To All..... If your uninterested in the CSRG 'debate' presently going on,
please delete this message. This network does, in-fact, appear to be a very
effective means of conveying a message to the CSRG board. So........ Miles;
after your elected to the board, how about putting together (along with a
CSRG website) a CSRG net. It would be more timely and effective than the
monthly CSRG NEWS.
Miles, you have my vote! I find it interesting that board members who in the
past were 'indifferent and uninterested' in my suggestions, at Thunder Hill
in November sought me out to explain in detail how 'valued' my suggestions
were and how they were given 'careful consideration and review'. Don't
mis-understand me: I'm not saying that I'm any smarter than anyone else, and
undoubtedly many of my ideas have previously been thought of and resolved,
but don't turn your shoulder to me when I'm trying to help out. Case in
point...... A year or so ago I told Dan R. about the new road course being
designed and built in Fernley, NV. The response was instantaneous; 'it's too
far from Reno and there isn't enough lodging available.... nobody will go
there to race'. Wouldn't a better response have been 'OK Carl, since you
live in the area, how about staying on top of it and seeing what they can do
for the club'.
You were wrong about one thing, Miles. CSRG had six races this year, not
five, although at only two facilities. I also race with HSR-West. They had 6
events this year at four facilities. For 2002, CSRG has 4 events at the same
two facilities and it's going to cost an extra $50.00 per race. HSR will
have seven events next year at six different facilities, and no increase in
entry fees.
I've been unhappy with the way CSRG groups competitors, have made
suggestions to improve it and even offered to write the matrix for the
groupings; again it fell on 'deaf ears'. CSRG groups cars in a manner
completely defying explanation. The cars should be grouped according to the
performance of the car and the capability of the driver. In other words, the
cars should be grouped according to their lap times! That way, people AND
cars would be grouped according to their actual performance. To explain
further, I've used the CSRG race results from Sears Point, May 26, 2001,
groups 2, 3, 4 and 6 (all production cars).
Group 2 had 19 cars posting a race time, ranging from 1:56.814 to 2:18.642
Group 3 had 15 cars posting a race time, ranging from 2:05.843 to 2:48.160
Group 4 had 22 cars posting a race time, ranging from 2:05.631 to 2:42.547
Group 6 had 21 cars posting a race time, ranging from 2:04.019 to 2:38.437
This is a total of 77 cars, and the times range from 1:56 to 2:48. Here's
how this breaks down. The fastest 20 cars are group 2. The next 20 fastest
are group 3, next 20 fastest are group 4, and the rest are in group 6.
Simple, huh!? Sure, a guy could sandbag, but only once. "Sir Seymour
Squorgervinski-Smyth" turns a qualification time of 2:39.996 in his ("period
correct", twin cam EFI 1600cc) Lotus Super 7, so he's on the pole in group
6. Come race time, Ole Seymour manages a 2:05.123. Guess what..... next day
(or next event, whichever occurrs first), Ole Seymour now finds himself in
the middle of the group 2 grid, where he's now competing with other people
in the "2:05.xxx" parameter. What this all leads up to, is the guy with a
948cc engine in his 'bugeye' is racing against other cars that have the same
performance capabilities. AND, the guy with the "stock" 160+ horsepower
Speedster (with $65,000.00 in "period correct" chassis updates and
modifications) can race against other similar prepared cars and drivers! Or
put another way, a fellow could "moderately" prepare a vintage racecar,
(hell, maybe even keep it "period correct") race it and have fun with it,
comply with the 'concept' of vintage racing and still be able to pay for it!
IF I could think up something like this, why couldn't someone else think up
a solution like this???
Interesting that you mention the finances of the club. I've been thinking
lately that I've never seen a financial disclosure for CSRG. Maybe it's time
the members see where their money is going.
CSRG gave some nice gifts early in the year, then they stopped; presumably
because of the dropoff in race entries. I can't begin to cite the number of
times I've heard people say they would like a nice dash plaque, and they are
certainly 'cost effective'! I have many of my old dash plaques from the 60's
mounted on a wood plaque and hanging on the wall. Certainly brings back some
great memories.
Miles, if you win a seat on the board you will definately be facing a
"stacked deck". As long as you are true to your campaign statements you can
count on my support. If you remain true to your campaign statements you can
probably count on the support of those who elected you, and if you remain
true to your campaign statments will probably win over a few "converts"!
Lastly, many (including the existing CSRG board) might say "if your so
unhappy with CSRG, why don't you go race somewhere else!?" The answer to
that is, "I DO race somewhere else!"
CSRG isn't the only game in town. They are the first I raced with. That
gives me a special allegiance to them, creates an inner closeness to the
club and desire to seee the club succeed. I've tried to make a contribution
to the club (i.e. tech inspector), but they are going to have to come into
the 21'st century if they are going to survive in the 21'st century!
Carl McLelland
CSRG/HSR-West series 1 Sunbeam Alpine
Lotus 61 formula Ford
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 9:20 AM
Subject: CSRG Election Issues
>
> 2. The current board of CSRG "while working tirelessly for the last two
(or,
> in one case many more than two) years to build an ever better club on the
> foundation of the ideals, principles and success of past boards" (whatever
> that is....to quote Mr. Franges), has in fact piXXed away the substantial
> financial reserves that the club had in the bank in January 2001. Thus,
the
> appeal in the latest newsletter for a SUBSTANTIAL dues increase for the
> membership, requiring an amendment to the bylaws. My advice, reject it.
>
> 3. What has caused this situation, you might ask? In my opinion, there
are
> several reasons. Among them...higher costs and low entries, 5 events at
the
> same old 2 venues (2 Sears, 3 Thunderhill events). There were NO new
events
> in 2001. In fact, the majority of members of this board saw the club LOSE
2
> of its most interesting venues...The Reno Hilton GP, and the Buchanon
Field
> GP, and did NOT develop any replacements. It can be argued that the
reasons
> for the loss of these events was not directly attributable to the current
> board, but in my view, they should have seen this coming and DEVELOPED
SOME
> NEW VENUES. An effort by myself and others to develop the MARE ISLAND
Grand
> Prix was dropped by the current board (and they have plenty of reasons
why).
> The Board gave up pursuing Laguna Seca, a very poor decision, in my
opinion.
>
> 4. My attempts (although admittedly limited based on my frustrating
> experiences in trying to talk to them in the past) to interact with this
> board has been met with general dismissal. Others who have tried to help
the
> club have experienced the same attitude from them. In my view, they are
NOT
> willing to listen to a portion of the membership who want to have more
> liberal views of acceptance, and the kind of events we should have. A
vote
> for me sends a clear message to them that this tunnel vision needs to
change.
> Their big accomplishments this past year seems to me like rearranging the
> deck chairs on the TITANTIC. They're spending all their time arguing
about
> 1600 vs. 1750 Alfas and the like, when they should be working on future
> events and worrying about where the money went, and will come from in the
> future.
>
> I appreciate your support, and hope to see you at the track. In the end,
> this is all about having fun.
>
> Regards,
> Myles H. Kitchen
/// vintage-race@autox.team.net mailing list
/// or go to http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///
|