<<<Then why comment on whether or not a Supra fits the SM demographic, if
you
don't know what that demographic is?>>>
Because I think talking demographics in the same breath as autocrossing is
an oxymoron.
<<<News flash... There never has been an Autocrossing craze. On the
motorsports
totem pole, autocrossing is in between things like, "no, I mean REAL racing"
and "what the hell is THAT?", and it's REAL close to "you mean you don't do
that on dirt like the motorcycles do?". In other words, it's obscure.
There's a lot of people that don't even know what SCCA is.>>>
Sure there has. It is now. Attendance at Topeka is at an all time high.
<<<All of your new membership WILL come from other motorsports. Get used to
it.
I'm willing to bet that over 75% of the current autocrossers started out
racing in some other series, and migrated over. The best you can do is
figure out how to lure the largest amount of them over.>>>
I'll take that bet. Virtually nobody quits road racing and takes up
autocrossing. Same with drag racing or any other form of motorsports. We get
new members from people who subscribe to Autoweek and Road & Track, people
who have a sports car, people who LIKE to autocross once they try it.
<<<First, there's too many classes to add SM, then there's too few. Which is
it?>>>
I don't get your point. Most reasonable people think that we have enough
classes - that adding more classes only dilutes the number who show up in
other classes. I tend to agree although I guess you probably know by now I
disgree with sticking ringers in most stock classes.
<<<2nd News Flash.... SCCA as a whole attracts people who like to tinker
with a
particular type of car that for the most part DO happen to be sports cars,
but then you get into that whole 'what is a sports car?' thing....>>>
I would agree with that.
<<<3rd News Flash... There really isn't that many pure 'sports cars'. That
means if you want to grow beyond the pure sports car ownership pool, you
gotta make room for cars that are 'sports car-ish', which currently
outnumber 'sports cars' by a considerable margin.>>>
I also agree with that! 2 for 3! Not bad! On a streak!
<<<BTW, your car is not a sports car, by purist standards. (and to think,
you're fighting to get in a sedan class.....) Oh, the shame..... <grin>>>>
Sure it is. I think the closest 'auto buzzword' would be Grand Touring. IMHO
that is a sports car... And when I competed head to head in a NA 944 I
didn't think twice that some of my best competitors were driving Honda Civic
Sis. But see, I saw nothing wrong with that because they happened to turn
very similar times on an autocross course. But some people though this was
very bad, particularly when I started whomping their asses on a regular
basis. Right CHD?!?
<<<Try again. The ones we do have so far, would be competing in some other
series/club if SM/STS didn't exist. That's WHY classes like SM have
surfaced.>>>
I think you are mistakenTake the people who showed up for SM this year at
Topeka. I bet they ALL competed with the SCCA in other classes before SM was
created. What _evidence_ do you have to the contrary?
<<<Just think... the trends toward sedans and trucks could get worse and
there
might not BE any pure sports cars, other than the museum pieces, then, SCCA
might stand for Sedan Car Club of America....>>>
There used to be a Pro Solo class for pickups. That was another one of
Howards more brilliant moves. As far as I know only one person ever showed
up. He usually placed 1st. :)
Paul Foster
|