I can't possibly quote DG's post here to try to respond to it.
I just think that there out to be a rule which is that we shouldn't have
rules that take more than ten paragraphs to explain.
Katie Kelly
P.S. Please don't ask me to answer for Jonathon E. Beckendorfer. I have
never met this man before in my life. I don't even know where he's from. I
will, however, thanks to everyone's invaluable input, suggest that he run in
CP. By the way, I'm on the CP list, and right now they're talking about the
ugliest cars ever made - a much more lively and entertaining discussion! Now
I'm going to go write them a letter and demand that Miatas be allowed to
compete in CP, and be given a handicap, or I won't run there.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dg50@daimlerchrysler.com [SMTP:dg50@daimlerchrysler.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 10:02 AM
> To: autox@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: What about the Mustang II?
>
> "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
>
|