Odd, my 300ZX is specifically EXCLUDED from one of the SCCA's classes
because it *IS* "sports car based" (SM), so the implication that the SCCA is
intended specifically for "Sports Cars" doesn't hold water. Heck, second
place for the GRM $1500 challenge was a minivan, quite an eye opening
performance, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it repeated in an SM entry.
I agree, excluding vans, SUVs, pickups and the like won't cause a lot of
people much grief, and should probably be done to clarify things. They gray
areas are getting rather wide, especially with all the new
not-quite-a-car/suv/pickup things soon to be coming out from various
manufacturers, so devising some sort of measurable rule like Bill suggested
would make sense.
-Carl
> ----------
> From: Smokerbros@aol.com[SMTP:Smokerbros@aol.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 7:59 PM
> To: billh@pa.dec.com; ba-autox@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: Vehicle eligibility...
>
> In a message dated 10/19/2000 10:26:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> billh@pa.dec.com writes:
>
> << I'm not claiming this formula is perfect, but I think it's better than
> excluding vehicles based on appearance. >>
>
> As SPORTS CAR Club of America official, I think we're going to make very
> small number of people unhappy if we exclude vans, SUVs, and most pickup
> trucks (including mine)
>
> For some reason, there's a segment of the population that thinks a
> mathematical
> formula can solve any situation. I'm of the school that believes they
> solve
> very few of our situations in SCCA.
>
> CHD
>
|