> > To be useful, you have to put this data in some kind of context:
> >
> > - How many of those entries are new participants?
>
> Almost all of them.
> >
> > - How many of those entries would be participating in a different
> > class if there
> > were no SM/ST?
>
> That's kind of a no-brainer isn't it? If SM/ST aren't offered it's
> obvious that they would have to enter a different class.
But the point that was being argued was that the classes are attracting new
members. If in fact that is happening, then it's *not* a no-brain decision; the
implication is that they wouldn't have come or would have given up if these
classes weren't offered. However, I agree with you, the reality is that people
come if they are interested in the sport, and run in whatever class they are
directed to. They then modify their cars (either forward or backward) to fit
the class.
That's why I regard the "attract new members" argument for new classes as
nothing more than a stalking horse. New classes are created by dedicated
autocrossers to suit their own purposes and interests. "Attracting new members"
is the political justification for the pre-determined action. It didn't work
for Sport Trucks, it didn't work for F125, and I don't see that it's working for
SM/ST - because it doesn't address the motivations and requirements of new
members. I think the BEST example of "attracting new members", or at least
participants, was the CM integration of FF. That worked because the "new
members" were actually already active SCCA participants that were being pulled
from other venues, and even there the influx was only a fraction of what we see
from normal turnover.
KeS
|