Scott Phelps wrote:
> I wish that before we make accusatory statements which directly imply
> wrongdoing, dark dealings, and conspiricy by our freinds and
> neighbors, we would be prepared to support them with facts.
>
> O.k. - how's about this for facts:
>
> Fiat X1/9. Currently classed in DS, DSP, DP,
>
> As far as other marques recieveing preferential treatment, how about
> those marques who are underhandedly restricted by the rules?
> ...
> [Summary of how X1/9 is not competive in Stock, SP, or Prepared.]
>
> This my friend is politics at work in the SCCA. Plain and simple.
> ...
> If anyone thinks politics are not at work in the SCCA, they're sadly
> mistaken.
Your "facts" may be factual, but they certainly don't support your
accusation of "politics", and certainly don't support wrongdoing, dark
dealings, and conspiracy. (Incidentally, X1/9's have done well in DSP
and DP, but I'll focus on your point, not on your example.)
It's not like someone is sitting down once a month and visiting each and
every car, each and every class, and looking for inequalities. Cars
get misclassed more often because they simply get overlooked, because
nobody is running one at the top of the sport.
The SEB and the respective category advisory groups leave it to *us*,
the membership, to note these inequalities and send in a letter. It's
not a conspiracy to keep good cars down, it's just that nobody has yet
made a compelling case for fixing it.
If something is truly wrong, document it, send in a letter, and
convince the advisory groups and SEB. They'll do the right thing. But
you can't expect them to be aware of every little thing -- help them do
their jobs, rather than bitching about it!
The address is in the front of your rulebook.
Mark
|