Thank you!
Michael and Paula Whitehouse
Cielo (10th AE Miata #511)
----------
> From: rjohnson@friendlynet.com
> To: autox@autox.team.net
> Subject: C4 - The Novel
> Date: Thursday, October 07, 1999 9:46 PM
>
>
> It is very difficult to not contribute a few thoughts as this topic
> (hopefully) ends. Given the significant level of mis-information on
> both sides of the argument, I cannot hope to change any minds, but
> rather simply offer the following observations:
>
> 1.) The creation of a VS is inadvisable. "Build it and they will come"
> will work no better with the members of NCCC (Corvette Club) than will
> the creation of STU to benefit the (claimed) hundreds of DSM (etc.)
> owners or the creation of FSII for the Mustang-bodied Pinto crowd. (<g>)
>
> 2.) Recall the argument for the creation of ST - this was another
> "BIATWC" claim; then examine the entry list for that class at the Solo
> II Nationals -- primarily entrants who had previously run elsewhere,
> thereby diluting competition in their (former) classes.
>
> 3.) One of the frequent claims of the BIATWC (See ST, STR, Sport Truck
> & F125 as those that were realized; FSP and F/P in the hopper; and more
> to come) is that we need to provide a place for the new folks, so they
> don't get discouraged at their first event(s) - the statement made at
> the Nationals Town Meeting was "getting their butt handed to them on a
> plate".
> My observation is that NONE of us arrived at our first event with the
> 'proper" car for the class, prepared "properly" to the rules; and I
> would submit that almost all of us had our asses on the china for some
> time.
> Perhaps it only takes a realization that this sport isn't for
> everyone. Lots of my friends enjoy golf, and don't understand why I
> don't play - but I don't see them changing the rules and the equipment
> allowances to entice me to join them. . . . .
>
> 4.) In short, we have (currently) 27 different places we can run, 54
> with an odd chromosome, and more at the local level. This is a huge
> diversity of choices, with something to suit any choice of vehicle type.
> And while I don't feel that adding more classes is necessary, an
> examination of the classes that participants have migrated from over the
> years is clearly in order, thereby making room for classes/vehicles of
> current interest - perhaps even STU!
>
> 5.) Another claim of the BIATWC crowd is that the (proposed) class is
> necessary for the growth of the sport. I don't have the numbers
> currently available, but with 50 classes at the Nationals in 1993(?? -
> help, Rocky!) we had 637 entrants. At the 1999 Nationals, with 54
> classes, we had (approx.) 925 entrants, with 26 of those in the "new"
> classes. Are new classes responsible for the 50% growth, and similar
> growth at most Regional events? Or are we simply diluting competition?
>
> 6.) And to close with the Corvette issue again: I think that most of
> us in the C4 were satisfied with the status quo. Even within the
> Corvettes in the class, there is a large disparity in horsepower, as
> there is within the F-bodies and Mustangs in F/S, and many other
> cars/classes. But we accepted that, along with the inclusion of
> vehicles that appear to have the advantage.
> What appears unfair to us is that other cars, with lesser differences,
> are split to separate classes. Those moves set a dangerous precedent,
> and these splits will inevitably raise cries of self-interest from more
> and more drivers.
>
> Time to let this one go!
>
> Roger (0) Johnson
>
> P.S. - Ames and I had the opportunity to drive the same vehicle(s) at a
> tire test a few years ago, and are both sworn to secrecy as to the
> results. I'll make a note in my will. . . .
> The results against Altenberg, however, are public record.
>
>
|