I noticed that every time SCCA Solo classes come up on GRM we talk about the "best" car or how certain cars are "outclassed". Specific example, look at my 1st Gen RX-7. It gets ES, STS, STR, CSP, or CP without an engine swap. Every one of those classes also involves a Miata, and most involve the MX5 as well. Even if by some miracle the Miatas got bumped I would be classed with the 2nd Gen RX-7 (FC), which is more powerful, has an IRS, and has a much better front suspension and brakes. Even if you popped that out and let me race just other RX-7's I'm at a disadvantage. The GSL-SE has a 130HP 13B, a normal lug pattern (so you can buy wide wheels for less than the car), and EFI. The 84-85 GSL's still got revised rear suspension pickups, better gearing, a stronger axle, and a better oil cooler.
So what's my point? Why do we worry about strength in class so much? I've beaten many a Miata (and been beaten by more than that). I think that each chassis/drivetrain has it's own strengths and weaknesses. I've been agonizing for weeks on whether or not to replace my 7 with a different one or a Miata, but you know what, I like a challenge. I'm going to build it to compete against cars that outclass it on paper by a mile. Maybe I'm a nutcase and it won't work but dammit somebody has to try to buck the trends. Otherwise you get classes like Spec-ST-Civic and Spec-ST-CRX where nobody even remotely thinks of any other chassis.
Yeah, there's a reason certain cars dominate. There's also an underdog quotient that isn't seen in Solo II that has been seen in all other racing. I intend to try and bring back some of that flavor locally. I've decided to build the wrong car for STR. Yeah, STR. With S2000's, Z3's, and MX-5's. Maybe I'll get my butt handed to me, maybe I won't. But I guarantee my car will be the one people remember.
What are your thoughts? As my specific plan nuts? Is it nuts to build any out-classed car?
