How about Brian Priebe in an '88 Fiero Coupe with a 5 speed and
90 hp 2.5 against Bob Tunnell in an ES Neon at Nationals? Try that
for a comparison.
You and your counterparts are really something. I ask for something for
the masses, I get Brian Priebe and Bob Tunnell thrown at me to use for
comparison.
The classing questions aren't for the Brian Priebe's (Charley!) or Bob
Tunnell's (Phil!) cars, they are for Joe Schmuckatelli, or Jane Doe to
have a chance.
Get real here!
BTW, if Brian were up to it, I might have an '88 coupe around here
somewhere he could try ES in at Nationals this year!!
G
----- Original Message -----
From: <Smokerbros@aol.com>
To: <quad4fiero@webzone.net>
Cc: <autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2000 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: Fair Classing for everybody is ridiculous? (was Fiero classing)
> 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
|