim now? Is the domination a true domination? Or have other cars perhaps not been developed to the same level? Certainly the E36 is a very competitive car in the class, most likely the most competitive. But could any of the cars in the "new DSP" be competitive in the existing DSP, if they were prepped to the same level of commitment? Note I'm not asking if EVERY car in the "new DSP" can be competitive in the existing DSP. There's no guarantee that every car will be competitive in every trim level. I am asking if any of the cars could be. (Which incidentally was part of my point about the JCW Mini).
I guess I just see a lot of parallels to the whining we hear in STX: "the WRX is winning in STX, therefore it must be true that no other car can be competitive". Sometimes, a car wins frequently because there are a lot of people driving that car in the class. Strength of numbers. :) And a lot of top drivers are driving that car. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's the only car that can win.
How long have the E36 BMWs been in DSP? Is this a problem now because they are fairly recent additions to DSP? Or just because people have developed the cars to SP trim now? Is the domination a true domination? Or have other cars perhaps not been developed to the same level? Certainly the E36 is a very competitive car in the class, most likely the most competitive. But could any of the cars in the "new DSP" be competitive in the existing DSP, if they were prepped to the same level of commitment? Note I'm not asking if EVERY car in the "new DSP" can be competitive in the existing DSP. There's no guarantee that every car will be competitive in every trim level. I am asking if any of the cars could be. (Which incidentally was part of my point about the JCW Mini).
I guess I just see a lot of parallels to the whining we hear in STX: "the WRX is winning in STX, therefore it must be true that no other car can be competitive". Sometimes, a car wins frequently because there are a lot of people driving that car in the class. Strength of numbers. :) And a lot of top drivers are driving that car. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's the only car that can win.
| 10th Warrior | 06-21-2006 04:27 PM |
Jen, I think the issue is that there is an enormous gulf between the bimmers and the rest in DSP. The bimmers have been there forever, and there was parity for quite some time, but then the bimmers got big tires and that was that. The fact of the matter is, the bimmers have been setting times right there with ESP and BSP, sometimes beating them. Infact, those three classes are very, very close to one another. I just don't see a celica, or integra, or neon, or 2.5RS coming close, ever. There used to be DSP 'tegs, but they don't show up anymore. There have certainly been serious attempts at the RS (3 by my count), with good drivers, yet way off the pace. The bimmers, while having the option to get faster, could very well win BSP at any given event as they sit right now.
| jcroy66 | 06-21-2006 04:36 PM |
Ah yeah, I do remember someone mentioning on SCCAForums about the tire size issue. Sorry, it's been a VERY long day for me. :)
OK, so if tires created a huge gulf. What happens if the cars in the new DSP get tire sizes appropriate for them? Or if the next "must have" R-compound tire doesn't have the same E36-dominating size? (Note: I'm presenting these as QUESTIONS, not accusations!!)
As for setting times with ESP, that's what I've been kinda pondering - what about putting the German (and Japanese) RWD ponycars in with the American RWD ponycars? Seems to me like they could be more appropriate matches for ESP than the STI/Evo were - you're getting either superior horsepower or handling, not both simultaneously.
Again, just throwing the idea out for thought, which I think is what the proposal is for, right? :) I'm sure the SPAC has considered ESP as an option as well, and presumably they think BSP is a better fit. But I'd personally like to hear the pros/cons of the different "homes" for the E36.
Jen (no dog in this fight)
OK, so if tires created a huge gulf. What happens if the cars in the new DSP get tire sizes appropriate for them? Or if the next "must have" R-compound tire doesn't have the same E36-dominating size? (Note: I'm presenting these as QUESTIONS, not accusations!!)
As for setting times with ESP, that's what I've been kinda pondering - what about putting the German (and Japanese) RWD ponycars in with the American RWD ponycars? Seems to me like they could be more appropriate matches for ESP than the STI/Evo were - you're getting either superior horsepower or handling, not both simultaneously.
Again, just throwing the idea out for thought, which I think is what the proposal is for, right? :) I'm sure the SPAC has considered ESP as an option as well, and presumably they think BSP is a better fit. But I'd personally like to hear the pros/cons of the different "homes" for the E36.
Jen (no dog in this fight)
| Patrick L | 06-21-2006 05:44 PM |
One reason, Paul Lenords car (Mattucci's last years car) put down about 210-220 and wieght is a tad bit more then my RS. Run 285's all the way around. It's a 325 with a 328 motor. IMO, I don't think an RS can put this kind of power down with a SP prepped motor.
I don't think an RS or any other car could compete for a Nationals win in DSP against the top BMW's. These car have been in DSP a while but non have been fully prepped till recently. Case in point, the Mattucci car.
Walnut Ridge last year. Mattucci took top pax and was faster then FP which had several Nationals competitive drivers. Doug Gill reminded me about that fact back in April in KC on how fast that car was.
I don't think an RS or any other car could compete for a Nationals win in DSP against the top BMW's. These car have been in DSP a while but non have been fully prepped till recently. Case in point, the Mattucci car.
Walnut Ridge last year. Mattucci took top pax and was faster then FP which had several Nationals competitive drivers. Doug Gill reminded me about that fact back in April in KC on how fast that car was.
| Corey | 06-21-2006 09:33 PM |
If this goes through I might have a reason to keep my 2.5RS. I can see it now. .. Nice big flares, steemroller rubber, shooting flames! Ah yes...
I don't think I'm going to voice my opinion either way to the SEB. I'd like to see it, but on the other hand I feel for the guys that built the best cars for the class. Since I have no vested intrest either way, I'll stay out of it.
Corey #89 STS
I don't think I'm going to voice my opinion either way to the SEB. I'd like to see it, but on the other hand I feel for the guys that built the best cars for the class. Since I have no vested intrest either way, I'll stay out of it.
Corey #89 STS
| TheWRX | 06-21-2006 11:03 PM |
You have a valid point, Jen. To some degree it's almost unavoidable that once a car starts dominating a class, the gap tends to widen. Mainly because very few top drivers are willing to run underdog cars. So you have the best drivers in the best cars, and those drivers also tend to be very good at optimizing the setup of those cars. Next thing, most people in other cars stay home, and you have utter domination.
That being said, the DSP bimmers have gotten incredibly fast over the last two years. Like others here, I also saw it the first time in Walnut Ridge last year. People were shaking their heads in disbelief while Matteucci was running times almost identical to Strelnieks (who won SS by about 3 seconds). And IIRC, DSP was running 1st heat, SS ran later. If don't think anything could touch the bimmers, even if somebody made a serious attempt. The closest might be something like an IS300. A Mini wouldn't stand a chance. Not going to happen.
Since I won't be running in either class, I don't plan to write a letter. But I do believe that opening up DSP to FWD cars would give a lot of interesting and popular cars a good place to play.
That being said, the DSP bimmers have gotten incredibly fast over the last two years. Like others here, I also saw it the first time in Walnut Ridge last year. People were shaking their heads in disbelief while Matteucci was running times almost identical to Strelnieks (who won SS by about 3 seconds). And IIRC, DSP was running 1st heat, SS ran later. If don't think anything could touch the bimmers, even if somebody made a serious attempt. The closest might be something like an IS300. A Mini wouldn't stand a chance. Not going to happen.
Since I won't be running in either class, I don't plan to write a letter. But I do believe that opening up DSP to FWD cars would give a lot of interesting and popular cars a good place to play.
| Scooby South | 06-22-2006 09:05 AM |
Notoriously....most of the DSP Bimmers have flown under the radar...
By that I mean noone thought about them being in another class other than DSP...because thats just the way it was....I am for it...not that I want to get my hiney handed to me...but it just makes sense...with the times these things are throwing down...they are way better PAX wise too...
I have YET this Year seen a all inclusive compitive BSP Field and any event...with the Bimmers, Vettes, Evo's ,STI's a S2000 or 2 and a RX8....there has been none...correct me if I am wrong here..I am sure Nationals are going to tell a BIG story on things...and with some of the DSP times I have seen in the past ..they ARE right up there with BSP and ESP times...sometimes even beating them..
Bill
By that I mean noone thought about them being in another class other than DSP...because thats just the way it was....I am for it...not that I want to get my hiney handed to me...but it just makes sense...with the times these things are throwing down...they are way better PAX wise too...
I have YET this Year seen a all inclusive compitive BSP Field and any event...with the Bimmers, Vettes, Evo's ,STI's a S2000 or 2 and a RX8....there has been none...correct me if I am wrong here..I am sure Nationals are going to tell a BIG story on things...and with some of the DSP times I have seen in the past ..they ARE right up there with BSP and ESP times...sometimes even beating them..
Bill
| AUTOwrXER | 06-22-2006 04:12 PM |
I'm just listening in. My vote comes later ;)
Write letters. Seriously. Don't assume that just because someone reflected your feelings on a forum post that they have been communicated to the SPAC
Write letters. Seriously. Don't assume that just because someone reflected your feelings on a forum post that they have been communicated to the SPAC
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét