Mark wrote:
<quoting me>
>> The car you autox is YOUR CHOICE. What you do to that car to
make
>> it more (or less) suitable for autox use is YOUR CHOICE.
Contrary
>> to the implications that have appeared frequently in this
thread,
>> you're not biologically bound to your Vette or your 911 or
>> whatever.
>
>Hopefully this won't come across as agreeing with Mr. Foster
(since I
>don't particularly like to agree with people who seem like
idiots), the
>attitude above is a bit too far the other way.
**********Humor Alert********************
So, lemme get this straight: you're saying that you ARE
biologically bound to the car(s) you drive or to the
modifications you perform on your car? Like being an alcoholic or
a compulsive gambler? So, we've got one group of people, say, who
have a neurotic need to own Porsches and another, for example,
who are obsessed with changing the camshafts and installing SFCs
in their Camaros but want to run in SP just the same? Maybe
what's needed, instead of new classes, is support groups. I'd say
some of these folks must have some pretty serious problems. I'm
not sure I wanna get too close to 'em. Might be contagious. ;<)
"Porsche: It's not a choice, it's a disease."
**********Back to (almost) Normal********
>If we didn't want autox to grow and get new people involved,
that attitude
>would be fine.
I'm definitely pro-growth. It appears to me that growth is
occurring without the proliferation of "I" classes that is
periodically advocated here.
>But if we want autox to attract new blood and change with
>the times, that means that occasionally we need to evaluate if
our current
>classes are lacking something that competitors or potential
competitors
>desire.
There's an implication that this isn't being done, and that's
simply not true. Witness the various changes that have occurred
over the last ten years, examples of which include the
introduction of SS, BIATWC attempts like Sport Truck, karts, ST,
a complete rewrite of the Prepared Category rules (which, IMHO,
still needs some work), and nearly annual reinvention of Pro
Solo. There's no shortage of opinions as to what needs to change
in Solo so it will be "fairer" to some group or other, but
there's no evidence that there's any consensus as to what those
changes should be. I tend to agree with the statement that if all
the special interests are pissed of at you, you're probably doing
a pretty good job of things.
> I think DG's STU class is a good example of how to do that.
I'd say the jury's still out, but I don't see much harm in it. If
it doesn't change the face of Solo II as we know it, I won't be
too surprised. Nor will much have been lost in trying it.
> I
>think the Vette Stock arguments from Mr. Foster have been a good
example
>of how NOT to do that.
I agree completely.
Jay
|