On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 15:09:27 -0500 "Jay Mitchell"
<jemitchell@compuserve.com> writes:
> Ben Thatcher wrote:
>
> > How do you think Nationals drew almost 1100 drivers this year?
>
> Uhh, Ben, you should actually examine the class demographics
> before making statements like the above. The "other category"
> classes (SM, F125, and ST) contributed a total of 68 entries,
> many of whom were not attending their first Nationals.
Jay, do you think that this year's "other category" classes are the only
"new" classes to be added in recent years. Just in the last 5 years we've
seen FM, FSP and renewal of FP from a failed attempt to "consolidate"
classes into a smaller lot.
>
>> > Class proliferation is a natural development IF we want to
> attract new
> > people.
>
> no, it isn't. See above. The net effect of new classes has NOT
> been to attract "new people," it has been to take existing
> competitors from other classes. This isn't necessarily a bad
> thing, but let's at least be honest with ourselves about what's
> happening here.
I have to disagree with you here. I'm a Solo II co-chair in Atlanta and
almost all our STS, STR and SM drivers are new to the sport. It may take
several years for these guys to push their competition to a higher level.
True, right now most of the Topeka attenders in these classes are
veterans. But the added classes ARE bringing in new drivers.
>
> > There are simply new and different types of cars that
> enthusiasts
> > are embracing,
>
> Why don't you point out exactly what "new and different types of
> cars" you mean?
The STS, STR, SM groups have pretty well hit the import econobox craze on
the head. However, if one takes the stance that we need fewer rather than
more classes these classes would not have been added or seen the light of
day.
Ben Thatcher
Apex Benefit Services & Motorsports
Stockbridge, GA
|