Mike Dickerson wrote:
>In a message dated 10/18/99 6:42:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>jemitchell@compuserve.com writes:
<then misattributes to me a quote from Dennis>
>There is a point here. The reason why I did not get involved in
Southern
>California autocrossing was the very reason made here: Three
runs, wahoo,
>then two hours chasing cones.
That's autocross. If you think about it, there are not a lot of
options to substantially change that.
>If it was early, bonus. If not, my
>day was shot. For three runs, the fun factor was not worth it.
That's certainly a decision you're entitled to make. My personal
view has always been that I am happy to devote the occasional
entire Sunday to a hobby. Autocross is a lot like many other
activities in that regard. Ever take kids to Six Flags/Didney
World? For maybe 3-4 minutes "seat time," you get to stand in
line for 5-6 hours and spend more than $50/person, not counting
hotel and/or travel costs. By comparison, Solo II looks pretty
good to me.
>Road racing, for the worker, provides a higher excitement level
>and therefore is much more entertaining.
No argument there.
>Many newbies just don't want, nor can they justify
>spending the entire day for 10 minutes of thrills, two hours of
work, and
>their pockets at least $20.00 lighter.
I submit that they just don't like Solo II, then. Not everybody
does, nor should they. I think that's what some of the
"marketers" among us fail to grasp.
> The era of those type of car nuts (I
>am guilty, as my wife will attest), are long gone.
If that were true, I submit that Solo II attendance would be on
the wane. To the contrary, in the Regions in which I have lived,
it is growing.
Jay
|