Did anyone else notice the commonality with those trophy cars? They're all
boosted IRS cars.
>From: "Bradley H. Lamont" <lamont@mailhost.org>
>Reply-To: "Bradley H. Lamont" <lamont@mailhost.org>
>To: autox@autox.team.net
>Subject: Re: BSM/SM2
>Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 21:11:42 -0500
>
>At 09:29 AM 9/21/2000, dg50@daimlerchrysler.com said:
>
> >Rules, like it or not, are a necessary evil. And hey! Look! We did a
>pretty
> >good job last year with SM.
>
>Actually Dennis, I'd have to disagree with you on that. You had a good
>year, and a few other people had a good year with SM, but I really can't
>agree that it was a success.
>
>Looking at the pro results, we find that 16 out of 17 trophies were won by
>four models, and 12 out of 17 trophies were won by just two cars. I don't
>see this as a success.
>
>[The numbers in the table are the finishing trophy positions of the
>models.]
>
>Pro
> DSM Supra S4 Camaro Other
>Ft Meyer 2 1
>San Bernardino 1 2,3
>Lemoore 2 1
>Peru 2 1
>Petersburg 2 1
>Harrisburg 3 2 1
>Wendover no SM cars...
>Topeka 1 3 2
>
>Looking at the tour results, we get a bit better mix, but 14 out of 21
>trophies are still the same four models.
>
>Tour
>
> DSM Supra S4 Camaro Other
>Meridian 1
>San Diego 1
>Ft. Worth 1 2
>Ayer 2 3,4 1
>Peru 2 1
>Bremerton 1 2,3,4
>Pikes Peak 1
>Nationals 5 1,6 4 2 3
>
> From the inside, yes, it was a success. You drove well, won some
>trophies, had a good competitive season with Kent Rafferty, Dave Schotz,
>and Karl Witt. You had fun. It was your "I-Class".
>
>But from the outside, I see it as a private playground where just a few
>cars are competitive.
>
>I do agree with the need for an SM class, but I can't really say that this
>year it worked very well or offered a chance for very many cars to be
>competitive.
>
>In your own words:
>
> >Level playing fields are an absolute necessity in any successful
> >motorsport. Other wise, why play? And "level playing field" doesn't mean
> >that every single car on a given day has a chance to win; it means that
> >every single car in the class, given enough time, work, and effort, has a
> >**reasonable shot of some day being competitive**. As long as a
>competitor
> >feels that they still have a shot at making themselves and their car
> >competitive _some day_ within the scope of the rules, then those rules
>are
> >Good.
>
>At the pros and tours, if one of they four cars showed up, it won. The
>only exception was at Ayer. That's 14 out of 15 events where there wasn't
>a chance for any other cars. It doesn't seem like a very balanced class.
>
>Was it because there were some excellent drivers in SM? Of course, but how
>does that help improve the sport if the drivers leave other classes to
>dominate a new class?
>
>I still think that SM should be a regional only class, with no national
>level classes. It should be a catch-all for people who show up to events
>with cars not prepared to SCCA rules so they don't run DM/EM.
>
>Just my opinion,
>
>Brad
>
_________________________________________________________________________
|