autox
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: C4 - The Novel

To: autox@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: C4 - The Novel
From: dg50@daimlerchrysler.com
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 10:35:50 -0400
rjohnson@friendlynet.com writes:

At last, a voice of authority chimes in.

What kept you? :)

> 1.)  The creation of a VS is inadvisable.

This particular opinion carries a lot of weight, because Roger drives an SS C4
'vette Nationally, and (one assumes) has regular contact with other C4
drivers/owners. He's one of "them" and he's one of "us".

> "Build it and they will come" will work no better with the members of NCCC
> (Corvette Club) than will the creation of STU

"BIATWC" *never* works in a vacuum - which is the primary reason why ST got off
to a slow start. Those that build *must* be part of the population they intend
to attract, and they *must* do more - much more - than scribble down a few rules
in a rule book. The people who wrote the ST rules didn't actually belong to the
ST population, and so they got some stuff wrong.

STU has some things that "VS" or "Mustang-II" does not. STU actually has a
population of non-SCCA members *asking* for it. STU has a core (a small core,
but growing) of people who intend to promote the class within their Region, and
who will be competing in the class. And STU is already on the books for every
major series save the National Championships.

STU isn't a case of "BIATWC" - it's a case of taking the ball on an existing
class and running with it.

Incidently, wasn't there a "Spec Pinto" class at the Ft Myers Pro? ;)

> 2.)  Recall the argument for the creation of ST - this was another
> "BIATWC" claim; then examine the entry list for that class at the Solo
> II Nationals -- primarily entrants who had previously run elsewhere,
> thereby diluting competition in their (former) classes.

But if they switched, then their "former" classes didn't provide them with
something they wanted. By switching, they somehow improved their lives. How is
this bad?

And furthermore, this was the first year that ST was offered at Nationals -
because the competitors wrote in and demanded it, I might add. Nationals
competitors are normally *not* newbies. I figure that for every National
competitor, there's 10 more back in his home Region that don't/haven't done
Nationals.

It takes time to get newbies to the point where they'll drive 5000km to Kansas
for 6min of seat time. Next year, I expect that the number of new faces (as in,
Nationals rookies) will roughly double, as those '99 competitors bring a new
face along with them next year. It takes a Nationals competitor to make a
Nationals competitor.

Rome wasn't built in a day... don't you remember? :)

> Lots of my friends enjoy golf, and don't understand why I
> don't play - but I don't see them changing the rules and the equipment
> allowances to entice me to join them. . . . .

Because there is no other good use for golf equipment than golf. Cars, on the
other hand, can be roadraced, autocrossed, hillclimbed, oval-tracked, rallied,
smashed into each other, monster-trucked, eaten by giant mechanical dinosaurs,
and even used as daily transportation.

In the absence of golf courses, there is no other good use for a golf club. In
the absence of autocross, a car can still be used for some sort of recreational
activity.

I agree though, that no matter how large the population we intend to attract,
that we will never get all of them. But then, we don't NEED all of them. Any
class that can have 20 car classes Regionally, Divisionally, and Nationally is a
success.

> 5.)  Another claim of the BIATWC crowd is that the (proposed) class is
> necessary for the growth of the sport.

There's more to growth than just raw numbers though Roger.

What is the average age of each class at Nationals this year? What was the
average age of each class in '89? Is that number getting larger, or smaller?

If the average age of the typical autocross participant is increasing, then we
have a problem. That number cannot increase without bounds; we must not only
attract *more* people, but we need to attract *younger* people. An 18 year old
newbie is worth more than a 65 year old newbie, because the 18 year old will be
available to the sport longer.

Time for some of our grizzled historian type to crunch some numbers. :)

DG



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>