Phil Ethier wrote:
>
> I agree that the pro side of things is out of touch with the membership at
> large.
It is more than out of touch.
>
> And what does this have to do with the Neon and the SEB?
>
> Did they get a payoff of some sort?
>
> Were they pressured by the suits in Denver who got the big payoffs?
>
> Have you got a shred of evidence to support this?
>
> We have 2000 members on this list. If such stuff were going on, somebody
> would know something about it.
The only issue I have with the SEB is classing the Neon 'soft' after all
the hoopla and success in SS, and then not reclassing it after finding
out quantitatively that it is better than the average bear. But then
again, 95% of the cars in the stock classes do not have a chance to win.
Instead of complaining about it, I guess I should be smarter and buy a
new car every year if I want to be competitive. Or not.
I believe Solo II is kept out of most of the real sordid stuff that goes
on within the SCCA by virtue of the fact that it is fairly small potatos
by comparison. I doubt the BOD even know the members of the SEB. But we
are all members of the same club. And what happens in club racing and
pro racing should not be so lightly cast off. It can and does effect
autocrossing.
In Solo II is there favoritism? Maybe. After all we are only human. Is
there money changing hands? I seriously doubt it. Could there be in the
future if the sport grows and becomes bigger and more professional
thereby attracting more vendors and publicity? Probably.
And regarding your argument to put up or shut up, I'll probably shut up
instead. But I will leave you with one final argument: Bridgestone. They
provided contingency for the RE71R but nobody used them. Why? They were
not competitive. Nobody is going to go after contingency money when they
know they will never collect it.
Paul Foster
|