Rich Fletcher wrote:
> While I empathize with Scott and everyone else who has lamented the
> cold hard situation of too few classes, I hardly think it's possible
> to create any workable scenario which will give ..."everyone a chance
> to do well." I've agonized over this issue many sleepless nights.
Time for restful sleep, Rich. I like what we currently have, and have
participated many years - actually since the 1970's. SCCA IMHO is the
best choice going, and all I was doing was trying to raise the level of
awareness for the 'Stock is Stock' philosophy. With the advent of the
looming re-org in Stock, this was an appropriate time to raise this
thought. Or so I thought.
It was amusing reading some of the responses, and enlightening the
others. Those who chose to adopt the "personal attack and discredit"
technique were especially pathetic.
I also noticed with great interest the significant interest in the
proposed/adopted/developing 'Street Modified' classes, and I really have
lost track of exactly where these are now.
Finally, I have observed locally and read about in other areas of the
movement away from traditional SCCA classes and into Novice and Street
Tire classes - about 2/3 of the competitors locally in Phoenix each and
every event. Interesting, huh? If we offered just the SCCA Open classes,
we might pull half of our current 110 -130 competitors.
So, I thought, why not try to look for a way to combine all of these
demonstrated interests and observations? Heck, we might gain more
competitors!
So I thought.
> In the rule book, alternatives are specifically noted and tolerances
> denoted where allowed....(snip)........
I was suggesting other possible ways to revisit that approach. While not
easy, and a 'piece of cake', it could be done if interest warranted.
> Still, it's hard to accept that no matter what we do somebody will
> lose. But, unlike the Special Olympics, this is a sport where not
> everyone can come away from the playing field a "winner". With only
> nine classes, and hundreds of potential players, there will always be
> some degree of disparity. That's dis - parity.
As we approach the SCCA system, the rules are clearly stated, and this
is the defined SCCA 'Playground'. It, as I stated clearly before, works
very well. While not broken, any good system could stand a D&C now and
then :-) (dusting and cleaning). Think like an oil change, not an
engine rebuild.
> If we want to go back to "pure" stock, I'll guarantee you it won't be
> any picnic, nor will it give us greater parity between makes and
> models.
Never suggested that, just that the 'lay of the land' would be decided
by manufacturers, and not SCCA 'adjustments'. Those adjustments now in
place did evolve over the years for many reasons, so are we to assume
that the process is now closed and never will be breached again? What
is set now will forever and ever stand? Until what?
> In my near two decades long Solo career, I've also had my favorite
> ride bumped or superceded into uncompetitive status quite a few times.
Check with those who know me best, and you will find a "rich" :-)
history of many cars that went "against the grain" as I searched for the
undiscovered underdog. I have had a Neon, MR-2, SE-R, and other popular
cars, but now run a CS RX-7 and have run Dodge Shelbys and Daytonas,
914's, MGB's (sold Don his), Bugeyes and Midgets, TR-6, 240SX's and
200SX's, and gosh knows what else. Ask my wife, Glenda. She has to drive
the "car of the year"!
If I didn't like where I was, I changed cars or classes (i.e., Stock to
Street Prepared). The SCCA system allows that flexibility.
> I'm always looking for workable alternatives, however, or perhaps a
> paradigm shift that will take us out of this current mold. Then
> again, I've yet to hear or see a well crafted proposal that somebody
> can't shoot holes into and bleed it dry. That doesn't mean it isn't
> possible, it just means it's tougher than it appears at first blanch.
> We at the SCAC are trying to do our best for the Club. Please hang in
> there and help us.
Thought I was too.
All anyone can hope to do is influence the thought processes of others.
No one person can demand it be done "their way". Some of what I proposed
was wishful thinking, but well intentioned for the sake of discussion. I
never proposed that I had "The Answer".....just an idea (right Mr.
'Stock ain't broke'?).
Of course, this list is the "Choir"; the uneducated and unknowing are
not with us ;-)
Enough for now - back to my other windmills............
Scott Meyers
|