The way I look at something like this, and I very well may be wrong in
thinking this way, but is the way I feel, is explore the class, propose the
class to the membership, take member input before you create the class, and
just get all your ducks in a row before you create a class. Then when that
"committee" has overlooked the format of the class, and seen if it has much
interest, then create the class in it's intirety. Many of us who run
National Tours and Pro Solos also run Nationals in September. In my
thinking, if I'm going to build a car, it's not going to be one that I can't
go for a National Championship in, in Topeka. I'm sure someone like Vince
and Matt and a variety of other very good, and serious competitors would
like to run for their own National Championship, and not get bumped to CSP
or ESP where they would never have a chance in ST form. I believe this is
definitely a good reason why you don't see more people subscribing to the
class. To tell you the truth, I would probably consider ST if I could run in
my own class at Nationals (just me, no one else!...lol!) I don't know, I
guess I feel they should stop messing around with it, scratching their
heads, and make it a class. If it doesn't work in the long run, so be it. At
least it was given an equal opportunity. Just my opinion..
Mike King
98 Eclipse GSX
----------
>From: washburn <washburn@dwave.net>
>To: Mike and Lara King <mapco@worldnet.att.net>
>Subject: Re: Street Touring at '99 Nationals YES!!!
>Date: Sat, Jul 10, 1999, 11:30 PM
>
>
>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.
|