washburn wrote:
> My opinion is that they did right by
> settling on a basic but loose starting point, and then pulling the
> trigger cautioning everyone that it was going to be experimental for
> awhile while everyone worked out the best rules package. Look at all
> of
> the flying changes that have been made already...how would you feel if
>
> you prepared a "Nationals" car early on only to find the rules
> changing
> like they did? My guess is that you would be more upset about that.
> Doing it this way allows the various regions to run the class and see
> how it shakes out BEFORE getting people to commit seriously to a
> "National" effort. Much better chance for *long term* success IMHO.
>
> I don't dis-agree, but if they are serious about running a car at
> Nationals, they should not have picked that class. It is not SCCA's
> fault...they clearly announced those conditions up front. (And they
> accepted them by default by participating) I agree with you in
> priciple, but I do not agree that the SCCA should take a black eye for
>
> it, which was really my only point.
I know exactly what it is like, along with Dennis Grant and a few other
ESP hopefuls, to have the rug pulled out from under them. I've got a
320hp Eclipse GSX set up for the "former" ESP rules sitting in my
garage, that now, I can't run. Talk about changes on the fly.
> Not looking for an argument, and I don't really dis-agree with most of
>
> your sentiments. Like you, I have an opinion about how a new class
> should be created, and there both valid. Like I mentioned in the
> other
> post, my "thing" is that I simply find it disagreeable that there is
> always some fault to be found when they are actually responding to the
>
> membership's wants. Maybe not as fast as you would like, or precisely
>
> how you would do it, but responding non-the-less. It's a tough deal
> to
> make everyone happy, but I think they are proceeding appropriately
> with
> this as best they can. I'd rather have to be patient and wait a
> little
> to insure long term stability as opposed to having classes created and
>
> dropped at the drop of a hat at someone's whim. That would be worse
> IMO. Again, and like you, just another opinion.
>
> end-o-wordiness
> --
> Patrick Washburn <washburn@dwave.net>
> Wausau, WI Land of Cheese
> 95 DS Neon
> Moooooooooo.
I'm just looking at how this whole thing was gone about. What does it
hurt to add in an extra jacket, trophy, and a little ink in a rule book?
SCCA should just make this a full-fledged class without a question. ST
was created as a regional-only class at the start. That's the way it
should have stayed if they didn't want this kind of input. I'm not
looking for an argument either, and this certainly isn't one, I hope. No
offense to you, Pat, or anyone else. It's just a debate, and hey, maybe
something good might come out of it in the long run.
Mike
|