I might suggest that since humans get old and die, you always need to
attract new members (to replace the ones "leaving") otherwise eventually the
sport will die. Autocross/SoloII has experienced attendance highs and lows
over the years. Just because currently its in a "high" does not mean it
will stay that way forever. If we take your suggestions to the max, we will
go back to SCCA at its roots - an elitist club for rich white men. You
probably weren't aware that in the late 50's/early 60's you have to have
someone recommend you for membership in SCCA (whoops I'm showing my age).
Following you lead, we get "SCCA - by the current members, for the current
members, to hell with anybody else - we don't need no stinking new blood!"
Hugh Barber
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-autox@autox.team.net [mailto:owner-autox@autox.team.net]On
Behalf Of Kevin Stevens
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 12:11 PM
To: Hugh Barber
Cc: David W. James; National Autocross Mailing List; Smokerbros@aol.com
Subject: Re: FW: UD/BD Explained (was Fastrack)
On Saturday, Jul 5, 2003, at 10:15 US/Pacific, Hugh Barber wrote:
> The point of my post was that SCCA does not have an "entry-level"
> autocross
> class. Sure, tires/wheels, etc are all costs that experienced
> autocrossers
> chalk up as "part of the sport", but a newby can suffer some "sticker
> shock"
> and decide that they don't want to come out and play.
And why is that a problem? Autocross, as a recreation, *does* have
relatively high barriers concerning time, cost, and automobile choice.
That's "relatively high", there are any number of competing sports that
are as high or higher. What is the point of misrepresenting them to
beginners?
Further, this notion that we need more classes/different preparation
"to attract new drivers" is complete and total BULLSHIT! I don't even
know who bought into it at the National Office, but they're NUTS. I
suspect it's an attempt to bolster road-race entries by seeding more
young drivers into Solo, but even so it rests on some very poorly
substantiated assumptions.
Autocross could not survive even a minimal marketing campaign - nobody
has the sites available to support the demand. Almost every
administrative issue I've discussed with autocross leaders is centered
around how to control and administer ever-increasing numbers of users -
and this started well before the present "attract new members"
campaign. The only regions I've personally seen that have low
attendance problems are well and truly screwed up, with poor event
management, hidden agendas, and officials trying to sabotage the
program for their own purposes. If you put on a well-run, open,
friendly program you will have more entrants than you can handle. If
you advertise you will be inundated.
Classes that try to predict what new drivers want and where they can
succeed are totally wrong-headed.
New drivers will not succeed in any class.
They will not have the correct vehicle preparation for any class,
including bone stock.
In any class with a stable rule set, experienced autocross drivers will
dominate the class.
These are not bad things. They are good things. They indicate that
autocross is a sport where you can expect more talent and experience,
in driving and preparation, to garner better results.
Rules and policy directions should support the EXISTING, ACTIVE entry
population. It should do so with due regard for consistent level of
effort for class/prep level ENTRY, DEVELOPMENT, and SUPPORT, while
sustaining the core values of the sport.
KeS
/// 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
|