[Autox] Class Participation (Part 1)

[Bill Fuhrmann]

I don't think you have proven your case.
Are you cherry picking data?
How about 3-5 years of the most recent participation lists (with notes if
rules changes would have moved cars to a different class?

What number are you proposing?  You said that 5 is too low, what about 10?
What about 15?  
Everything you say about 17 can be said about 10.
Any number is a compromise, what makes your unchosen number better than 17?

How much do you think the SEB is going to listen to letters that say.
"This rule stinks, replace it with something else but we have no clue what."
You neeed to make a complete proposal. 
Otherwise they can say 16.5 and your wish has been granted.

I have been away from autocross for a long time and never was part of the
SCCA.
I have no play in the rule either way but feel that I understand it enough
to play devil's advocate.

The rule does not suddenly drop classes.  It gives them three years.
Knowing that autocrossers will read the letter of the law to benefit them,
all the class die hards have to do is get together and bring road kill to
drive their cars every three years to reset the clock.
If I had written the rule, it probably would have been based on a three year
average to avoid the years being 10-10-17.

Again, what is your solution?



> -----Original Message-----
> From: autox-bounces at autox.team.net 
> [mailto:autox-bounces at autox.team.net] On Behalf Of Clemens Burger
> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 7:32 PM
> To: autox at autox.team.net
> Subject: [Autox] Class Participation (Part 1)
> 
> I sent a message to this list couple weeks ago, but I 
> received a return message that, at 10 kB, it was too large, 
> and it was being reviewed by the moderator (like this list is 
> suffering from too much content).  It appears the the message 
> was never approved, and I never heard back from the moderator 
> as promised in the automated reply, despite follow-ups.  I 
> guess the next best option is to break up the message.  Here it goes:
> 
> 
> I posted the message shown below on SCCAForums a little while 
> ago.  However, things are so fragmented now with various 
> discussion forums and social networks, that I suspect that 
> only a very limited number of people have seen this 
> information.  I can see the number of views, but the majority 
> of those are repeated views by the same people.  I estimate 
> that the number of different people who have looked at this 
> thread is somewhere below 200.  Things were so much easier 
> 10-15 years ago when Team.net was the only option...
> 
> Anyway, below is a copy of my message about Rule 4.9 in the 
> hope that a few more people get a chance to see this and 
> learn about some of the effects this rule has.  Hey, maybe we 
> can even get a few more letters written to the SEB (the 
> address is seb at scca.com), in which people state their 
> positions on this rule.  I really want something done about 
> this rule since I don't think it is good for the sport the 
> way it is written, and my understanding is that the SEB 
> generally only reacts to letters, and only if they come in in 
> large quantities.  Therefore, if you believe that Rule 4.9 
> has issues, please support with a letter to the SEB.
> 
> Thanks for listening.
> 
> 
> Clemens
> 
> 
> "An observing person attending the 2009 Solo National 
> Championship in Lincoln probably noticed that a number of 
> cars displayed stickers that looked like this:
> 
> (can't show a picture here, the 3"x3" sticker shows the test 
> "Rule 4.9" 
> inside a red circle with a red line through it)
> 
> I assume that not everyone is fully aware of what these 
> stickers are about, and I want to explain. Rule 4.9 appears 
> on page 33 of the 2009 Solo Rulebook and is titled "Minimum 
> Participation Level for National Classes":
> 
> "If in three consecutive years at the Solo National 
> Championship a class fails to field a combined total (Open 
> and Ladies) of at least seventeen
> (17) entrants, then for the following year that class will be 
> consolidated, eliminated, or restructured, using competition 
> adjustments (for example, weights and/or wheel sizes) if 
> necessary and applicable within the affected category."
> 
> As far as I understand, this rule was put in place to ensure 
> "deep" classes and tight competition. It may have also been 
> an attempt to give competitors an idea of how classes will be 
> adjusted. I am sure this rule was well-intended, but it has a 
> very negative effect on a number of classes. 
> Rather than driving competition, it is threatening entire 
> categories of classes. To illustrate the problem, here are 
> some of the entry numbers from the 2008 National Championships:
> 
> AM 10 cars
> BM 14 cars
> CM 16 cars
> DM 18 cars
> EM 18 cars
> DP 17 cars
> EP 23 cars
> FP 15 cars
> GP 18 cars
> XP 16 cars
> ASP 20 cars
> BSP 15 cars
> 
> to be continued.....
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
> 
> Autox mailing list
> 
> http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/autox
> 
> http://www.team.net/archive