Chris Shepard wrote:
> I attended a meeting of the CDR (RMDIV) region a few weeks
> ago and was surprised to hear that a fellow there actually
> _liked_ the huge events.
Why the surprise? What is your definition of "huge?"
> Quite an eye-opener
> for me, somebody who just likes the sport for the sake of the
> sport and doesn't _really_ care who wins.
Hold that thought. We'll be returning to it later.
> That encounter set me to thinking about the two very different
> mindsets involved, and how it's practically counterproductive
> to have Mr. Competitor and Mr. Purekicks running in the same
> event.
I think this is where you're mistaken. You're attempting to
reduce what a continuum of attitudes to simple polar opposites.
There's a spectrum here, not a binary state.
> I'm just "points fodder" for him,
Or not. If you're not pressing him, you probably aren't on his
radar. He's watching the guys who're a real threat to catch him,
not the "just for fun, don't care about times" contingent.
> and his blood-lust
> attitude, to a certain extent, takes some of the fun out of
> it for me.
If your earlier statement is really true, and you're just
"somebody who just likes the sport for the sake of the sport and
doesn't _really_ care who wins," then how can you be bothered by
the attitude of a more serious competitor? Why not run and just
don't compare your times to those of other folks?
> 1 - Solo III wouldn't be points events. The computer wouldn't
> even have to bother PAXing times. No trophies given, no
> season-long standings. Pick up the cones, go home, forget
> that it ever happened (officially).
Lots of regions already have non-points events.
> 2 - The Solo II regs require, I believe, that course designers
> limit speeds to 70 mph. Solo III could drop that to 50 mph, and
> hopefully see a drop in insurance costs.
There's nothing to prevent a region from implementing this on
their own. In my experience, a disproportionate number of the
"just for kicks" types also like the faster courses, though.
> 3 - The slower speeds would increase the number of viable
> (read: physically smaller) sites to choose from.
For many regions, this isn't a matter of choice. If you wanna run
events, you have to run on what's available. The idea that you
get to "choose" a site is, for many regions, a myth.
> 4 - Solo III would be a place where the SCCA admin could
> "play with" the classing structure (and any other sorts of
> rules/regs) without anybody getting bent out of shape, a la
> "try it in Solo III for a year (or one event?) and see how
> it works before making it official in Solo II".
If there are no results, how do you know if a change worked out?
And, if, as you suggest, you codify tighter, slower courses, any
results you do get will be of very limited value.
> I guess what I've suggested here is a day of fun runs on
> pretty tight courses, where you pick up any "test rules" when
> you register.
There's nothing to prevent this happening now. I suggest floating
the proposal with your region and see how it's received.
> Or something like a driver's school without
> official instructors.
Or a "test and tune." Again, this sort of thing is done all the
time now. The rules as they sit are no impediment to it.
> Other people have suggested that the SCCA put on more events
> to help alleviate high attendance,
So far, it isn't apparent to me that _too_many_ competitors is a
widespread problem with Solo II. It's happened in a very few
regions and at two or three Tours this year. Hardly a
justification for sweeping changes, IMHO.
> and this proposal also
> implies more events, but adds a "less attractive" feature
> to both Solo II and Solo III for drivers with different
mindsets.
As I pointed out above, there are more than two possible mindsets
wrt Solo II. For all I know, you may be a good enough driver that
some of your competitors consider you the "serious" type. How
many ways can we afford to parse things to accommodate all the
possibilites?
> If there's a Solo III on Saturday, I'll be there to "get my
> fix", but may then forego Sunday and it's registration of 150+
> truly competitive drivers.
Or, maybe you could suggest a preregistration option to your
region to help reduce the time required at the site. Or (if
you're not already), you can volunteer to help out with
registration and speed things up that way.
> Those same competitors will see
> Saturday as "pure seat time on a nasty little course" and
> perhaps not bother running with "us little guys".
If you "don't care who wins," why would it bother you if they run
with the "little guys?"
<snip remainder>
I don't share your concerns. However, if you can sell your
concept to your region, there's nothing to prevent them
implementing all your suggestions now. Codifying it into the
National rules isn't required or desirable, IMO.
Jay
|