[Autox] Class Participation (Part 1)

[Clemens Burger]

Bill,

This is not a law suit, and there is not necessarily a right or wrong 
answer.  Fact is that no matter what timeframe I look at, there are way too 
many classes close enough to the 17-car limit to keep people who are 
seriously interested in those classes from making a step and joining 
them.  I do not need to cherry pick data to show that.  Rule 4.9 is 
counterproductive, and I don't see any use for it.  Rocky has already 
responded with a number of arguments against the rule.  Rule 4.9 is not 
required to make adjustments to classes.  I have not ever seen the rule 
kick in with respect to stock classes, and it seems like they get looked at 
every other year and adjusted on a regular basis anyways.

You said that any number is a compromise.  That is absolutely 
correct.  These numbers are arbitrary.  Why is the number 17 and not 5 or 
10 or 15 or 60?  However, the fact that Rule 4.9 threatens the existence of 
the majority of two entire categories of classes tells me that there is 
something wrong with the rule.  Do we want to ban what I call real race 
cars from Solo competition?  If so, we can move the minimum participation 
requirement up to 30 cars, but that would not be the club that I want to 
belong to.  In my opinion, the Sports Car Club of America needs to give the 
race cars a place to run.  Otherwise, we can rename it to the Miata Club of 
America, the Honda Club of America, or the Subary Club of America.

Also, my posting was a message to team.net, not a letter to the SEB.  I am 
neither trying to change the opinion of the people who believe that the 
minimum participation level should be higher than the current 17-car 
minimum, nor am I making a proposal to the SEB with my post.  However, I am 
trying to point out to people the issues that Rule 4.9 creates, and many 
people I have talked so far have agreed with me.


Clemens

At 08:26 AM 11/4/2009, Bill Fuhrmann wrote:
>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?