[Autox] Fw: Rule 4.9

Tue Dec 29 19:22:55 MST 2009

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Charlie Davis <gt40d at yahoo.com>
To: Pat Kelly <lollipop487 at comcast.net>
Sent: Tue, December 29, 2009 6:22:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Autox] Rule 4.9

The ST classes were created because there was a need for them, just as there was a need for SP in the early '80's.  SP filled the bill at the time, but the rules were not far sighted.  Technology surpassed the rules, and a competitive SP car is not street legal in most cases.  SP has become "another Prepared category."

I doubt Dennis Grant had anything to do with ST, Dennis being one of the champions of the Street Mod category.

You are correct that the number of classes has grown faster than the number of people autocrossing, so class density does go down.  My frustration has been the instability in P and M classes that causes people to not gravitate toward them.  I think the Prepared an Mod rulesets have been fairly stable recently, but this constant threat of 4.9 hanging over our heads keeps people from building cars.

Charlie

----- Original Message ----
From: Pat Kelly <lollipop487 at comcast.net>
To: Autox <autox at autox.team.net>
Sent: Tue, December 29, 2009 4:30:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Autox] Rule 4.9

    I've been watching the SEB as it has apparently taken on the job of
reducing the number of classes, coincidentally during the same period of
time when the 'demand' started for the Street Touring classes...to make room
for those new classes.
    Nobody ever asked why the ST classes were created, I think because they
started with guidance from Howard Duncan and, I believe, demand from Dennis
Grant. No one ever said, "there are too many classes." These ST classes made
decent places for AWD and FWD cars.
   When a newbie shows up with a particular car, they will look at the rules
to see where his/her car fits best, and Howard was right, the newbies liked
the new rules and opted for them.
    My real question is: why do anything about low class numbers? If the SEB
keeps adding classes, of course, some will drop, others will grow. Depends
on how many folks they appeal to. If you read many of the chat groups, there
is a strong demand for 'real' street tire classes, yet we all have
difficulty defining a street tire (until it works for my MY class). :)
    I'm not bothered by low entry in a particular class.
--Pat K

> From: Paul and Meredith Brown <l8apexrs at q.com>
> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:30:50 -0700
> To: <rjbfspso at sbcglobal.net>, Autox <autox at autox.team.net>
> Subject: Re: [Autox] Rule 4.9
> 
> I agree 100% with Bob here.
> 
> 
> 
> Letters to the SEB are useful if they contain actual solutions, not just
> complaining.  Nor is sheer volume of any particular use other than to show
> that there is some level of interest in the issue - if there isn't a
> reasonable solution (either obvious by itself or suggested by at least one of
> the letters) then the SEB may be in a position of just being able to agree
> with the letter-writers that there is a problem, thank them for their input,
> and go on with applying whatever rule is in force.
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, it doesn't seem that simply reducing the required numbers is a
> real solution.  When the participation numbers continue to go down, then
> you'll be back in this situation later on asking for a further reduction in
> the requirement.  Rocky does present a solution, but it's very much imperfect;
> I've already responded as to why I don't think it's really a great approach.
> It might be the best one that can be implemented, and may be a crutch for a
> bad situation, but I still think that improving participation in the
> low-turnout classes is still the right approach.  And yes, some sort of "soft
> landing" for an ailing class may help to reduce the losses and help encourage
> people to make a commitment to a class that may be on the edge now.
> 
> 
> 
> This all from someone who will be starting a 10th year in E Stock soon rather
> than taking the leap to a CP car  :-)
> 
> 
> 
>> Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 06:25:05 -0800
>> From: rjbfspso at sbcglobal.net
>> To: autox at autox.team.net
>> Subject: [Autox] Rule 4.9
>> 
>> All these proposals are a possible step forward. The currant Rule 4.9
>> discourages participation and will eliminate classes based on participation
>> numbers alone.
>> 
>> Rocky's proposal is a step forward but in my oppinion may only
>> delay for a few more years what Rule 4.9 would do now.
>> 
>> What is truly needed
>> is a thorough and sincere discussion by the SEB and the SOLO comunity as to
>> why class numbers are low and what can be done about it.
>> 
>> Bob Barone
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
> 
> Autox mailing list
> 
> http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/autox
> 
> http://www.team.net/archive
> 
> You are subscribed as lollipop487 at comcast.net
Autox mailing list

http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/autox

http://www.team.net/archive

You are subscribed as gt40d at yahoo.com