>Scott Meyers wrote:
> all I was doing was trying to raise the level of
>awareness for the 'Stock is Stock' philosophy.
Throughout this thread, I've been trying to figure out exactly what you
_don't_ like about the present Stock allowances. So far, the only
specific item you've named is "expensive shocks," yet you readily
acknowledge that requiring dealer-sourced replacements will raise costs.
As a solution, you have, so far, only managed to suggest a claiming rule.
I submit that you have yet to show a problem exists; and that your
proposed solution is a much greater potential problem than anything in
the present system.
>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?
Texas Region has Novice and Street Tire classes. Both have been popular,
but neither has been any sort of panacea. They involve tradeoffs, as do
the national classes.
>If we offered just the SCCA Open classes,
>we might pull half of our current 110 -130 competitors.
Or maybe the novices and street tire competitors would just enter an
available class. That's nothing but speculation. Adding one class allows
one additional group of competitors to get trophies, but when the class
is indexed - as our Novice and Street Tire classes are - there are
intrinsic inequities caused by the index itself. It's not easy explaining
to a new competitor why someone else whose raw time he beat gets a trophy
and he doesn't. There's always the chance that (s)he'll get pissed off
and leave over that issue. I've even seen guys get pissed off and leave
because they were told they couldn't cut doughnuts in the pit area. Hard
as you try, most of the folks who're there for the first time won't be
back.
>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!
As if we all don't have the motivation of improving the sport. To counter
that, there is the equally valid argument that the number of repeat
competitors we have has almost nothing to do with the rules - most
novices don't bother buying a rule book anyway - but is more a function
of the fact that Solo II appeals to a relatively small subset of the
motoring community. Lots of folks try it and simply decide that they
don't like it that much.
If there's a real problem with the Stock allowances, I've yet to hear it
mentioned. I believe James Rogerson's observation about camber bolts has
validity, although that's not much of a cost issue. Some manufacturers
provide more suspension adjustability than others, whether it's "crash
bolts" or spacers under A-arm attachment points or whatever. I don't
necessarily agree that adjustability makes a car into a class overdog.
Hondas are typically unadjustable for camber, yet they've done pretty
well in Stock in spite of that.
Jay
|