Howdy,
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Alan Dahl wrote:
> I have to disagree with this philosophy. What is happening here is
> exactly what those folks who objected to SM a couple of years ago
> predicted. Someone would perceive a car as being a threat to the
> Honda/Acura hegmogeny and that car would then get banned prematurely.
> While I think an RX-3 would be a good car for SM right now because of
> it's size and suspension development level of cars like Tom Berry's
> car, there is no way that if SM was left alone that the RX-3 would be
> the hot car 5 years from now. What I object to here is Dennis's
> implication that if someone spends big $$$ developing an unique SM car
> that the SCCA could come along and ban it later, wiping out the
> owner's substantial investment every bit as surely as moving the S2000
> to B stock. In my opinion you need to come up with a consistent set of
> SM rules now and *pledge to leave them alone* for 5 years or so. If
> you don't no one will ever totally develop an SM car for fear of being
> de-classed (remember SM cars ha! ve few other places to go besides
> Mod) and having the SCCA flush their investment down the drain.
I didn't read what Dennis wrote that way, but I agree with you
nonetheless.
Write the rules and leave 'em the hell alone as long as you have enough
folks in the class / coming into the class. Nothing kills a class faster
than folks dicking around with the rules trying to keep the class true to
its "intent".
Mark
|