Paul writes:
> If the SEB had created SM and the exclusion list we would not be having
> this discussion. And yes, I think the 4 seats in the 944 are as
> comfortable as those found in the DSM and the Supra Turbo. Don't you? I
> think those cars have more in common than a lot of the other sedanish
> cars in the class, but so what? Are we deciding which cars to include
>
I can give you some insight into STOCK classification philosophy, and I think
the philosophy that extends to SP, and probably SM. Certain makes of cars
are seen as being "greater than the sum of their parts." Porsches are
generally seen to be one of those makes. Look at the handling of a
924S/944/968, for instance. It's pretty incredible, even in the heavier
versions. Add to that the cost to prepare a Porsche and the perception
becomes that you have to have a mega-dollar Porsche to win the class. Yes,
we deal with "perception" all the time. Pretty soon you have a class with 4
rich guys in Porsches and nothing else. That's not what SCCA is about.
Sometimes the job of SCCA committees and boards is trying to determine how to
satisfy the largest number and piss off the fewest. In general, you can
satisfy much larger numbers of people by excluding Porsches than by including
them.
CHD
|