Ben Thatcher wrote:
> 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.
If you're now saying that added SP classes can attract the "new
and different types of cars that enthusiasts are embracing," you
are contradicting a number of your past positions. I can see
arguments for adding new _classes_ in existing _categories_
(although I don't specifically agree that FSP was a good idea),
but the whole argument used for ST and SM has been that the SP
and P rules don't do a good job of accommodating common
enthusiast modifications. Looks to me like the SP rules are doing
a pretty good job given their subscription levels in Topeka this
year. It also appears that splitting AP and FP didn't work out
terribly well for attendance in either class, but it's probably
too early to call that one.
> 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.
You started off by claiming that new classes were responsible for
the growth in Nationals attendance. That's the atatement with
which I took issue. Local attendance is another matter
altogether.
> True, right now most of the Topeka attenders in these classes
are
> veterans.
Then we agree: Solo II is growing at the National level, and the
introduction of new classes is not currently a major factor in
that growth. That's all I was saying.
Jay
|