> It behooves any event organizer to establish a balance of cars and
> classes. It is our responsibility to provide an opportunity for
> invigorating competition. Most competitors that I have spoken to relish > a
good battle within a class of cars.
OK, I'm with you so far. There does exist a small subclass of people who enjoy
winning with the smallest amount of personal effort, but I don't see any need to
cater to these people.
> So if we, in the spirit of trying to provide more opportunity actually > in
fact create a situation where there is less opportunity, I suggest
> that the situation needs to be rethought.
So far, so good.
> In my opinion, it is not a win if we add three new participants into
> non-competitive situations, BECAUSE in most cases they will soon grow
> bored and not return.
Oops, I think you may have mis-read.
The argument was "if you have 140 entrants, and 39 classes, then adding n more
classes changes the driver/class ratio from 140/39 to 140/39+n, which means less
cars/class, which is bad"
My counter was that the distribution of cars to classes is not flat, and that
if, by adding n new classes, you could attract sufficiant new blood to populate
these classes, that adding the classes are a win.
In the specific cases of the ST/STR/STU classes, I think there is enough
attraction there to an untapped population to justify them. All you need is 15
new members - 5 per new class - to make these new classes equal to most class
sizes at regional events. If you can pull in 30 new members - 10 per class -
then you've created a _very_ healthy new core.
If you concentrate on just one of the new classes, then 5 new members makes it
work, 10 makes it healthy, 15 makes it fabulous. Those are not big numbers. I
can get 10-15 cars out for STU, no problem.
> On the other hand, if we can look at all that we do offer, reduce the
> number of classes and increase the true number of cars in each class
> (thereby reducing also the number of single car classes), this is a
> win-win.
There's nothing wrong with your logic, except that there's very little overlap
between classes. To put it mathematically, each class is a prime number, and
won't factor out into simpler classes - not without some sort of equalizer like
the PAX index.
> Uh, yeah........that was my point. Too many classes and too few cars is > not
an ideal situation. Also, not everyone can have their own class
Agreed. The trick is creating classes that have broad enough appeal such that
they tend to attract, and not divide.
The ST classes I think are well founded. My personal opinion is that ST itself,
being street tire based, has no place in a National level event, and that STR
and STU make better matches, but hey, that's just me.
> Here we agree - BUT, it is also part of our responsibility to provide a > fun,
challenging, competitive situation for as many drivers as we can. > That is what
the sport is about, right? Just throwing more classes out > will not necessarily
improve the situation.
I agree completely. If you've followed the whole STU thing here, I've always
said that making STU successful was a multi-part operation. First, you need good
rules. Then, you need Denver support. And lastly (and most importantly) you need
local member involvement to actively recruit and support them when they come out
to play.
If You Build It, They Won't Necessarily Come. If They Come, They Won't
Necessarily Stay. There is work involved in both attracting and retaining.
DG
|