Dennis wrote:
> But I also believed that Street Prepared's ruleset was not
meeting the
> needs of a great many people, and that something had to be done
to change
> that.
Yes, I remember quite well your team.net posts arguing that that
turbos should be opened up in SP. And the "Prussian" vs.
"Bohemian" dissertation. Seems like you were also advocating
ideas for Stock like allowing different cars to do different
modifications to make them more "equal." And calling a protest of
a Stock car with wheels 1" wider than legal a "weenie protest."
It's your history of extreme attitudes towards the Solo II rules
that takes away any credibility you might have with me. I don't
yet see evidence that you're willing to acknowledge the positive
aspects of anything you want to change.
> I am trying to reconcile my desire to reduce the number of
classes with the
> need to serve the SM population.
You've got SM. That's what you lobbied for. Give it time to sink
or swim. If it eventually works, I claim it'll be obvious if it's
taken entries from other classes. If those classes fall below the
established minima at Nats, they're history.
> Many, MANY people have expressed the
> opinion that SM makes for a better SP,
Why does that matter? If someone likes SM better, they can enter
SM.
>and even more take a middle ground,
> where they think SM goes too far; SP goes not far enough.
And, by the same token, SP goes too far for some, while Stock (or
maybe STS now) fails to go far enough. Is this a surprise? Do you
think that _any_ set of prep rules will eliminate the "middle
ground" folks?
> I have been
> unable to find a way whereby we could consolidate SM with SP
To engage in thate thought process, you must first assume that
the eventual consolidation of SM and SP is a desirable result. I
don't think you'll find general agreement with your assumption.
Jay
|