"Kelly, Katie" <kkelly@spss.com> wrote:
> Hey, everybody. I just got this email from a Jonathon E. Beckendorfer.
Branching out into Fiction, Ace Reporter? :)
> I have long been an admirer of yours, especially when you write for North
> American Pylon.
<rolls eyes>
OK, now that the cheeze tray has been by... :)
> I am a member of the Mustang II Club. [snip]
> Our Mustang II Club has annual gatherings that include autocrosses, concours,
> rallies, and generally fun family get togethers. [snip]
> I know of many Mustang II drivers who would flock to your Solo II Nationals...
if
> they_knew_ they had a chance to _win_.
OK, here's the meat of Katie's Modest Proposal (he said Swiftly)
- You have a population of car owners who wish to compete in SCCA SoloII, but
who find that the current class structure renders their car of choice
uncompetitive. This uncompetitiveness acts as a deterrent to participation - why
compete if you can't possibly win? It is proposed that if a new class with
characteristics "x" (which favor the population in question in some way) were
created, then the deterrent would be removed, this population would come play,
the sport would grow, dogs would lay down with cats, cancer would be cured, and
we'd all be happy.
The logic behind this reasoning is completely sound, no wonder it pops up so
often.
The problem with its execution is in the definition of the population, and with
the definition of the characteristics which are supposed to render this
population uncompetitive. THAT'S where the devil lies in wait. There is nothing
wrong with adding classes to serve a market segment, what's wrong is picking a
market segment that cannot be served - or trying to fix a class that isn't
really broken.
We've got some really bizzare existing classes that are just as oddball and
specialized as "Mustang II Stock" - that have perfectly healthy and happy
National populations. Look at FM! Solo Vees? I mean, really, a formula car based
on Volkswagon Beetle engines and *suspension components*. Could there be a car
any less likely to base an open cockpit formula car on? (*swing axles*? I mean,
really!)
Now Solo Vee guys don't get all up in a huff, I see you guys as a success story.
You're proof that oddball classes can work, if they're defined correctly, and if
the right people are competing.
So if there is a group that is asking for an "I" class, by all means, that
request should be considered. Very, very, VERY close attention should be paid to
WHY they think they aren't competitive. If the claim is found to have merit
after rigourous examination, then (in the interests of administrative
managibility) a serious effort should be made to slot the population into an
existing class. If no such existing class can be identified, then the population
under discussion is a candidate for a new class.
The catchword for the examination of the "whys" of the new class is
"reasonable". Every car, once fully prepared, should have a reasonable chance at
being able to win. It's impossible to promise every car in every class a
mathematically equal chance at winning - there's too many variables to
calculate. But reasonable people can agree on what constitutes a reasonable
chance - "Perfect is the enemy of Good Enough".
Once the decision is made to create a new class, the size and attractiveness of
the population dictates the scope of the class: A class for a resticted number
of out-of-production cars is a candidate for a local class; a class for a large
number of a wide variety of makes and models is a possible candidate for a
National class.
Two final points - the success of any class is primarily dictated by the people
who compete in it. If enough people want to compete, then *any* class can be
sucessful, no matter how bizzare. Conversely, no matter how elegant the rules
are, no class can succeed if nobody wants to play - if we took the F1 rules, and
made an F1 class, would anybody come?
Secondly, "Past performance is not indicative of future results". Just because
Sport Truck ultimately failed, and F125 lasted a year, doesn't mean that evey
new class is doomed to failure. And besides, even if a class is created, does
well for a couple of years, and then suddenly burns out, does that make it a
failure? If the people who competed in it had fun while they were there, then
mission accomplished and job well done.
Hell, look at P2. I did the full East Coast P2 season, even though I knew full
well that the car was outclassed and that I was running up against the top
drivers in the country. I got my behind spanked quite soundly pretty well every
time I came out, and at the end of the season the class was dissolved. A
failure? No. I learned a tremendous amount about my car, I got to meet a number
of people I never would have met otherwise, and my driving improved enormously -
and most of the time, I had fun. That's a success. If I could do it over again,
I would. (Although I'd switch to Kumhos earlier on in the season, and I'd do my
rain dance a hell of a lot harder. :)
"New class" is not something to be feared or avoided, as long as the people
behind the new class have done their homework and are going to try and build the
successful atmosphere it takes to keep a class running.
DG
|