George Ryan writes:
<< Andy Bettencourt made a statement in his letter, wait! - - I will quote
it "To say that there should be fair classing for every single competitor
is frankly, ridiculous." - what a crude satement to make publically! On
the contrary, That SHOULD be the goal, and that should be how the
classing is done!! >>
Except that it's true! If Andy said "We class every car fairly" you'd
crucify him for that by bringing up cars that are (in your opinion) not
fairly classed. You're not going to let him win until your particular model
of car is where you want it to be. The SEB and SCAC class Stock Category
vehicles as fairly as they can with 9 classes. They look at how many people
they can make happy vs. how many people will not be happy, and make it as
good as is humanly possibe for the highest number of SCCA members. It IS how
the classing is done. Look, I was Chairman of the SCAC, and ran an RX7
GSL-SE in C/Stock. I felt (and still do) that the car is a D/S car in
today's world. I was outvoted in the SCAC. Sometimes you just have to
accept that you're in the minority. Either accept that and have fun, find a
competitive ride, or change classes (I've now done all 3.)
<< You see, all one needs to do is ask - - "what do the competitors
want?" - - instead of dictating to them. >>
This IS what the SCAC does. I'm so glad that I can go to events now and not
get beat up by competitors wanting their car moved to this or that class.
<< They want a class that they can play in that is fair and equitable to
all. Everybody, each and every competitor wants that!! Just so they
have a chance, even if they do not have the "car of the month" (or
whatever drives the incessant changing of class structure in this
organization).. They want a classing system that is so stable that they
can continue to have equality and fun 2 or 3 years down the road,
entirely until their 6 year note is paid!! They do not especially wish
to trade cars annually in order to stay "in there". >>
Yes, but the problem is that "they" don't all agree on what is "fair and
equitable to all." AND... It's damned near impossible to tell whose car is
prepared and driven to its fullest. Give Brian Priebe a perfectly prepared
(or maybe NOT so perfectly prepared) '88 Fiero Formula zero option car, and
watch him win a C/S National Championship with it. Give him an '87 and I'll
bet he still trophies!
<< No, I don't advocate 100 classes. I advocate fewer catagories, and fewer
classes. I advocate a system that uses such criteria as power to weight
(torque is a factor, as it is also power), wheelbase, tire size, wheel
track, and suspension type (adjustability would be a factor) dictating who
runs
against whom. A simple math formula could do most of that!! >>
You send us your math formula. But be sure you plug in a few cars first, to
make sure it works. I'll bet you that you can't do it. The reason?
Intangibles. Your formula will not take into account spring rates (because
manufacturers don'tprovide them), camber loss rates, etc. So those cars that
are "better than the sum of their parts" will rise to the top. Eventually,
your system will have to have exceptions to it, administered by (GASP!) human
beings like Jack Burns, Roger Johnson, Neal Bellamy, Danny Shields, Rich
Fletcher, and even Andy Bettencourt!
I've tried several formulas, and even proposed one to the SCAC at one of our
meetings. Shot down in flames! And rightfully so, as I found out when they
plugged in different examples than I used.
<< I am working up a class structure - - for another organization - - that
will
address these issues. Based on entirely different criteria, it seems, than
the SCCA uses. It doesn't even have the same catagories. That, in itself,
makes
it an easier task. Not to say it will be used, but it is a proposal none the
less.
When I have completed my proposal, I will write an article to the NA Pylon,
under the heading "Fighting City Hall" and share it with you (if the Kelly's
see fit to print it). >>
I'm waiting with a worm on my tongue (baited breath)
Charlie Davis
|