Go to previous topic
Go to next topic
Last Post 03 Feb 2015 09:37 AM by  The_Winch
ESP V8 guys have done it again! Nice!
 70 Replies
Author Messages
MrAWD
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts:880


--
25 Nov 2013 11:30 AM

    Just saw the latest Fast track and even though I have heard that proposal was aiming WRXs, just realized that DSMs are actually a target as well. So, after almost 30 years of being part of the class, V8 guys have figured out again that those AWD cars are not good for the class! Pathetic is the only word that comes to my mind right now, but really??? How low this should really go?

    Fedja

     

    Han Solo
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:203


    --
    25 Nov 2013 04:25 PM
    Seems perfectly logical to me. < Mustang Driver
    hklvette
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:184


    --
    25 Nov 2013 04:51 PM
    You mean just like the AWD guys getting mad at the C5 being classed in STU? Pot, meet Kettle.
    MrAWD
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:880


    --
    25 Nov 2013 04:52 PM
    I know!!

    The only thing is that this brings this old memory of long discussions that took place 10 or so years ago. Now it looks like we have new kids on the block that would still rather remove all of the obstacles from other cars first rather then improve on them selves and their cars...

    Fedja
    gary p
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:2730


    --
    25 Nov 2013 05:12 PM
    Posted By hklvette on 25 Nov 2013 04:51 PM
    You mean just like the AWD guys getting mad at the C5 being classed in STU? Pot, meet Kettle.

    Put the C5 on the same wheel and tire restrictions as the "boost buggies" and I don't think there'd be much bitchin'

     

    ratt_finkel
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1650


    --
    25 Nov 2013 05:45 PM
    Sorry, but the regular wrx and DSM's do not belong in ASP unless you want them completely gone from competition. Mark may not like my comment, but sometimes you just get beat. I don't see any reason to change a healthy class. Keep ESP the way it is and revel in the fact that there is now proof a car other than the GTA can win

    If anything, this should motivate MORE people to try different formulas.
    MrAWD
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:880


    --
    25 Nov 2013 06:40 PM
    I hope you are not talking of Mark Madarsh since I though he was better than this. Last time we had a good race and he beat me on the second day to take 2nd place after Sam. If he is the one pushing for this, than this is just sad on all kind of levels.

    And I couldn't agree with you more on ASP for DSMs! But, there is only one car that is still in game so who care if two guys get mad over this! Right!
    drdisque
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:317


    --
    25 Nov 2013 07:02 PM

    delete post

    MrAWD
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:880


    --
    25 Nov 2013 07:17 PM
    Really?? DSM are there since 1989 and now we have to find other place for them because someone decided that is easier way to make decent results in ESP? Seriously?? 24 years of class presence should end because of a cry baby or two?
    Silencer
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:217


    --
    25 Nov 2013 08:17 PM
    Posted By Fedja Jeleskovic on 25 Nov 2013 11:30 AM

    Just saw the latest Fast track and even though I have heard that proposal was aiming WRXs, just realized that DSMs are actually a target as well. So, after almost 30 years of being part of the class, V8 guys have figured out again that those AWD cars are not good for the class! Pathetic is the only word that comes to my mind right now, but really??? How low this should really go?

    Fedja

     

    Not all V8 ESP Drivers agree with this.

    Dave


    MrAWD
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:880


    --
    25 Nov 2013 09:08 PM
    You are correct Dave and I apologize to all of those who don't share this idea as improvements for ESP. I should have been more clear on this when I started this thread!

    Fedja
    talon95
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1924


    --
    25 Nov 2013 09:40 PM
    Wow, that is total crap. As was said, the DSM has been in there for well more than 10yrs. I ran ESP in a Talon in the late 90's same as Fedja. They changed the rules then to not allow u/b of turbo's for this reason. I'll be writing my letter.

    Dave G.
    ratt_finkel
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1650


    --
    25 Nov 2013 11:40 PM
    Whoah, don't put words in my mouth. I never said Mark championed this. Just saying he is someone who would benefit from it. And certainly has the clout to help push it through. Mark has expressed to me he thinks there are too many course dependencies with the boost buggies in the class. But I also know this has pushed his driving and tuning to the next level. And allowed him to win, rightfully so, the driver of eminence.
    MrAWD
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:880


    --
    26 Nov 2013 09:44 AM
    Not intended by any means! I remember him in quite opposite way, and I would have hard time believing he had something to do with this!

    Fedja
    ACM
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:115


    --
    26 Nov 2013 11:46 AM
    Is it April 1st already ?


    Charles
    MrAWD
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:880


    --
    26 Nov 2013 11:06 PM
    So, let's cut the crap about this! Here is the part from the above mentioned Fast Track that is important:
    "Comment: The SPAC feels that these AWD turbo cars in ESP are not a good fit. ESP has shown strong growth, nearly all
    of which has been fueled by ponycars. Also, the STIs in ASP may be a more attractive option with the additional UD/BD."

    All of the sudden SPAC decided to bring this proposal out for comment, which has to imply that either enough people asked for this or someone influential decided to make things easier for him/her. So, in either way, how could the rest of us who don't know how this came about get any information about this? Is there a way to know who and how brought this up?

    Also, how members of SCCA could find out what is driving all of this? I mean, it can not be just what was written above. DSMs were in this class for over 20 years and even with bunch of attempts to sabotage its presence in ESP, it remained there all the time. Lots of people that I was racing with in there actually like the diversity that different cars bring to the class, and I do agree with that 100%. Nobody likes the single car classes and it is a common sense that those quickly become boring and attendance is lost before you know it.

    Last time I was actively part of this discussion, power levels, torque numbers, potentials, and all of the other things that you can think of, were taken into consideration, broken down in pieces and then put back together just to find out that class is a healthy as it could be and nothing needed to be changed. So, now after DSM is still the same one and there are plenty of new V8 that came into the class with lot of new fancy features, more power, better torque curves, increased potential, and who knows what else that have improved existing level of those cars. But, they are trying to make it look like that those pore V8s can't keep up with DSMs any more and that they don't belong in ESP any more! It just doesn't add up on any level and I can't believe I am the only one who thinks that!

    Fedja
    mrazny
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:462


    --
    26 Nov 2013 11:27 PM
    Well, it's out for comment. make your comment @ sebscca.com.
    MrAWD
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:880


    --
    27 Nov 2013 10:22 AM
    My worry here is that someone in the SPAC either pushing this crap or enough of their friends feel like they could do it and it all went through! Now, what is the word of few of us who don't agree with this? A letter or two will change things? Especially when nobody seem to care that much anyway...
    mccanixx
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:129


    --
    27 Nov 2013 11:36 AM
    I agree that the DSM's are probably getting the short end. I also know by watching them they can out accelerate anything currently in ESP. That has not necessarily translated into needing to dislocate them however.

    That said: As you know, very well, this conversation never truly goes away and comes up every few years or so.

    My feelings on the proposal aside I think writing is important. Whatever the true agenda may be.
    ACM
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:115


    --
    27 Nov 2013 01:59 PM
    Posted By mccanixx on 27 Nov 2013 11:36 AM
    I agree that the DSM's are probably getting the short end. I also know by watching them they can out accelerate anything currently in ESP. That has not necessarily translated into needing to dislocate them however.

    That said: As you know, very well, this conversation never truly goes away and comes up every few years or so.

    My feelings on the proposal aside I think writing is important. Whatever the true agenda may be.

    Hmm, being one of the two drivers of the only (to my knowledge) national level DSM in ESP, I can tell you that we were consistently out-accelerated to the top of 2nd gear by the V8s at every ProSolo we've been to in recent years - we clawed the time back out on course.  Except this last season where we were out-accelerated and then out-driven too :-)

     

    Not surprisingly, I am taking this rather personally, since there hasn't been another national level ESP DSM in the last decade other than mine, so this is clearly aimed at Sam and I.


    MrAWD
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:880


    --
    27 Nov 2013 02:40 PM
    Posted By mccanixx on 27 Nov 2013 11:36 AM
    I agree that the DSM's are probably getting the short end. I also know by watching them they can out accelerate anything currently in ESP. That has not necessarily translated into needing to dislocate them however.

    Well, regular ESP DSM would typically make 1.8xx short times which would get them to be pretty quick for the Pro Solo from the start line, but Charles's car had an open center diff before with 65:35 split and now he is on the regular one (still open but with 50:50 split), so puling anything in 1.9xx for short time is a great success. 

    I remember that all of the WRXes were puling much harder than that. And, when V8s pull 2.1 short time or better, they are right there as well due to lot more power and torque. It is hard to imagine car which max power around 275 and torque right below 300 for the flywheel numbers to outrun that many car in ESP.

    Fedja

     

    marka
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:2258


    --
    27 Nov 2013 02:43 PM

    Howdy,

    Posted By Fedja Jeleskovic on 26 Nov 2013 11:06 PM
    So, let's cut the crap about this! Here is the part from the above mentioned Fast Track that is important:
    "Comment: The SPAC feels that these AWD turbo cars in ESP are not a good fit. ESP has shown strong growth, nearly all
    of which has been fueled by ponycars. Also, the STIs in ASP may be a more attractive option with the additional UD/BD."

    All of the sudden SPAC decided to bring this proposal out for comment, which has to imply that either enough people asked for this or someone influential decided to make things easier for him/her. So, in either way, how could the rest of us who don't know how this came about get any information about this? Is there a way to know who and how brought this up?

    No.  There's confidentiality in the process for letter writers and that's not accidental.  You don't know if this is the SPAC thinking this up on their own, the SEB jamming it down their throat, a response to tons of letters requesting it, or anything else.

    You can argue whether or not that's a good thing if you'd like, but the ultimate fact is that you don't know and that's not likely to change.

     

    So react to the proposal that was presented.  Write in with your thoughts on whether its a good thing or a bad thing.  Motivations behind the proposal don't matter.  The proposal itself does.

     

    And in the "FWIW" category, I was involved with CP and then ESP from around 2000 to 2010.  If this is the first time you're recognizing that there are pony car owners that don't like the awd turbo cars then you've had your head firmly planted in the sand.

     

    Mark

    Z3papa
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:525


    --
    27 Nov 2013 03:19 PM
    Trying to attack this proposal which is out for comment based on attacking a person or the messenger is foolish, especially if you were right in your assumption. I'd suggest instead writing a letter as to the merit of the proposal. The SEB has shown in the past year it has not been deaf to the letters written as it re-wrote many of its initial proposals in the street category process.
    MrAWD
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:880


    --
    27 Nov 2013 03:40 PM
    Posted By marka on 27 Nov 2013 02:43 PM

    No.  There's confidentiality in the process for letter writers and that's not accidental.  You don't know if this is the SPAC thinking this up on their own, the SEB jamming it down their throat, a response to tons of letters requesting it, or anything else.

    You can argue whether or not that's a good thing if you'd like, but the ultimate fact is that you don't know and that's not likely to change.

    No arguing there! I had no idea how is this handled, so this is useful response! 

    Posted By marka on 27 Nov 2013 02:43 PM

    And in the "FWIW" category, I was involved with CP and then ESP from around 2000 to 2010.  If this is the first time you're recognizing that there are pony car owners that don't like the awd turbo cars then you've had your head firmly planted in the sand.

    Mark, even the title of this thread is saying otherwise. I was pushed out of ESP in 2002 for whatever was going on back there, and things didn't get much better for 2003 either (although not directly related to the ESP for that year). So, this is far from first attempt to do this. But, this is the first one that I am aware it made it for members comment level, which is something that I was referring to as one of rarity.

    MrAWD
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:880


    --
    27 Nov 2013 03:43 PM
    Posted By Z3papa on 27 Nov 2013 03:19 PM
    Trying to attack this proposal which is out for comment based on attacking a person or the messenger is foolish, especially if you were right in your assumption. I'd suggest instead writing a letter as to the merit of the proposal. The SEB has shown in the past year it has not been deaf to the letters written as it re-wrote many of its initial proposals in the street category process.

    You are right and you can bet I will write my letter. Still, if would be nice to know who is/are the whiny one/s!!

    Fedja


    cashmo
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:966


    --
    27 Nov 2013 05:46 PM
    it would be nice to know who is/are the whiny one/s!!

    "Pathetic is the only word that comes to my mind right now, but really??? How low this should really go?" 
    Seems fairly clear to me. 

    Whiskey11
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:89


    --
    28 Nov 2013 09:58 PM

    Posted By hklvette on 25 Nov 2013 04:51 PM
    You mean just like the AWD guys getting mad at the C5 being classed in STU? Pot, meet Kettle.

    The irony is really thick in this thread isn't it hklvette?

     

    I'm not sure I have much to contribute other than I support the move.  I support it because there really are some fundamental differences between the majority of the ESP cars (primarily live axle, RWD) and the AWD cars in the class.  This "difference" comes out quite strongly any time the weather gets even remotely close to limiting grip.  It also comes out quite strongly in the Pro-Solo where within the current SP rules, AWD has a substantial advantage at launch.

     

    McCance did really well and I'm glad for him, but with the incursion of BMW's into F-Stock, and the fact that there isn't really any other place to stop on the way up to CP, it makes sense to preserve one of the last few "sanctums" of the Pony Car Crowd.  Ironically that crowd is also one of the largest supporters of the hobby.  ESP and CP are the largest in their category, F-Stock is much weaker but still relatively popular and on those grounds I think the proposal makes sense.

     

    I also fear that there is a bit of a perception issue between the Pony Car crowd and the AWD "boost buggy" crowd.  Specifically that a large number of boost buggies flocking to ESP would otherwise drive away pony car owners due to the perception of inequality in the cars.  Considering that the two advantages the pony car crowd has over the rest of the cars used for autocross tends to be power/torque and the ability to put that power down, the addition of a car that can do it better certainly adds to that perception of inequality regardless of the actual partial parity.

     

    My $0.02

    mtuhro
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:76


    --
    29 Nov 2013 07:00 AM
    Posted By Whiskey11 on 28 Nov 2013 09:58 PM

    This "difference" comes out quite strongly any time the weather gets even remotely close to limiting grip.


    This will always be the case, whenever you have AWD cars running with 2wd cars.  The other 90% of the time the AWD cars are at a disadvantage, because they are dragging around an extra set of driveline components.

    We tend to get allot of AWD cars at our regional events.  In all classes, not just ESP.  There has always been a good health level of competition, until it rains...


    sjfehr
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:634


    --
    29 Nov 2013 09:03 AM
    In regional competition, everything gets hosed up when it rains anyhow because you can't have all your competitors running in a single heat and thus anyone who gets a little less rain is going to have the advantage, regardless of how many wheels are spinning. And that's assuming the courseworkers manage to get the cones back in the right spot after the chalk disappear.
    MrAWD
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:880


    --
    29 Nov 2013 09:24 AM
    Posted By cashmo on 27 Nov 2013 05:46 PM
    it would be nice to know who is/are the whiny one/s!!

    "Pathetic is the only word that comes to my mind right now, but really??? How low this should really go?" 
    Seems fairly clear to me. 

    Haha!! At least I can laugh at that one since I stopped doing this to my car when I was chased out last time more than 10 years ago. But, other people (Charles and Sam in particular) are still forking great sum of cache every year in order to make that car worth competing in and I am pretty sure they are not laughing about any of that if they end up racing against EVOs because of those created this mess in the first place! 


    MrAWD
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:880


    --
    29 Nov 2013 10:58 AM
    Posted By Whiskey11 on 28 Nov 2013 09:58 PM

    I'm not sure I have much to contribute other than I support the move.  I support it because there really are some fundamental differences between the majority of the ESP cars (primarily live axle, RWD) and the AWD cars in the class.  This "difference" comes out quite strongly any time the weather gets even remotely close to limiting grip.  It also comes out quite strongly in the Pro-Solo where within the current SP rules, AWD has a substantial advantage at launch.

    Thank you for the thoughts on this issue! I am sure that for some people reading this your post will have some effect on which way they would go after hearing another opinion on this.

    The fact that there are difference between the cars in any given class remains and no body can argue about it! But, where some people might see this as an issue, others could see it as an advantage and something that improves quality for the class. Between choosing a spec racing class and variety that different types of cars bring, I would always choose the later! Although racing the same type of car brings some other aspects into the play, there are still number of differences between the 3rd gen Camaro family cars from the latest versions of the same manufacturer that we don't even have to bring some other guys into the play to prove the point. But each one these cars has some pluses and some minuses, which is what brings ingenuity into the play and improves the quality of the racing.

    Using the rain as something to be reason to class things differently in this case doesn't make much of sense because every single class in here will get reshuffled when these kind of conditions come to play. And instead of seeing at as an issue, I would rather call it equalizer! Than, majority of the events done in the country are done without the rain, so it is still rather a rare thing.

    At the end, use Pro Solo as the reason to class cars for Solo2 is rather silly and has no merit whatsoever in this discussion!


    Posted By Whiskey11 on 28 Nov 2013 09:58 PM

    McCance did really well and I'm glad for him, but with the incursion of BMW's into F-Stock, and the fact that there isn't really any other place to stop on the way up to CP, it makes sense to preserve one of the last few "sanctums" of the Pony Car Crowd.  Ironically that crowd is also one of the largest supporters of the hobby.  ESP and CP are the largest in their category, F-Stock is much weaker but still relatively popular and on those grounds I think the proposal makes sense.

    From reading the above paragraph one would almost believe that Pony cars need another wholly ground aside from CP!

    But, last time I checked ESP was not a Pony class and there are plenty of other cars in there. The fact that owners of those cars don't come to play or bunch of these cars are way over classed and nobody believes they would have any chance against might V8s is another story. Claim it as a place where only Pony cars have right to play makes no sense! Since there is nowhere in the rule book specified for V8s to have superiority. let's stop making them anything they are not and hurt the others along the way. It is not right any way you cut it! 

    Posted By Whiskey11 on 28 Nov 2013 09:58 PM

    I also fear that there is a bit of a perception issue between the Pony Car crowd and the AWD "boost buggy" crowd.  Specifically that a large number of boost buggies flocking to ESP would otherwise drive away pony car owners due to the perception of inequality in the cars.  Considering that the two advantages the pony car crowd has over the rest of the cars used for autocross tends to be power/torque and the ability to put that power down, the addition of a car that can do it better certainly adds to that perception of inequality regardless of the actual partial parity.

    Existence of "other" cars in ESP actually made some of those V8s actually better and faster. But, there are still quite a few that believe after buying a set of Koni yellows and widely accepted spring rates for the car, their cars are prepared to the MAX and expect to be chasing top guys on every event! It has been proven time and time again that lots of these cars are underprepared by far and only few of those have their work cut out! It is a process that takes time and money! There is no perception that can be justified to cover negligence of these facts. The easiest way to go is to say those "boost buggy cars" are too much to ever beat and that quest is impossible to conquer. Place where I have gotten my shocks has a saying that if you think it is impossible, it is possible you are not thinking and applies heavily in this case. Now, I am not saying that suspension can not be sorted out without triple adjustable shocks by any means, but it helps a great deal and makes a car (any car, pony crowd included) extremely faster once sorted out for a given setup and nut behind the wheel.


    John V
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1854


    --
    01 Dec 2013 11:45 AM
    The best move at the point would be to move everything out of ESP that isn't a V8, live axle car. Just get it over with. Eliminate any chance of someone building something that will have a remote chance if rocking the boat.
    MrAWD
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:880


    --
    01 Dec 2013 09:00 PM
    The thing is that difference between different generations of V8s is even bigger than difference between some of these cars from the rest of the ESP. For example, lots of V8s can't get even close to the 3rd gen Camaros, but they seem to fine with that.

    Also, even if they succeed in getting rid of WRXes and DSMs there are quite a few other AWD cars left in there. But, since they don't seem to be a threat at this moment they are not complaining about those right now. That just showes what kind of people trying to pull this off!
    John V
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1854


    --
    02 Dec 2013 08:27 AM
    The wording in the proposal is pretty clear. Anything that doesn't have a V8 up front and a live axle in the back doesn't meet the spirit of ESP. So move them all out. Better to do it now before they start to show promise.
    ileagle
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:41


    --
    02 Dec 2013 09:52 AM
    Holy Toledo Batman!

    Time to reclass the S2000 to ASP, it won BSP by 3 seconds!
    Maybe we should look at moving the E36 as well, it beat up on DSP by over half a second.

    Let's play classing whack-a-mole until all the cars are in ASP.

    My next ESP ride will be a Ferrari 500 Superfast.
    MrAWD
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:880


    --
    02 Dec 2013 10:27 AM
    Posted By Cole on 02 Dec 2013 08:27 AM
    The wording in the proposal is pretty clear. Anything that doesn't have a V8 up front and a live axle in the back doesn't meet the spirit of ESP. So move them all out. Better to do it now before they start to show promise.

    Unfortunately, that is how it looks like! But, I have race with lots of cool guys driving those cars, and I can not believe that all of them are up for this - but rather wimpy few...


    ron
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:774


    --
    02 Dec 2013 02:04 PM
    The proposal to move the s2000 actually didn't go through but maybe it should have, those cars are extremely light.
    jfossum
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:102


    --
    03 Dec 2013 02:01 PM
    Throw out the boost buggies, bring back the BMWs!!! :-)
    jfossum
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:102


    --
    03 Dec 2013 02:38 PM
    Seriously, I can see moving the WRX out. The STI/EVO nearly destroyed the class for good, and the timing for moving them out wasn't great, since the new boost rules kicked in the same year shortly followed by a bigger engine & turbo on the "base" WRX. I don't claim to be an expert on these cars, but it seems you could build a WRX that would be pretty close to the performance of the old STI in ESP trim.

    However, I ran an ESP DSM back in the mid 90s, and these cars, while competetive, have never been dominant in ESP. If someone thinks a DSM is basically a 2-door EVO, they are greatly misinformed. These cars should stay in ESP where they have been for the last 20+ years (longer than most current ESP competitors).
    ileagle
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:41


    --
    03 Dec 2013 04:36 PM
    Will the 2015 Mustang Turbo be in ASP as well? I guess the V8 would still meet the "spirit" of the rules.
    gary p
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:2730


    --
    03 Dec 2013 06:08 PM
    Posted By jfossum on 03 Dec 2013 02:38 PM
    Seriously, I can see moving the WRX out. The STI/EVO nearly destroyed the class for good, and the timing for moving them out wasn't great, since the new boost rules kicked in the same year shortly followed by a bigger engine & turbo on the "base" WRX. I don't claim to be an expert on these cars, but it seems you could build a WRX that would be pretty close to the performance of the old STI in ESP trim.

    The "bigger turbo" wasn't available until 2009.  The 2008+ WRX is already in ASP.  You probably didn't know because very few people are masochistic enough to campaign one there. 

     

    Joseph Carozzoni
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:22


    --
    03 Dec 2013 06:16 PM

    I sure hope this link does not show how rule changes are influenced!

    http://www.vmsc.org/index.php?optio...pic=2143.0

    This guy supports the rule changes, asks everyone to write letters (even if not in the class), even drafts the letter for them, and finally provides the link/instructions to submit the {possibly} bogus request.  I checked his times at Nationals, he still need to figure out how to beat 18 other cars  ;o)

    mrazny
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:462


    --
    03 Dec 2013 06:22 PM
    He's lobbying his position just like Fedja here is. His "draft a letter" isn't really much language at all. Next, if he did draft the language, don't you think the SEB and SPAC would notice that all these letters look exactly the same?

    Give as much context and insight as you can within your letter, send your letter.

    If only the fastest were eligible to write letters there'd be no letters at all (and we likely wouldn't have Street). Some might say that'd be for the better...
    gary p
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:2730


    --
    03 Dec 2013 06:24 PM
    Posted By Mario Linguini on 03 Dec 2013 06:16 PM

    I sure hope this link does not show how rule changes are influenced!

    http://www.vmsc.org/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=26&topic=2143.0

    This guy supports the rule changes, asks everyone to write letters (even if not in the class), even drafts the letter for them, and finally provides the link/instructions to submit the {possibly} bogus request.  I checked his times at Nationals, he still need to figure out how to beat 18 other cars  ;o)

    LOL at the guy with an Vega bitchin' about some other guy using a "loophole" to beat him in HS with some unspecified Subaru Wagon. 

    Joseph Carozzoni
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:22


    --
    03 Dec 2013 09:47 PM

    mraznyUser is Offline  Yes but no.  One is posting his views to this forum, the others is asking "anyone" to write potentially bogus E-mails to influence SEB decisions on making changes to classes.  Possibly, we should not only post our SCCA Membership Number, but also what class we participate in SCCA Solo.  Just a thought - if you have a dog (or cat) in the fight, I believe you should should voice your view. But if you're not in that class, well...focus on your class and not helping your friends in other classes.  All RWD "pony/muscle" cars should voice their view (right or wrong).  But a car in HS or AM should ***NOT*** writing letters to SEB asking (potentially) "I'm in this class". Help me out" - when you're not in that class.

    BTW - I started SCCA in the 1960's as an SCCA Explorer (sub-16 year olds).  We were taught "Honesty and Integrity".  Ok - that may be obsolete now...But should it?

     

    sjfehr
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:634


    --
    03 Dec 2013 10:00 PM
    Posted By Mario Linguini on 03 Dec 2013 09:47 PM

    mraznyUser is Offline  Yes but no.  One is posting his views to this forum, the others is asking "anyone" to write potentially bogus E-mails to influence SEB decisions on making changes to classes.  Possibly, we should not only post our SCCA Membership Number, but also what class we participate in SCCA Solo.  Just a thought - if you have a dog (or cat) in the fight, I believe you should should voice your view. But if you're not in that class, well...focus on your class and not helping your friends in other classes.  All RWD "pony/muscle" cars should voice their view (right or wrong).  But a car in HS or AM should ***NOT*** writing letters to SEB asking (potentially) "I'm in this class". Help me out" - when you're not in that class.

    BTW - I started SCCA in the 1960's as an SCCA Explorer (sub-16 year olds).  We were taught "Honesty and Integrity".  Ok - that may be obsolete now...But should it?

     

    Where in that thread is anyone advocating lying or misleading?  Where is anyone suggesting writing bonus emails, or suggesting using false representation?  Are we reading the same thread?  FYI, VMSC is an indie autocross club that uses SCCA classing to stay consistent with the other clubs in the area, so VMSC members that aren't necessarily SCCA members are going to be impacted by the rule change, too.  Key difference being that only SCCA members have a voice in SCCA.  Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see anything untoward at all about the OP or any replies?

     

    Not like he's trying to bribe people with "save the pony" t-shirts 

    ileagle
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:41


    --
    04 Dec 2013 07:57 AM
    Posted By Mario Linguini on 03 Dec 2013 06:16 PM

    I sure hope this link does not show how rule changes are influenced!

    http://www.vmsc.org/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=26&topic=2143.0

    This guy supports the rule changes, asks everyone to write letters (even if not in the class), even drafts the letter for them, and finally provides the link/instructions to submit the {possibly} bogus request.  I checked his times at Nationals, he still need to figure out how to beat 18 other cars  ;o)

    You got to love a guy who's only been in the class for 2 years, trying to get cars kicked out that have been in the class since 1989.

    ileagle
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:41


    --
    04 Dec 2013 08:14 AM
    No one was crying for cars to get reclassed when the winning margin was 1.000-3.000 seconds, and now we're upsetting the apple cart over 6 tenths? Co'mon Man, I make mistakes on course that cost more time than that.

    The 3 years I've run ESP, a quarter to a third of the class has been AWD, maybe AWD is part of ESP's "resurgence". The lowest participation in ESP at nationals since 2006 was the one year that NO AWD cars showed up. A quick look at the results doesn't show a disporportionate grouping of AWD at the top either.

    I guess with Mark going to CP, and kicking out the WRX/DSM, we can get a Mustang in the top spot. And if Dave can get the Mustangs kicked out as well, then maybe a 15 year old Camaro can win
    MrAWD
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:880


    --
    04 Dec 2013 10:46 AM
    Posted By mrazny on 03 Dec 2013 06:22 PM
    He's lobbying his position just like Fedja here is. His "draft a letter" isn't really much language at all. Next, if he did draft the language, don't you think the SEB and SPAC would notice that all these letters look exactly the same?

    Give as much context and insight as you can within your letter, send your letter.

    If only the fastest were eligible to write letters there'd be no letters at all (and we likely wouldn't have Street). Some might say that'd be for the better...

    I guess I missed that part where I was asking everyone to send a letter where I tell you what to say and where to send it!

    I was hoping to have some insights on what actually brought this proposal to the Fast Track and to see who is behind it. I have never asked anyone to do anything about that! If you feel you need to write a letter or two, do so regardless you are for or against it.

    The only thing I voiced here is that it looked like that someone who is miles away from understanding anything in this sport (aside from legal part, as it looks like) complaining about things in this class. And, from the above link it looks like one of those guys showed up.

    Fedja


    MrAWD
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:880


    --
    04 Dec 2013 10:59 AM
    Posted By sjfehr on 03 Dec 2013 10:00 PM

    Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see anything untoward at all about the OP or any replies?

    I guess, just find someone to be your witness and tell them what to say is perfectly fine for you! Even if there is nothing illegal for his actions, if you see all of that as OK, than you are just different from where I stand!

    Fedja


    Z3papa
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:525


    --
    04 Dec 2013 11:37 AM
    Posted By Mario Linguini on 03 Dec 2013 09:47 PM

    mraznyUser is Offline  Yes but no.  One is posting his views to this forum, the others is asking "anyone" to write potentially bogus E-mails to influence SEB decisions on making changes to classes.  Possibly, we should not only post our SCCA Membership Number, but also what class we participate in SCCA Solo.  Just a thought - if you have a dog (or cat) in the fight, I believe you should should voice your view. But if you're not in that class, well...focus on your class and not helping your friends in other classes.  All RWD "pony/muscle" cars should voice their view (right or wrong).  But a car in HS or AM should ***NOT*** writing letters to SEB asking (potentially) "I'm in this class". Help me out" - when you're not in that class.

    BTW - I started SCCA in the 1960's as an SCCA Explorer (sub-16 year olds).  We were taught "Honesty and Integrity".  Ok - that may be obsolete now...But should it?

     

     

    I don't think you have to be actively running in a particular class or group to be able to express an opinion on an issue out for comment.  People change or are contemplating changing classes all the time.  Class changes have a rippling effect on the group as a whole.  Does this mean I'm going to write a letter on this specific proposal, not necessarily but I should not be prevented from expressing my thoughts even if I don't run in ESP. 
    MrAWD
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:880


    --
    04 Dec 2013 03:28 PM
    Posted By Z3papa on 04 Dec 2013 11:37 AM
    I don't think you have to be actively running in a particular class or group to be able to express an opinion on an issue out for comment.  People change or are contemplating changing classes all the time.  Class changes have a rippling effect on the group as a whole.  Does this mean I'm going to write a letter on this specific proposal, not necessarily but I should not be prevented from expressing my thoughts even if I don't run in ESP. 

    If you would have to be part of the ESP, than all of the stuff that came from my end is worthless!! I am trying to get my BS car to work properly and my DSM that I used to run in ESP is a thing of the past. Or perhaps, I could instead start to reclass all of the faster cars from there so I would be able to win...hmmm, guys, could you write a letter to SAC to move all of the S2000, Corvettes, Pontiacs, Skys, and anything else that is way to fast for BS into the AS or even better SS, because they don't fit properly in there! While there, just in case, add that older generations of EVOs and STIs have to carry weight plates to match the weight of the latest generation of  EVOs so things would be easier! Thank you for support!!!

    Fedja

    mrazny
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:462


    --
    04 Dec 2013 03:55 PM
    Wow, this is circling in too many directions to keep track of...

    The SPAC will only act on things that it *also* sees merit in. It wouldn't only move the AWD cars because 50 letters are for it and 2 are against it. The for it have to make a case that they agree makes some sense. The 50 letters means they'll spend more of their unpaid volunteer time discussing it and trying to see the merit.

    This move, if it happens, will be executed if it makes a totality of sense, not because of some guy whining. As to Dave on that site, to me who is uninvolved emotionally, I don't see whining. He might have a point of view that can be disagreed with, but he certainly is showing less emotion about it than some on here. There's no problem with emotion if it has substance behind it. When AWD in ESP has been a piece of discussion for this long, I don't see why it *has* to be coming from some guy whining. Dave also isn't automatically the origin of the proposal. His post is after the fasttrack.

    If you actually believe that the SEB and ACs don't weigh all these factors you guys seem to be afraid of, I don't know what to tell you. It's simply not fact. However, the overall health is not great for SP. The origin of *this* specific proposal could be coming from somewhere entirely different. I don't see a need to jump to conclusions. State your opinion, state some facts to back it, state your involvement with the classes effected, see where it goes.

    Joseph Carozzoni
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:22


    --
    04 Dec 2013 06:31 PM

    I agree that the SEB and the eventual authorizing BOD will make the right decisions.  I simply don’t think it is appropriate for someone to attempt to sway them with a mass mailing campaign that is not fully based on familiarity with the class issues.  Some corrections:

    Sjfehr – “Where in that thread is anyone advocating lying or misleading?  Where is anyone suggesting writing bonus emails, or suggesting using false representation?”

    Not what I said.  I said the possibility exists for “potentially bogus” letters.  Others in the class or  familiar with the class would not be bogus.  However, if a “friend” who didn’t Solo but instead did Road Rally wrote a letter to support the class changes – that is potentially bogus.

    Z3papa – “I don't think you have to be actively running in a particular class or group to be able to express an opinion on an issue out for comment.”

    Possibly, it really depends on what your intent is.  In B-Stock at regional events, I see the difference a course can have on RWD, FWD, and AWD cars.  Drivers in Corvettes would like to see a dry course with some decent straights.  The Evo and STI drivers are hoping for snow (Possibly a little exaggeration here  ;o)  -  you get the point.  I could probably write an informed letter stating what I see going on in ESP.  But I think it is only appropriate if the letter I write mentions “While I’m in BS, I think I have relevant experience to commet”.  Again, I think the key is my intent – sharing knowledge versus pretending to have knowledge to help a friend (these are the two extremes, many points in-between).

    My favorite class is C-Prepared – the Heavy Metal.  That is a class that historically has special status in Solo.  F-Stock, to a lesser degree, another historically special class.  IMHO – reserving these classes for high-powered RWD cars have been a plus for Solo.  Simply an observation and no advocacy of any kind intended.

    MrAWD
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:880


    --
    05 Dec 2013 09:16 AM
    I guess one more car needs to be added to the list of those helped with the boost - 2015 Mustang. Now how likely they will come with all wheels driven?
    mlane350z
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:238


    --
    05 Dec 2013 09:19 AM
    Big Power + IRS = ASP for the new mustang IMO.
    ratt_finkel
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1650


    --
    05 Dec 2013 10:19 AM
    Posted By mlane350z on 05 Dec 2013 09:19 AM
    Big Power + IRS = ASP for the new mustang IMO.
    You forgot to add big weight.  Just like the new(er) Camaro.

    mrazny
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:462


    --
    05 Dec 2013 11:36 AM
    Mario, many people don't read fasttracks. Getting the word out on forums is one way of engaging with more people. Yes Dave didn't say "well only Solo people should respond", but he stated the context, and his reason why he supports it and then noted that people can send a letter to the SEB. the "incendiary part is..

    "The SCCA has just proposed moving the AWD turbos out of ESP and putting them in ASP with other AWD turbos. I would really appreciate it if those of you who are SCCA members would write to the SCCA in support of this proposed rule change. Something simple, like"

    I guess? Since he's talking to autocrossers that are in an independent club, not all of them are SCCA members. He didn't say "hey rally guys! send letters for me!", just that he'd appreciate support.

    I just don't think this is as bad as you sound like you think it is. People are allowed to get the word out and state their case.
    mlane350z
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:238


    --
    05 Dec 2013 12:34 PM
    Posted By ratt_finkel on 05 Dec 2013 10:19 AM
    Posted By mlane350z on 05 Dec 2013 09:19 AM
    Big Power + IRS = ASP for the new mustang IMO.
    You forgot to add big weight.  Just like the new(er) Camaro.

    No, not really. Check out the initial curb weights...

    Joseph Carozzoni
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:22


    --
    05 Dec 2013 07:38 PM
    mraznyUser is Offline- I fully agree with your response - as long as their intent is based on knowledge and experience and not "helping a friend without actually knowing what the issues are".  Agree?
    Joseph Carozzoni
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:22


    --
    05 Dec 2013 08:01 PM

    Fedja,

    I started Solo II (I know, now Solo, excuse my age ;o) in a 1984 Turbo Mustang (145 HP) -  I've got *possible* permission from the Mrs (i.e. The REAL Boss - not FORD Boss), to add a 2016 (need time to save $$ ;o) Mustang 2.3L Ecoboost  next to the 2011 Evo X MR.  It will be very interesting where this new Mustang will be classed.  Early testing indicates this new IRS "horse" in basic GT trim laps Ford's test track faster than a 2013 Boss.  My 1984 was in GS over two decades ago - I am like a "Child at Christmas" trying to figure out where the various engine-versions of the new Mustang will be classed. I love the Evo X, but have had 3 prior Mustangs.  CP and FS is  where my heart really is, but AWD is where my age is it  ;o).

     -- ml

    MrAWD
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:880


    --
    05 Dec 2013 09:43 PM

    Posted By <a href='http://www.sccaforums.com/user-profile/userid/44078' class='af-profile-link'>Mario Linguini</a> on 05 Dec 2013 08:01 PM
    <p>Fedja,</p>
    <p>I started Solo II (I know, now Solo, excuse my age ;o) in a 1984 Turbo Mustang (145 HP) -  I've got *possible* permission from the Mrs (i.e. The REAL Boss - not FORD Boss), to add a 2016 (need time to save $$ ;o) Mustang 2.3L Ecoboost  next to the 2011 Evo X MR.  It will be very interesting where this new Mustang will be classed.  Early testing indicates this new IRS "horse" in basic GT trim laps Ford's test track faster than a 2013 Boss.  My 1984 was in GS over two decades ago - I am like a "Child at Christmas" trying to figure out where the various engine-versions of the new Mustang will be classed. I love the Evo X, but have had 3 prior Mustangs.  CP and FS is  where my heart really is, but AWD is where my age is it  ;o).</p>
    <p> -- ml</p>

    Man, I didn't expected to be hit for my age like that just because I drive EVO X!!
    mrazny
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:462


    --
    06 Dec 2013 11:08 AM
    Posted By Mario Linguini on 05 Dec 2013 07:38 PM
    mraznyUser is Offline- I fully agree with your response - as long as their intent is based on knowledge and experience and not "helping a friend without actually knowing what the issues are".  Agree?

    I don't think it's fair to assume that this is what's going on though.  It's possible its just a complete lack of context, but the overall tone of your first post implied thats exactly what you believed was happening, not just hoping that it's not going that way.

     

    The SPAC and the SEB have been reading letters for a long time, and can sniff out uninformed letters pretty well.  And if the "friends" actually copy/paste, its even easier to spot the BS letters from the informed opinions.

     

    Knowing little about the DSM options, does moving them both on the same line help anything UD/BD?  In general I'd think it should either be specifically targeted everyone can benefit moves (the WRX), or complete (all AWD cars).  I'm not sure why the DSM is targeted, and thus I'm not writing any letters unless I feel better about all parts.

    MrAWD
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:880


    --
    06 Dec 2013 12:19 PM
    Posted By mrazny on 06 Dec 2013 11:08 AM

    Knowing little about the DSM options, does moving them both on the same line help anything UD/BD?  In general I'd think it should either be specifically targeted everyone can benefit moves (the WRX), or complete (all AWD cars).  I'm not sure why the DSM is targeted, and thus I'm not writing any letters unless I feel better about all parts.

    I did mentioned earlier that this discussion about DSMs in ESP took a great amount of time and threads in the past, and it was accepted back than that it makes no sense to move those out of the class. Things that were discussed in detailes were power and torque graphs combined with the gearing that goes for each car and thing were never showing up in favor for DSMs. One reason for this is that 2G DSMs came with puny turbocharger named T25. With all bells and whistles this turbo is maxed out at about 275 HP and a bit under 300 for torque. And those are flywheel numbers! 

    The only advantage was the amount of weight these things could go down to and Charles's car is in 2900s and things are pretty much done with that car. They were also narrower from most of the other cars in the class, but with going to 285 (which is also the max width this one can take due to some issues in the front), width is pretty much on the same page as those other cars in the class. 

    So, from any angle you go at it, this is pretty much it. Charles is running triple 8760 Penskes all around and they work pretty well after all these years. Camber is maxed out for the front and geometry is as good as it gets (or pretty darn close to it).

    Update/backdate options are not there for the DSMs since rules were purposefully changed back in 1999 or so to eliminate using a turbo from the 1G cars that was helpful and increased power levels to low to mid 300s. Even with that thing allowed now, this would still be far from matching turbos that EVOs from all generations are using and getting amount of air flow those are capable off. Basically, with all bells and whistles from any potential and improbably backdates, DSMs would still be behind the EVOs - plain and simple!

    The same goes for any other move that could be taken into consideration. If we would use BSP where M3s are which used to be in ESP - that match up is futile. CSP is different type altogether, so I will not even try it. DSP is dominated by the Bimmers and times those car are doing are always way faster then anything in ESP. FSP would be nice place and I would come out from retirement with great chances of getting a jacket!

    Times that were done so far from DSMs in ESP are pretty much in line with everything else that is in there right now. There are two generations of WRXs in there and newer one has bigger engine (2.5 vs. 2.0 litters) and that is a plus for sure! When it showed up while back I was saying this would be a good car to have. And according to latest Nationals results, it is definitely a good car to have. But, on the day one fastest time was pulled by the 3rd gen Camaro/Pontiac car. Second day was better for WRX and they won. By a whopping 0.6 seconds and that is just that - a single data point that went on the side of WRX-es. It could have been that Mark had a bad day - he is still human at the end - and that is why this happened. It could be the other way around too and WRX guy had a bad day and he could have smoked everyone by over a second on both days. But, nothing is there to convince anyone to make any conclusion for that single data point.

    If there is truth in what you said about needing 50 or so letters from members to add proposal to the rules, those guys would have to do the same against the 3rd gens as well. Everything is pointing out that those cars are on the same page as the results WRX showed. So for those 50 or so drivers things would be the same - trophy feeders! They typically have inferior car preps, run with all of the extra weights, rarely have anything better than Koni yellows, and they are not that good of the drivers to challenge those like Mark (you can use Dadio here if you wish as well!). But, I don't think this is something that happened and made SPAC adding this as proposal.

    What else could make them to do this? I do believe that SPAC might be trying to make some changes here and this looks like they are bringing back from the death idea about the AWD Street Prepared class again! This effort was running around for a while several times and it was always rendered as wrong. Of course, it could be something else altogether, but I am not able to read their minds at this time!

    If they are attempting AWD class, than wording is really insulting and makes no sense! It could be just a first step to pile more of these cars to the ASP (well it looks kind of like AwdSP). Again, there are lots of "could" words in here, but there is nothing else that makes any more sense other than that. So, either way they go, there are too many AWD cars out there that they can all be stuffed into the same class. On one end you have those like GTR, Porsche 911, R8, or other of those more or less super cars. Than, you have cars like EVOs and STIs which are in class of its own in a way. Than you have WRX and DSMs as well. Now where in all of that we should have AWD Bettles, Golfs, Audis, Fords, other (mostly non-turboed  Subarus, and others? What we do with older versions of these cars? They have completely different potential levels and there is no way someone can decide with clear mind to put them in the same class! Have two or three of those classes makes even less sense.

    At the end, DSMs were part of the ESP for more then 2 decades and shown to be good competition to the rest of the class over and over again. If SPAC wants to kill those cars and stuff them in ASP for whatever reason they could come up with, so be it. If it happens to be that way, I think it would be shame and no way how members should be treated in SCCA. If majority agrees that is OK to do so, that is what will happen nevertheless! It still would not make it more appropriate or right!

    Fedja

    mrazny
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:462


    --
    06 Dec 2013 04:12 PM
    That's a lot of exclamation points...

    the 50 was a random figure to donate a large discrepancy, not anything to model anything over...

    The WRX move to ASP has some credible reasoning to it, in that in time it can benefit both ESP and ASP. It's also likely the major focus of most that are even talking about the situation.

    I'm not sure why the DSMs are part of the equation. That's where the speculation comes in. If it actually is about not having AWD in ESP and seeing even more potential in ESP with their exclusion, then why does it stop at DSMs? If it isn't about that, then why the DSMs? This shouldn't be about having an AWD-SP whatever subcategory. It's about the health of ESP. If it's a zero-sum move that only costs money, it's likely a bad one. If this move makes Subarus more viable within ASP, and in the end increase ASP participation levels, and does nothing for ESP, then it's not all that great but OK. If the move also has a lemming effect that increases the viability of ESP, and does the other things, this is a great move. Does the DSM move have any of the positives though is my question.

    Fedja, you have experience directly with some of the cars involved. But your speculation about dastardly intentions or whiners getting their way isn't helping IMO. I can easily create the scenario where ESP and ASP are better with the WRX move, and it's spelled out within the wording of the *proposal*.

    If you just want to help out the DSMs, talk about the DSMs. Drum up support for the DSMs. Speculation about intentions doesn't really help IMO and can cloud up the discussions that could actually help the bottom line of what you see as wrong about the proposal.

    With SP as a whole down a bit, the health of the classes is much more paramount than particular cars places. But if there is no gain to the category from a move, we should be focusing on that.
    coneassasin
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:20


    --
    15 Apr 2014 01:29 AM
    McCance always has beer; that's good enough reason for the WRX to stay in ESP. Keeps it interesting
    MrAWD
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:880


    --
    15 Apr 2014 03:32 PM
    Especially not to go to ASP
    ST///M
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:11


    --
    01 May 2014 10:17 AM
    I can't possibly read all of this, but I skimmed over it. Just ran my first Pro Solo ever last weekend as an ESP competitor. One with the V8 and the stick axle. When cars are this different, course dependence will invariably give one side an advantage in a lot of cases. I don't think either side has a one sided advantage beyond that. No problem with the WRX or DSM being here though, enjoy the diversity of this type of racing. Besides, it's even added a fun rivalry to it. I'm not sure where else you would class these two, as others have stated, a DSM/WRX absolutely does not belong in ASP from a speed or durability stand point. Last week at the DC Pro, with a very slick surface and an uphill start, I felt like the WRX may have had some advantage. Maybe not? This week in NJ with a high grip surface, I expect it could go the other way. Maybe not?
    Grintch
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:259


    --
    29 May 2014 02:50 PM
    REALLY? Forester XT in ASP? How many National events have been won by XT's in ESP? What next, the 4x4 versions of pickup trucks will be ASP?

    AWD is one feature, it does not define the whole performance of the car. Classing cars apparently solely based on which wheels they have driven is BS.
    SIMMONS-RACING
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:345


    --
    25 Jun 2014 11:06 PM
    Posted By coneassasin on 15 Apr 2014 01:29 AM
    McCance always has beer; that's good enough reason for the WRX to stay in ESP. Keeps it interesting

    You mean McCance Always drinks my beer.

     

    Simmons

    The_Winch
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1749


    --
    03 Feb 2015 09:37 AM
    Wow. I've been away for a decade, on a different continent, and ESP car classing controversies haven't changed much. ;-)


    ---