In a message dated 11/23/98 9:32:04 AM Pacific Standard Time,
billsohl@mailhost2.planet.net writes:
<< I think we all recognize that the broad brush of
SCCA racing is far removed from club or amateur
racing. It takes big $$$ to compete at that
level on a repeated and consistent basis. Just look
at the $$$ that went into Group 44, Bob Sharp's
Datsun/Nissan efforts, etc...... >>
<snip>It would be nice to see SCCA, Inc. make public the role
of the manufactures in the organization and the related decisions.
It would allow people to see if more competitors were being hurt
than helped by the money involved.
I enjoyed limited factory support,
but it did not, most likely, offset the additional expense of being
competitive with teams with greater support (such as the MGBs,
and non JRT cars).
BTW: Mike L. Cook raced a TR3 in SCCA for some time, and has
always been friendly to our team. I wonder if we are mentioned in
his book?
Our team does not have the win ratio of GP44, but we did qualify for
the runoffs 25 straight times, and ran the event 23 times. Many
people would be shocked to learn how little money we had to do
this amount of very serious racing; although I admit to spending
many thousands of hours on the effort, and having an amazing amount
of dedicated volunteer help.
In reality, our TR3 was more recently assembled than much of the class,
and it generated much positive publicity for SCCA, Inc.
What was the name of the SiFi movie were they disposed of all people above
a certain age?
The issue is that SCCA, Inc. needs to have a publicly stated policy
about the control of manufactures, so that the majority can decide what is
in the best interest of the organization. It would also help individual
people
decide how large an investment of time and money to make in SCCA
related activities. (Hi CEO Craw)
Hardy Prentice
|