Katie,
I've missed most of this discussion... could you clarify? Is there going
to be one big "SO" class, or one for each of the existing classes?
If the point is to let an "SO" run in an event without the pressure of the
regular open class, couldn't they join the other novices?
In a way though what you're proposing sounds like Texas Region's "Vintage
Class". Basically it's restricted to cars 20 years or older, ideally
prepped like they'd have run as new. No restrictions on prep level or
driver experience or GENDER. I ran 4 years ago in a tired '63 Mini Cooper
(50 hp! Yahooooo!). Most events I ran against a fairly good TR6 driver.
Some events I ran against a prepped Datsun 240Z. Sometimes I was the only
one in class. One event I got to show a repli-cobra how to chase cones
properly. :-)
It gave me a place to play without having to spend all my spare time and $$
on the car (I bought my house that year). So it was a chance to actually
enjoy an autocross event in a car that I enjoyed driving. Without needing
crash bolts ;-)
It's a region only class so it's not a "stepping stone" to serious national
level competition. But it's a chance to go out and chase cones without the
ulcers.
Wouldn't that format work for your proposal?
JMO
Jim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-autox@autox.team.net [mailto:owner-autox@autox.team.net]On
> Behalf Of Kelly, Katie
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 8:28 PM
> To: Su Brude; Team.net
> Subject: RE: Texas NT & the SO class
>
>
> Wow, what I'm finding amazing is that, although Su and I did talk (nice
> meeting you, Su!), I can't even remember us talking about the S.O. class!
>
> This is, to me, even MORE proof that this class is high in demand.
>
> Again, let me restate the guidelines:
>
> The significant other class is unlimited to gender, experience behind the
> wheel, driving ability, seriousness, involvement in the sport, so
> on and so
> forth. Technically, nothing changes, but now the Ladies class is open to
> both genders. Every email I read about this contains text pondering the
> significance of defining one's competitiveness or seriousness in autox for
> eligibility in the SO class. This isn't about that. We're just letting MEN
> run in the Ladies class! Why is this so difficult?
>
> It's like some team.net readers are trying to qualify the SO class. You
> can't do that. Why, really, even Gary Thomason, if he so desired, would be
> eligible for the SO class (I'm just calling it SO because we have yet to
> determine a better name). George Doganis, could, if he really
> wanted to, run
> in the SO class. Whoa, talk about upping the ante!
>
> Personally, I'll run Open. I've run Ladies for a really, really long time,
> but there are more entrants in Open. It's easier to gauge my
> improvement (or
> its opposite). On the other hand, if it appears more drivers are switching
> to SO, then I'll run there as well, since it is my CHOICE.
>
> How come, when granted the same opportunity for choice that we ladies have
> had all this time, now you men are freaking out in confusion? Now you want
> all this clarification. You want definitions. Why are you so picky?
>
> I still think we need a good name for this class, because, as Sandy and I
> have already stated, although competing in BS and BSL, we are NOT
> significant others, merely cozmic twins. Should we just have a class for
> cozmic twins? I ask the forum to think about this.
>
> On a slightly more serious note: can we PUHLEASE leave the
> psychological and
> physiological differences between men and women OUT of this
> discussion. I am
> soooo very tired of reading, "For some reason, women, in general,
> are slower
> than men." Ohhhhh barf. There are a LOT more men slower than men
> than there
> are women.
>
> For example, in B Stock, there were around 50 men slower than George
> Doganis, but only 11 women.
>
> That's right. As you move down the list, the men in B Stock just
> get slower
> and slower. Yet, we leave these people alone.
>
> No one has ever said, "Most men aren't as fast as George Doganis. I don't
> know WHY that is. Perhaps we can think of something to redress this
> inbalance. I don't know how, but it's certainly worth discussing."
>
> Thank you. I close for now.
>
> Katie
>
> P.S. If you're still going to debate this with me... ay ay ay.
>
|