Mark Shaw wrote:
> What is interesting about the term "competition" is that it is defined as
> involving somebody else. If nobody shows up you are simply not competing.
I disagree. You can be in competition for year ending points, in which
case it doesn't require that you be at any event to be in competition.
You can be in competition with your own times and personal best. You can
be competing for what some recognize as the first goal in racing, that
is "showing up". I often find myself competing against someone in a
different class, just that George Doganis or Gary Thomason may not know
that I am. 8-)
I am all for not giving out trophies for everyone. But this is still
competing. What difference does it make if 4 other new drivers show up
in your class and you still win? Is that anymore a competition? Not to
And I *really* do not like easily winning a class....but if someone else
wins one, more power to them. How they feel about it is their issue, not
mine to determine.
> Now if you want to call it something else, like a "demonstration" then
> maybe everybody is entitled to getting a trophy for making a good demo.
> But don't call it getting a trophy for competing.
> Every entrant has the option to seek out a competitor at the event. Nobody
> says they HAVE TO run by themselves. They can bump themselves to the next
> class in the rule book so that they could have some competition (see above)
> but they CHOSE NOT to do that. Why? Because they might get beat by a
> supposedly better car? Hmmm...
We can't bump into a new group. It does not work that way here or
nationally. Fortunately, locally we can run in a pax class against good
drivers, but I can only do that if I can run in the afternoon, which is
> So, someone gets pissed and leaves because they have to be bumped to class
> where they loose all the time; and we call that a shame.
I don't call it that. I think that person needs to keep the proper
attitude and have fun.
On the other hand
> when a person in a poorly classed car that always gets beat complains,
> rather than provide them a class of their own they are told that's the way
> it is and they can leave if they don't like it.
Because I think we know that some people are going to show up in the
best car for the class and still get beat. If they complain then, what
do we do? The answer is not to class every car, but to try to make sure
they have a good time and maintain a good attitude. It is a hobby. What
we do for fun.
Isn't that sort of selective
> as to who can "compete" in their own class? Ooops, I forgot, one person
> is supporting one of those "blessed" classes; and the other is not.
The whole classing system is inherently selective. I am not sure what
else you mean by this.
> If fun were indeed the main ingredient of this sport, and bureaucratic BS
> is a bad thing, then why do we have an ever-expanding rulebook with
> more and more restrictions?
Because sometimes we need that bureaucratic BS to make sure everyone is
having fun. You make the leap that the BBS is a bad thing. That is
simplistic thinking, IMHO.
And why does it take an act of God to get
> a car re-classed or get a new class established, such as is finally in
> process for SP?
Well, I guess we can call the SEB/SCAC GOD, but I think it has some
inertia in making changes because it should. The worst thing we can do
is make lots of changes, reacting to many inputs, quickly. Then we upset
the serious folk who have put in a lot of time and energy into this
Are you sure you are having fun in this sport?