"Larry Joffe" <spdrcr5@bigfoot.com> wrote:
First off, I'm not going to dignify Mr Foster's delusioned rantings with a
reply, the good Mr. Sipe has said all that needs to be said.
> Hold on everyone just one second. From what Dennis Grant has been saying
on
> the SM list Howard Duncan IS the one that decided that all of the Porsche
> 2+2's are not eligible for the SM class.
Howard had a large hand in what SM rules made it to the SEB, yes.
> This motion NEVER went before the SEB.
NO. Every rule goes in front of the SEB. Every single one. If the SEB
chooses to trust the opinion of a man with the experience and dedication of
Howard Duncan, who can fault them?
> Quite a few SM participants want the 924/944/968 series to be allowed
> into SM.
And quite a few do not. Do not forget that.
> Dennis has been talking to Howard about the SM class for over a year. It
> was Howard that offered the "Not Sports Car based" into the rules.
Dennis
> is trying to get that part taken out for 2001 but it looks like it won't
> happen until 2002.
Note that the problem here is the language, NOT the intent. SM is NOT for
sports cars, it is a class for modified, street driven sedans.
Note that the problem with the language is that different people have
wildly differing opinions of what a "sports car" is. Some people think a
Supra is a sports car. Some people think a Mustang is a sports car. Some
people think an Audi TT is a sports car. And so on, and so on. No matter
where you draw the line, there will be somebody who disagrees.
I think though that it's safe to say that everything Porsche ever made is a
"sports car" - at least until the Porsche SUV comes out.
> Dennis has said all along that Howard has NOT wanted any
> Porsche in the class because it is a sports car.
Not just Howard - and this isn't a question of Howard (or anyone else)
hating Porsches, it's that SM is a class for ducks, and Porsche makes
chickens.
> That to me is a sports car I think.
Different people have different opinions. The majority opinion is that the
Supra is not a sports car - it's a "Japanese muscle car" like a Camaro or
Mustang - the prime difference being the fact that it's big and heavy,
where the 944 et al are small and light.
It is also agreed that the Supra is right on the borderline of what
constitutes a sports car, but this is not something cut and dried - and if
the people who make the decisions differ from yours, sometimes you just
have to accept it.
> Why not now treat it like every other class and allow the
> membership to determine whether or not a car should or should not be in a
> class?
The *membership* does not do any such thing. The ***SEB*** classes cars.
The membership can request reclassification, and they can justify why they
think a reclassification is a good idea, but the ultimate authority rests
with the SEB. Period. End of story.
You know, this effort being spent to attempt to class a car not explicitly
not allowed in the class would be much better served by attempting to
recruit more participants with cars that ARE allowed in the class. Autoweek
published that this year, the market for aftermarket Honda parts will
surpass the market for aftermarket smallblock Chevy parts, this based on
info from SEMA. Why not try and support THEM better, rather than
concetrating on a fairly small number of older cars that are well supported
both within the SCCA and in their own dedicated marque class? Dor Porsches
really need YET ANOTHER place to play, when we have tens of thousands of
Civics, Integras, Imprezas, DSMs, Camaros, and Mustangs who don't know
about us and our sport yet?
DG
|