Mike and Lara King wrote:
>
> So, why only go that far? Why not make it a full-fledged class? Cost is not
> a factor, but I believe appeal should be. If SCCA is trying to build this
> class into something spectacular, they should include it as a regular class
> along with the rest of us. This is only my opinion, so if anyone has a
> reason that it shouldn't be a regular "Nat'l Championship" class, let me
> know. It just doesn't seem fair to those who choose to run the class, spend
> tons of money, and still have to run in a "supplemental" class. Great that
> it's actually been included at Nationals, but why not go all the way? Just
> wondering a bit here.
It's a bit of an experiment to my understanding. I think you need to
see if it is going to attract enough participants before you go all the
way. Keep in mind that this is only the second year for these classes.
I personally think it is going well, it seems well liked, and it is
likely to become a full fledged class if the popularity remains. Write
some letters I guess.(?) :)
As for the complaint about choosing the class, spending bunches of
money, .... it was made extremely clear up front that this would be
experimental and that it would not be a Nationals class. SCCA gave this
full visibility and anyone who chose to run it did so under these
conditions without complaint. I always find it amusing when "inverse
negativity" befalls the SCCA. In other words, lots-o-folks complain
about the lack of a place to run these cars that fell somewhere between
S and SP, the SCCA actually listens to them and moves toward giving them
what they want by introducing experimental classes, and yet the SCCA is
now "trying to build the class into something spectacular". I get the
feeling that they are damned if they do, damned if they don't. Just
seems to me that SCCA ought to be cut a little slack on this one. IMO
of course.
--
Patrick Washburn <washburn@dwave.net>
Wausau, WI Land of Cheese
95 DS Neon
Moooooooooo.
|