AutoX classification ?, Why is the 914 in C Stock? Options

[jetboy]

After some research of vehicles in the 914 class and what I think would be a more suitable (E or maybe even H stock) I looked at the power to weight ratio comparisons. It seems odd that a 914 car that is a 22lb per hp (for the 2.0) is classed with the 13-16lb per hp of the competion. Here is what i figured out for comparison on the attatchment  AutoX_914_Class_comparison.htm ( 13.45k ) Number of downloads: 246
. Does P/W ratio matter that little to lump the teener in with such a class?

[jetboy]

Rumor has it that there are only three or four stock class legal 914's left in the US. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

-Josh2

As you make a great point in that statement right there. But, since this lovable auto is nearly impossible to find the stock components such as springs then there should be some slight allowance for replacing with the most readily available replacements (such as 140lb springs... not my fault they only come in a shortened length). Point is, if its expected to compete against lighter or as light cars with more power and newer technology components, then, this 30+ yr old auto should be allowed a little leway (sp?) if expected to compete in that class. Other wise, it almost seems from a P/W standpoint its more comparitive to H Stock. Oh, would they hate that?!!!

[jhadler]

Rumor has it that there are only three or four stock class legal 914's left in the US. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

-Josh2

As you make a great point in that statement right there. But, since this lovable auto is nearly impossible to find the stock components such as springs then there should be some slight allowance for replacing with the most readily available replacements (such as 140lb springs... not my fault they only come in a shortened length).

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/av-943.gif)

Sadly, and I don't know why this is, the Solo Rules do not allow for alternate replacement of NLA components in the stock category. They do allow for it in Street Prepared. But even then the component, if not allowed under other SP rules, must be the same as the OEM part it replaces.

Yeah, the rear springs are the kicker. Steve Compton once found a set of never used, still shrink wrapped, stock springs. Put them on the shelf in the garage, and within 4 months, they had sagged over 1/2" under their own weight.

yeah, replacing a stock spring with one that has twice the spring rate as the stock component is not gonna be an allowable option.

Point is, if its expected to compete against lighter or as light cars with more power and newer technology components, then, this 30+ yr old auto should be allowed a little leway (sp?) if expected to compete in that class.

But that was my point. It's -not- expected to compete. It's not even -thought- of, and that's why. There are hosts of older cars that miss-classed in the Solo rules. Why? Simply because the SEB doesn't have the time to manage each and every make and model of car under the sun. Give 'em the data, make a solid argument, and it'll be considered. But a bunch of people belly-achin' on forums won't change their mind even the tiniest little bit. Write a letter.

Other wise, it almost seems from a P/W standpoint its more comparitive to H Stock. Oh, would they hate that?!!!

Yeah, but we all know P/W isn't what wins autoxes. It's handling. More power helps a car go a little quicker, but excess weight just kills autox times.

I honestly think E-Stock is a good fit. But unless people write letters, nothin' is gonna happen.

-Josh2