At 03:18 PM 12/17/2004 -0800, Jerry Mouton wrote:
>To assert as some have that this was an attack on some group or tire type
>disguised as an efficiency step, why are you all saying this?
>There is not the slightest shred of evidence of this. Further, I know how
>this arose, how it was discussed, and why it was agreed. All those
>speculations are completely baseless -- and why would you guys
>make nasty and wrong statements like that without any factual basis?
Several people have already shown that the Street Tire class was well
subscribed this year for every regular event (not the national tour, which
was an irregular event), except the one on Easter Sunday in Marina. The
argument given for eliminating the class was to make:
... run groups more even and to foster better competition in the stock
classes the Street Tire class will no longer exist as a single class.
So, if the first premise proves to be incorrect, then the only thing left
is the second premise. Is there a third premise that I am missing? I was
not at the steering committee meeting so I don't know what other arguments
were presented, but to eliminate STi in its current form based on a faulty
first premise and a debatable second premise doesn't seem right.
--
Rex Tener
rex_tener@yahoo.com
|