Jeff Blankenship wrote:
>
> Paul Foster writes:
>
> > I know you drive a Neon but try to look at this a bit objectively.
>
> <snip>
>
> > The first step is no more closed door sessions at either the National or
> > Regional level. Until that happens I shall continue to have my doubts,
>
> Easier said than done. The cost of documenting and reporting every
> "closed door" session is greater than you or I would likely be willing
> to pay, not to mention the hindrance it would impose on just trying to get
> things done. Shady deals will eventually show up on someone's bottom line.
> When someone presents evidence, then I'll get pissed, not before.
Well, this is the funny part. The 'shady deals" are showing up on Solo's
bottom line. For at least the last 2 years it has been reported at the
National Convention that Solo is losing a lot of money. I contend it is
the bookkeeping practices that allow the powers that be to hide the
losses of USRRC, SCCA Enterprises, Pro Racing, and the other
boondogggles. Until the SCCA gives proper accounting for _all_
departments and corporations whether they are nonprofit or not, this
kind of game will continue. And expect more of your autocrossing dollars
to end up in Denver's pockets in the future.
>
> > particularly when a program such as SS is ruined after Chrysler showed
> > up with the Neon and lots of contingency money (and more) to throw
> > around.
>
> This is an objective observation? Was SS ruined when neons appeared and
> started winning (misclassed or not), or was it ruined when the losers
> (individuals, corporations, both? I dunno, but I'd expect better
> sportmanship and financial sense from the individuals) whined for crutches
> and the SCCA caved in and gave them some? I assume you like the former and
> I like the latter. Here's why I feel that way. I saw parity in SSB, heck,
> Miatae came out on top at the runoffs in a big way. I'm not as well-
> informed about the nearest competitors in SSC. But I definitely think the
> cure was worse than the disease. I dare say, despite my professed
> ignorance, reclassing SSC neons would have satisfied more people in the end.
> But the SCCA itself showed a trend towards modding the SS classes when they
> approved cat-back exhausts and updated struts. It turned into Pandora's
> box. I think the animosity towards Chrysler is misdirected.
I have no animosity towards Chrysler and the Neon. They built a heck of
a car for minimal bucks. But they also blew away the parity that was
there before. I blame the SCCA for misclassing it in SSC instead of SSB.
And when it became dominant they did nothing until SS was effectively
ruined. Then they overreacted with the trunk kits.
>
> You all might notice that I'm probably not making friends with the neon
> drivers, the exhaust and strut allowances gave a lot of neons a hand. They
> are now clamoring for bigger and better trunk kits, right alongside the
> worst of them, and I can't get behind them.
>
> I have a slight hope that the trunk kit content morass will get so
> completely out of control that the good old-fashioned business of classing
> stock cars begins to look appealing.
>
> This is my opinion, for better or worse. I somehow take perverse pleasure
> in being able to piss off everyone equally.
LOL! I agree that trunk kits gotta go. But I'm afraid it is too late.
The SCCA has decided that attempting parity by constantly changing the
ground rules is the way to go. This works fairly well in pro racing
series where there is even more sponsor pressure and an even greater
need to achieve parity to attract the car vendors. But it is apparently
too much to ask for at the amateur level.
What is the simple answer? When someone comes to the SCCA with a
superior new car make a spec class for it. The Neon Challenge is
fantastic. So was the Corvette Challenge. Why does the SCCA want to ruin
it by combining different cars from various vendors? I think the answer
is money and power. If you look at British road racing you see a lot
more spec classes. And they are all very successful. After all, it is
the easy way to achieve parity.
Paul Foster
|