><< Every time the subject of car classifications come up the
> same people get defensive about the whole thing. And guess what?
They
> were all on the SCAC or SEB at some point in time. We already know
how
> you feel and we appreciate the efforts you have made. But for
> chrissakes how about chilling a bit! After all, we are only "bench
> racing" here... >>
>
>So, it's okay to attack us, and it's not okay for us to get
defensive?
I'd wait for the attack first.
>
>I've heard "You guys move cars so your car will be competitive."
Absolutely
>incorrect, within the SCAC, by the way...
>I've heard "What are you doing on the SCAC? You run in SP!" ('91-93)
>I've heard this theoretical "mathematical formula" bandied about for
years.
>But nobody (including me, in several attempts) can come up with one
that
>actually works.
Not me and I applaud you for trying. But I still believe that we can
be a lot more equitable with the number of classes we do have. We
could go a long way simply by identifying the cars in each class as
being 'A', 'B', or 'C' cars and giving the 'B' cars one second per run
handicap and the 'C' cars two seconds per run handicap.
>
>Go ahead and "bench race." Just don't beat up a bunch of
knowledgeable,
>well-intentioned guys who have the best interest of the sport and the
largest
>number of members possible, and who actually PAY $1-200/year in
conference
>calls for the priviledge of having people come up and want to talk
about
>their pet car while they are in line to make Pro-Solo runs...
Well that sucks on both counts. I think you should be reimbursed any
legitimate expense within reason and conference calls would certainly
fit that bill. So would internet access. Not sure what to do about the
latter though...
Paul Foster
|