Gary Thomason wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As for the proposed stock class re-structuring, I happen to think
most of it is fine, with a few glaring exceptions. They (the SCAC)
make a statement about classing similar type cars together as a general
goal, and then promptly do just the opposite in many cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There are inherent problems which occur when trying to class similar cars
together. One of the biggest is exemplified by classing early 155 bhp
Camaros with late 305 bhp Camaros under the "best of breed" theory. Yet we
don't always impose this criteria, Miata being the foremost example. I
think Similar Car & Best of Breed works well for 80% of the cars, but leaves
a large number of loose-ends and resulting inequities. I also believe the
current system drives up the costs of Stock competition as serious
competitors are constantly pushed to buying the latest and greatest.
Perhaps a better approach would be to abandon SC,BoB in favor of straight AX
potential. Class 1 is for your fastest cars, Class 9 for slowest. Using my
above example, the two Camaros would settle into different, appropriate
classes. Two obvious difficulties -- how to determine that potential, and
course dependency effects (Because big and small cars will now likely be
mixed). The initial placement would of course be by SEB with SCAC input.
Errors could be sorted out along the way, and fixing them is pretty easy
since all the rungs of the ladder are now sequential. As to course
dependency, I think you have to aim for a typical Nationals / Tour type
course. This means regions running on postage stamp courses or running
pseudo Solo I's will have some problems. But hey, there's never going to be
a perfect solution. I believe there will be fewer built-in inequities with
this type of system, and it could significantly reduce costs of this sport
by giving older cars an opportunity for ongoing competitive classing.
Bill Martin
|