Just for clarification on my point of view...
I
do not think the CRX was given too much weight. Where it sits now is where the same formula that was applied to the other cars in its class put it. Plain and simple. And fair in terms of what we know in June of 2006.
What I'm suggesting is that maybe the formula is wrong in terms of certain cars. I'm suggesting this because early evidence shows that a formerly spot-on reliable chassis (not just the one I'm driving, there are others) is now pretty unreliable.
I'm also suggesting that IF this early evidence turns out to be a trend, its in the best interests of the category as a whole to give this car (and any others like it) a break of about 50 to 75lbs in the name of not washing a car by the wayside.
What makes this different than Raymond's complaint above?
Well, when he built his car it was at the same spec it is at now (as far as I know, I'm certainly not an expert on the history of the ITB Audi). In other words, the water temperature is the same today that it was when he originally jumped into the pool. He made that choice.
Now, lets take Christian as an example with the CRX situation...
When he bought the car last year it was known as a good, reliable chassis that finished races and wasn't very expensive to operate. THATS the pool he jumped in.
Now, the water in that pool has gotten very cold indeed. Out of 5 races entered he has 2 mechanical DNFs, 1 finish with a long mechanical pit stop, 1 finish where the car was barely functioning at the end and well off the pace, and 1 good, no issues finish.
Thats
ONE good finish in 5 races.
Thats not the game he signed up for, and its not the budget he signed up for.
Now, again, let me reiterate that its EARLY. This whole thing may have been bad luck for him (and me).
But I have looked around and seen other CRXs having issues, and also seen the one guy who never realized he was supposed to add ballast up to 2250 NOT have any problems... And it has me leaning towards the "This isn't so good" end of the scale.
Don't poo-poo the notion that if this becomes a trend and an issue that its the end of all the CRXs in ITA. Last time I checked NASA offers a really good alternative to ITA for a CRX and its under 2200lbs (last I checked). And don't forget Spec Miata and IT7.
People just wont continue to try to race cars that keep breaking in ITA when there are alternatives. THATS what I'm talking about.
IF the CRX is truly going to have a problem carrying this weight, its in the best interest of every IT racer to take 50 (or 60 or 70) pounds back off of it and keep them around. Theres just too damned many of them out there to let them take their bucket to another sandbox. And 50ish pounds isn't going to upset the apple cart all that damned much.
Just my humble opinion. I could be completely wrong.
But someone needs to be looking out for the possibility that I'm right.
Louis, I don't think we really wanna go down this road. My NX2000 is heavier than its original curb weight; should I therefore petition the CRB for a weight break on safety grounds?
Anyone in the Northeast think I should get a weight safety break? Bueller? Bueller...?
[/b]
The difference between your car and the CRX is that there is an old benchmark where the CRX was proven reliable. Yours really doesn't have that. See my comment about the water in Raymond's pool vs. Christian's.
Hopefully my point is coming across. I know what I'm trying to say, but maybe you guys don't see it.
