Joe Cheng wrote:
> SCCA should monitor the situation for a few years rather
> than getting concerned over a one year entry number.
Absolutely. I still don't see practically how AM can be eliminated.
Based on more than 30 years of precedent, there's supposed to be a "top
o' the heap" no-holds-barred class. If the Solo II class structure loses
the ability to accommodate any car (within safety restrictions,
obviously) that might appear at an event, we'll lose an essential
ingredient in the sport's appeal. IMHO, of course.
> 3) AM, in my view, is a class to showcase what is possible in the sport of
> autocrossing.
AMen.
> The
> three latest generation 2-stroke AM cars (ex-Bowland's, Phantom and Dragon)
> is the first mass attempt to produce purpose built true autocross racers.
> Any change in class structure and rules could easily curb this trend before
> it has a chance to mature.
Agreed. Any serious TALK of changing the class rules could have a
chilling effect on those who might be considering building an AM car.
SCCA's history is replete with efforts to penalize
manufacturers/competitors who were too successful in competition,
without first allowing time for competitors to respond to the challenge.
>From the wording in the FasTrack memo, it appears that AM isn't in
immediate danger. Hopefully, enough competitors will respond to the
situation that the issue ceases to exist.
Jay
|