I thought this apropos. From a wise, old sage (okay, maybe just
old). :^)
Guess the original poster, too.
Matt Murray
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Originally posted 10/7/99:
It is very difficult to not contribute a few thoughts as this
topic
(hopefully) ends. Given the significant level of mis-information
on
both sides of the argument, I cannot hope to change any minds,
but
rather simply offer the following observations:
1.) The creation of a VS is inadvisable. "Build it and they
will come"
will work no better with the members of NCCC (Corvette Club) than
will
the creation of STU to benefit the (claimed) hundreds of DSM
(etc.)
owners or the creation of FSII for the Mustang-bodied Pinto
crowd. (<g>)
2.) Recall the argument for the creation of ST - this was
another
"BIATWC" claim; then examine the entry list for that class at the
Solo
II Nationals -- primarily entrants who had previously run
elsewhere,
thereby diluting competition in their (former) classes.
3.) One of the frequent claims of the BIATWC (See ST, STR, Sport
Truck
& F125 as those that were realized; FSP and F/P in the hopper;
and more
to come) is that we need to provide a place for the new folks, so
they
don't get discouraged at their first event(s) - the statement
made at
the Nationals Town Meeting was "getting their butt handed to them
on a
plate".
My observation is that NONE of us arrived at our first event
with the
'proper" car for the class, prepared "properly" to the rules; and
I
would submit that almost all of us had our asses on the china for
some
time.
Perhaps it only takes a realization that this sport isn't for
everyone. Lots of my friends enjoy golf, and don't understand
why I
don't play - but I don't see them changing the rules and the
equipment
allowances to entice me to join them. . . . .
4.) In short, we have (currently) 27 different places we can
run, 54
with an odd chromosome, and more at the local level. This is a
huge
diversity of choices, with something to suit any choice of
vehicle type.
And while I don't feel that adding more classes is necessary, an
examination of the classes that participants have migrated from
over the
years is clearly in order, thereby making room for
classes/vehicles of
current interest - perhaps even STU!
5.) Another claim of the BIATWC crowd is that the (proposed)
class is
necessary for the growth of the sport. I don't have the numbers
currently available, but with 50 classes at the Nationals in
1993(?? -
help, Rocky!) we had 637 entrants. At the 1999 Nationals, with
54
classes, we had (approx.) 925 entrants, with 26 of those in the
"new"
classes. Are new classes responsible for the 50% growth, and
similar
growth at most Regional events? Or are we simply diluting
competition?
6.) And to close with the Corvette issue again: I think that
most of
us in the C4 were satisfied with the status quo. Even within the
Corvettes in the class, there is a large disparity in horsepower,
as
there is within the F-bodies and Mustangs in F/S, and many other
cars/classes. But we accepted that, along with the inclusion of
vehicles that appear to have the advantage.
What appears unfair to us is that other cars, with lesser
differences,
are split to separate classes. Those moves set a dangerous
precedent,
and these splits will inevitably raise cries of self-interest
from more
and more drivers.
Time to let this one go!
Roger (0) Johnson
P.S. - Ames and I had the opportunity to drive the same
vehicle(s) at a
tire test a few years ago, and are both sworn to secrecy as to
the
results. I'll make a note in my will. . . .
The results against Altenberg, however, are public record.
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|