autox
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: A way to reduce some classes

To: <autox@autox.team.net>
Subject: Re: A way to reduce some classes
From: "gs96" <gs96@sgi.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:54:26 -0400
If certain SP classes are "failing" there is a
mechanism (which I'd personally like to tweak) that
deals with that.  The whole concept of an SM/SP
consolidation doesn't make sense to me regardless of
whether SM (at this time!) is turning comparable times
with any particular SP class, or if any SP classes are
under-subscribed.   SM needs time to grow or die on
it's own, and each SP class must be held to the minimum
subscription criteria or be merged with another *SP*
class.   Why complicate it?

Kent Rafferty

Dennis and Jay debate <with some snipping>:

> >Once you have established that Class A and Class B
run equivelent times,
>
> Once again, your argument is based on a completely
false premise: it has _not_ been established what is
the potential of SM. It will be _years_ before that
potential is known. Mixing SM with other classes based
on the times being turned by today's SM cars guarantees
those cars a built-in advantage over their SP
counterparts as their development continues. Of course,
that serves your purpose. But it does nothing for the
sport or for those competitors already competing in
established, successful SP classes.
>
> >Done this way, the sole arbitrator of "success" is
attendance.
>
> Let's leave the classes separate and go by your "sole
arbitrator." That works for me.
>
> >IF
> >this "consolidated classes" idea were put in place,
we'd find out without
> >cost to anybody:
>
> IF you're right, the existing situation - SM as a
supplemental class, SM2 as a Regional experiment - will
demonstrate the viability of the SM concept.
>
> > if the SM rules are more attractive to the
majority, then
> >we'd expect that, over time, CSP, DSP, ESP, and
FSP's raw material would
> >gravitate over to the SM
>
> Absolutely nothing need change for us to see if SM
rules are "more attractive to the majority." You
already got what you originally asked for. If you're
right, then SM will grow on its own, without an
artificial subsidy from class consolidations.
>
> >No matter how it actually plays out, everybody wins:
>
> Wrong. Let's let Darwinism actually work. If SM is
viable, then it will thrive on its own. If SP is _not_
viable, then we'll see declining attendance. The
existing rules provide a means for dealing with
undersubscribed classes, whether they are new or old.

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