Matt Murray wrote:
> As I said: "it won't be easy or
> pretty, and on that basis, may never happen.
> If we are to avoid a class for every possible
> modification, this idea will come into play
> (reorg)."
>
Matt, you have been on the various autocross lists enough to know that this
theme is as old as the sport. Proposals for every concievable level of
preparation are floated on these lists with such regularity that at one time
I kept a file of canned responses. I only had to re-send the same email I
had previously composed and saved in order to prevent having to rewrite it
over and over.
Everybody wants to remake the preparation catagories over in their own image
and thus save us from ourselves. Re-orgs of your magnitude will be resisted
by those so effected because it will devalue the investment they have made
in their cars. Also, did it ever occur to you that maybe those will resist
because they like things the way they are?
> A reorg of this magnitude will require tremendous
> cooperation, compromise, and a willingness
> to improve the structures for the good of the
> sport. If we try we can do it.
>
But why? For what reason is a re-org necessary?
> If SP had the true (current) broad appeal
> you mention, ST and SM would have never
> been created. Those classes formed where
> SP should have evolved, instead of stagnating.
>
Matt, SP is far from stagnating. In fact, SP participation levels are
higher than ever. SP numbers at the two most recent Tours (DC and Peru)
were equivelant to stock catagory numbers. As an example, DSP has produced
so many new SP competitors it was the largest SP class at both events, 15 at
DC and 17 at Peru.
That STS and SM exist do not undermine SP at all. Every preparation
catagory has a life cycle. SP is now mature and as such, the cost to be
competitive has gone up. STS was created as a "lower costs" alternative to
SP. As STS matures, it will follow the same life cycle and the costs will
go up. That STS fills the orginal intent of SP only proves that SP has
matured. To prove my point look at SCCA club racing. Virtually every new
class or catagory created in the last 30 years was done so for the purpose
of lowering costs. Examples: Showroom Stock was supposed to make racing
cheap and accessable. Anybody could go to a dealership, buy a car, bolt in
a cage and go racing. Now days, Showroom Stock is anything but cheap.
Formula Ford, Formula V, Formula 440, Improved Touring all were created for
the same purposes, cheap access to racing. But as the class matured, the
costs went up and it no longer filled the requirement as a cheap place to
race, so a new "cheap/accessable" class was created and the cycle repeats.
As STS matures, people will complain about the costs to compete and propose
a new catagory between STS and Stock. Hopefully, we will have learned a
lesson from STS and not bend to their whining. In fact, by your standards
the Stock catagory has no "broad appeal" because there are people that keep
proposing a "more stock, stock" where alternate swaybars, adjustable shocks,
lightweight wheels and R tires are banned.
You know Matt, you have really giving me a great idea here. Because so many
people are unhappy with Stock, I propose a re-org of the entire Stock
catagory. Just look at all of the problems: R tires, front bars only,
$10,000 adjustable shocks, etc.... Clearly stock is in serious trouble and
the only solution is to re-org the entire catagory. Now I know this will be
painfull and piss off more than half of the current autocrossers but hey,
its something that we have to do. So Matt, you just sit there patiently and
all us SP, Prepared and Mod drivers will come up with a new "Stock"
catagory, or series of catagories, that will solve all of the problems. I
sure you will hate it and fight it to the death, but hey, its for your own
good.
> I am sorry you will be one of those to fight
> a reorg to the death.
>
I didn't say I was. I only challenged your statement of the need for a
re-org. Why do we need a re-org? SP is alive and well and sustaining
itself quite nicely thank you. We should let the market determine what
catagories survive or die. As long as people want to run in SP it will be
successfull. When the grids dwindle to something like prepared attendance
levels, then we need to re-visit the re-org idea.
> I hope you understand this is an "agree to
> disagree" deal on our parts. And a thread
> of this magnitude will be healthy regardless
> of outcome.
>
I don't have a problem dissagreing with you Matt. Do you have a problem
with being wrong? <g>
Steve Hoelscher
#27 DSP
/// 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
|