OK, I am learning my lesson Roger, don't get involved...: )
I am making statements as a realist. If you want me to blow smoke up your butt,
I can do that too, bit it isn't my style. For you to ask for the classing
structure to be "fair to every single competitor" to me means that you want
every car to have a *chance* to win. I don't see how that statement could mean
anything else. It isn't possible to do that, period.
Let's talk about what classes we have and 'cars of the month' shall we?
SS 1993 RX-7
AS 1995 968
BS 1999 Miata
CS 1991 MR-2
DS 1996 Neon
ES 1994 Celica
FS 1995 Camaro
GS 1998 Integra
HS 1995 Celica
What do all these "New" cars have in common? They all won Nationals in 1999.
With the exceptions of BS and GS, seems as if a 6 year note shouldn't be a
problem...
I have NEVER heard the demand from a competitor asking for a structure that
allows a structure that will allow them to "grow thier car with their skills."
Seems as if a decent % of the top drivers are IN stock.
I would WELCOME all ideas for new classing structures. This is a HARD job, let
me tell you. If I thought it was possible to do a mathematical formula to class
cars, I would have tried it by now. I welcome your ideas - and don't just send
it to NAP, send it to the SCCA.
Hey PW: right in my Cornflakes...
And as a true realist sent me privately, the new slogan for classing this year
at Nationals should read: "1000 in 2000".
AB
"George Ryan" <quad4fiero@webzone.net> on 07/15/2000 04:46:12 PM
To: Andrew Bettencourt/FIELD SALES/Kingston@Kingston, "jon e prevo"
<tcbracer@juno.com>
cc: autox@autox.team.net, "NASA" <nasa@wco.com>
Subject: Fair Classing for everybody is ridiculous? (was Fiero classing)
Andy Bettencourt made a statement in his letter, wait! - - I will quote
it "To say that there should be fair classing for every single competitor
is frankly, ridiculous." - what a crude satement to make publically! On
the contrary, That SHOULD be the goal, and that should be how the
classing is done!!
You see, all one needs to do is ask - - "what do the competitors
want?" - - instead of dictating to them.
They want a class that they can play in that is fair and equitable to
all. Everybody, each and every competitor wants that!! Just so they
have a chance, even if they do not have the "car of the month" (or
whatever drives the incessant changing of class structure in this
organization).. They want a classing system that is so stable that they
can continue to have equality and fun 2 or 3 years down the road,
entirely until their 6 year note is paid!! They do not especially wish
to trade cars annually in order to stay "in there".
Example - I had a 1993 Probe GT. Remember them :-). I ran this
car in GS whenever my "P" car was broke - which was often - or, at
certain sites where the "P" car was not any fun to drive. It was a
winner
for a couple years. Then, the 3.8 Camaro V6 came along, and then the
turbo DSM's in GS. How competitive was this car in 1998, when my
60 month note paid out and it was time to trade? How competitive in
GS is the Probe GT now??
They (the competitor) want a system that allows them to grow their car
with their skills - in the SCCA system it would be directly from Stock to
Street Touring,(or is it Street Modified - - I get so confused!!) to Street
Prepared, to Prepared, to Modified. There is no way that can happen,
with ANY marque, in the current SCCA classing system.
I will stop right here and add "ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL" This
sport is about having fun, and honing skills. But if one shows up in a
Neon in ES on day-one, he will probably be able to beat the competent
competitor with years of experience in an ES 2.5L Fiero after 2 or three
events. That, sir, is not the driver, it is inequitable classing!!
No, I don't advocate 100 classes. I advocate fewer catagories, and fewer
classes. I advocate a system that uses such criteria as power to weight
(torque is a factor, as it is also power), wheelbase, tire size, wheel
track,
and suspension type (adjustability would be a factor) dictating who runs
against whom. A simple math formula could do most of that!!
No brand loyalty here - simple mathematics. A 200hp, 3200lb early Camaro
will NOT run against a newer 305hp version, instead it may run against a
200hp 3.8 V6 version of the newer Camaro.
One will not have to run a heavier car with less power against a lighter car
with more power because of brand name. One would not have to watch a
car with everything else pretty equal come in with a turbo (the DSM?) to
the class, etc. One would not have to be made instant underdog by a stroke
of the pen.
I am working up a class structure - - for another organization - - that will
address these issues. Based on entirely different criteria, it seems, than
the
SCCA uses. It doesn't even have the same catagories. That, in itself, makes
it an easier task. Not to say it will be used, but it is a proposal none the
less.
When I have completed my proposal, I will write an article to the NA Pylon,
under the heading "Fighting City Hall" and share it with you (if the Kelly's
see
fit to print it).
G
----- Original Message -----
From: <Andrew_Bettencourt@kingston.com>
To: jon e prevo <tcbracer@juno.com>
Cc: <quad4fiero@webzone.net>; <autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2000 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Fiero classing
>
>
> You know what? I think this view is great...but not possible. We HAVE
two
> classes that older cars are at the top...CS and what will be the 'new GS'
of
> Class 8. Just because the Fiero isn't the cream that has risen to the top
> doesn't mean this "organization" hasn't made every possible attempt.
>
> To say that there should be fair classing for every single competitor is
> frankly, ridiculous. How many stock classes would you have then? 100?
200?
> We have 9. How would YOU rearrange things to make EVERY car
competitive? -
> Because that is what you want...
>
> AB
>
>
>
>
>
> jon e prevo <tcbracer@juno.com> on 07/15/2000 09:50:55 AM
>
> Please respond to jon e prevo <tcbracer@juno.com>
>
> To: quad4fiero@webzone.net
> cc: autox@autox.team.net, strano@stranosports.com (bcc: Andrew
> Bettencourt/FIELD SALES/Kingston)
>
> Subject: Re: Fw: Fiero classing
>
>
>
>
> I have read this thread with somewhat dissociated interest, as I have
> never even driven a Fiero and have no opinion on the subject. However,
> George has made a point I feel I must agree with publicly, and I actually
> think the issue in a nutshell comes down to this one point...
>
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 08:31:18 -0500 "George Ryan" <quad4fiero@webzone.net>
> writes:
> > I am sure the Fiero is not the only car, but the SCCA needs to
> > recognize
> > the value of the oldies. There are more of us in this organization
> > that do
> > not subscribe to the "car of the moment" theory of competition. If
> > this
> > organization cannot understand that there needs to fair classing for
> > every
> > single competitor, not just classes set up for the "car of the
> > moment" and
> > the rest (read "oldies") are fodder, then maybe it is time for a
> > new
> > organization to pop up, with new rules and new classing structures.
>
> This was the concensus when I started the "Corvette vs. Datsun" BSP
> thread a few months ago, and it is an issue which should be addressed.
> Why are the rules designed to a bias toward newer cars? Does SCCA owe
> some allegience to new car manufacturers which forces them to classify
> the hot, new cars, being pushed to the front of the market, more
> favorably than the older cars? No, but SCCA markets those cars anyway
> through unfairly biased classing.
>
> Having thrown in my $.02, I will now return to my corner.
>
> Jon FP 73
> F Prepared is dominated by 15-25 year old, low-tech antiquities.
>
>
>
>
>
>
|