From: washburn <washburn@dwave.net>
Paul Czarnecki wrote:
>>
>> I really don't care how ST (or my fav, STR) was created. What is
>> good about ST (and STR) is that it provides a place to play (and be
>> competitive) for a type of car that was MISSING from the previous
>> competition matrix.
>>
>
>True, and I think that is important to allowing different cars in,
but I
>also buy in to Roger's main point that currently the drivers in this
>class have been around for awhile, thus we are not really bringing in
a
>lot of new participants. My personal thought this year was (I know I
>will catch hell for this!) that perhaps this should be the future of
>Street Prepared? In my mind, STR fits what I thought SP was
supposed
>to be when I first started learning about SCCA class structure.
What you guys are missing is that you're only using the data from
Nationals to base your argument that no new drivers are showing up.
That's bunk if you're trying to say that ST is a failure in terms of
the sport's growth. You simply cannot say that sport is growing or
shrinking by how many people show up for Nationals. BTW, How many
'first year' or 'first time' autocrossers enter the Nationals?
ST (and it's derivatives) was originally created to bring in new
people at the _regional_ level. It was National Office's idea to
offer it as a supplementary class at Nationals and so only the most
well prepared ST competitors (usually senior type drivers) went to
play. If you survey the various regions, you may find that ST is
fulfilling its role as originally intended.
ST was not designed to replace SP either. SP is fine and the current
realignment will make things a bit better.
-c.
---------------------------------------------------
Cliff Loh, Vancouver, B.C. CANADA
"I started out with nothing & still have most of it left."
cliff_loh@infoserve.net,
inbred_hick@yahoo.com (alternate)
---------------------------------------------------
|