Quote Originally Posted by Greg Amy View Post



What I'm reading here is a basic "rookie" mistake of trying to shoehorn a desired car/design into a set class. What you guys are doing is thinking "hey, I really like the prep rules of this class! And, I'm a big fan of the Borgward. Hmmm, how can I make this car work in this class? HEY, HOW COME YOU GUYS DON'T LIKE BORGWARDS????" Couple that to some egalitarian ideal that the rulesmakers should work to make all cars competitive, and it's a recipe for frustration.

That ain't Super Touring Light, folks. This ain't Title 9. It's like me saying, "man, I really like the way Spec Miata runs. Wonder if they'd classify my Integra?"
I think the problem here Greg is that to the outsider, it's NOT a 'set class', meaning that it's a great engine-swap concept. What are the cool combinations? What is possible? How can I be fast and different? It's weight by displacement and anything goes within that displacement (with cam limits for a family). Nobody is asking for a 3.0 in STL, nobody is asking for anything that isn't very reasonable here. The concept that has been told to us, 'piston-based', is well known, but nobody sees any reason to not allow that motor in any other chassis than an RX-7 at an artificially high weight. It makes no sense, especially when it's a new class and it would open up so many more choices.

The regs are out there for you to see. There's nothing hidden. As with all forms of motorsport, don't make the rookie mistake of trying to shoehorn your preferred platform into them, read them for what they are, pick the best engine, and stuff it into the car that you think will work best.
Sort of. The whole FD RX-7 issue is scary. There is no wording and parameters around what chassis' are 'too good' and what are not. Arbitrary at best. Again, more closed doors.

Pick the class, pick the engine, pick the chassis. Don't do it in reverse. Easy Peasy.
Except that simply is not how a smart competitor, OR an enthusiast chooses a racecar. The NASA crowd pics the chassis and motor first, then finds a class. The SCCA racer pics the chassis, then the class, then preps the motor accordingly.

IMHO the order you have it in is a recipe for failure. People build and choose classes around cars, not motors (unless we are talking GT1 or something). Allowing modern engines in popular chassis - regardless of age - is the way to make this class sing.

The concept is so intriguing that it is generating this kind of thought, and it's a good thing. But the comments that are coming in are ones of potential competitors facing walls that nobody can see real reasons for them to be there.

Having been on many committees, I am sure a lot of this grey would be easily explained over a beer or 4 but it's not coming through yet here IMHO.