Howdy,
On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Rocky Entriken wrote:
> I find "I'm not going to buy the rules until I know that I fit in them"
> humorous for two reasons.
>
> 1. The arrogance of someone who puts a lot of "stuff" in/on his car, then
> expects the rulebook to fit the project instead of finding out what the
> rules are and building to the book. It's a I-class concept (*I* want a class
> for the car *I* have that *I* can win with).
>
> 2. The way the SCCA Solo II rules are -- and even moreso now with ST and
> SM -- there is just about nothing out there that is not legal in SOME class
> (with the possible exception of a Suzuki Samurai and other top-heavy SUVs).
> It may not be legal in the class you wanted to be in, but it is legal in
> SOMEthing, even if that something ends up being DM or EM. Or AM.
I didn't read it that way. The way I read it was more like:
"I have no desire to spend $15 to find out that this car I built won't be
allowed to run at an autox. Autocrossing sounds interesting, but its not
why I built the car. If I can't easily determine if I'll be allowed to
play, the hell with it."
Your point #2 above is only clear to someone that has the rules (and the
willingness to fairly completely read them), and is still incorrect.
Witness the guy in CA with the Lotus Elise that had to get a special
dispensation to run in _any_ class.
There's no downside to publishing the rules on the web. The financial
loss is at best a red herring given that newspapers have been publishing
on the web with no affects to circulation and given that it totally
ignores the idea that the person we're all talking about might have come
to an autox, fallen in love, and joined the SCCA if only he'd been able to
determine if he was welcome at an event.
MHO.
Mark
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|