SCCAForums.com

47CP:

Andy,

What resources are being wasted by having these smaller classes?  I understand and agree that too small of a class removes the value of a National championship, but beyond that, they are not taking away anything from the other competitors at the event when running, are they?

Respectfully,

DaveW 

Ask me that question after you have served your full term on the SEB.

The amount of work for P & M over the past five years has been inordinant compared to that of other categories.  Which is backwards compared to the amount of participation. 

IF "small classes are ok", then why just these?  Why do we require new classes to jump through all kinds of hoops to become real.  New classes must make 25+ entries for 3 of 4 years at Nats.  That's HUGE!   If "small classes are ok", why stop at P&M?  Why not add a few more S, SP, and ST classes, too?  That would certainly make a lot more people happy than we get from small P&M classes?

And don't get me wrong, I'm not against having P&M classes.  I just personally believe they should be combined to maintain some sort of critical mass.

--Andy

Andy Hollis:

...The class participation guidelines don't say "your class goes away".  They suggest when *something* should be done, like consolidation.  And if the latter can be done in an equitable way, everyone wins.  Participants get actual people to run against for a change.  This *is* a competition, right?  Or is it a social club?

--Andy

PS: I'll add one to your list of why P has fewer participants.  It reflects old-school thinking on how people naturally progress their cars these days, outside of SCCA rules.  Before R-compounds, to go significantly faster you *had* to go to slicks. And for that, you built a "real race car".  There was nothing in between.  Now, many factory cars are already very close to "real race cars" in equipment and resultant performance.  Add R-compounds and you are running very quickly indeed.  And for some lowered powered cars, add forced induction or a motor swap, and you are running as fast as Prepared.  These are the things people do for the street.  P is a dinosaur in this regard, as it does not reflect popular culture.  And, as you say, its a much longer development road to get there.  Today's generations are into immediate gratification.  Building a P car is anything but, unfortunately.  Some embrace that, while most will choose otherwise.

One of the problems with this is that nobody trusts the SEB to fix it in an equitable way. This argument isn't about changing the number of competitors, it's about keeping the SEB away from their beloved classes.

On the second topic you brought up, that P cars are too old-school to be atractive - that's true. The two biggest rules that I think drive me away from Prepared classes are the wheel size penalties and the heavy minimum weights. I think that today, it's easier to build a lightweight car and the weights are not much if any barrier to entry or barrier to competitiveness. A stroll around the grid at Nationals showed that almost ALL P cars had ballast bolted in. Both P cars that I considered building, a DP Miata with a 1.8 engine, and an XP Lotus Europa with a 1.6 or 1.8 engine will have to receive signifigant ballast. The XP car will have to add at least 300 lbs to the STOCK weight to use a 1.8 liter engine. I'll likely have 400+ lbs of steel plate in it to make it legal.

StrokerAce:

This is way to easy to cure for the SEB to do the right thing. <snip>  Set a minimum level for nationals... If people [don't] enter, late tough tetons. It would be a self correcting behavior. Put the bee on the competitors to get their competition to come. If the class fails to meet for a certain number of years 2-5? make the combination...

I thought they had - 17 for 2 year...  Now that the system is working, people are complaining.   

modernbeat:

One of the problems with this is that nobody trusts the SEB to fix it in an equitable way. This argument isn't about changing the number of competitors, it's about keeping the SEB away from their beloved classes.

Then why do P & M competitors do the following: 1) Write letters asking for changes, and 2) protest competitors for differing interpretations on the rules?  The former clearly invites rules change directly, while the latter usually does when the rules cited are not clear and generate clarifications (welcome to DM/EM aero, for example).  The DM/EM section of the rulebook is freakin' HUGE for a class featuring highly modified cars and it grows every year.

If you don't trust the rulesmakers, don't ask them to rule on anything.  But be satisfied with what you have.  The problem seems to be that the existing curmudgeons don't want anything changed "in their beloved" class, as you say, but those are the very things that keep new blood from embracing the classes.  Interesting conundrum.

--Andy

PS: Just saw this thread: Why B-Mod needs to change

modernbeat:

One of the problems with this is that nobody trusts the SEB to fix it in an equitable way. This argument isn't about changing the number of competitors, it's about keeping the SEB away from their beloved classes.

Wow.  Just, well, WOW.  It's nice to know that myself, and my colleagues, who volunteer our time to try to HELP THIS CLUB can't be "trusted."  Thanks for the not-so-subtle reminder!

On the second topic you brought up, that P cars are too old-school to be atractive - that's true. The two biggest rules that I think drive me away from Prepared classes are the wheel size penalties and the heavy minimum weights. I think that today, it's easier to build a lightweight car and the weights are not much if any barrier to entry or barrier to competitiveness. A stroll around the grid at Nationals showed that almost ALL P cars had ballast bolted in. Both P cars that I considered building, a DP Miata with a 1.8 engine, and an XP Lotus Europa with a 1.6 or 1.8 engine will have to receive signifigant ballast. The XP car will have to add at least 300 lbs to the STOCK weight to use a 1.8 liter engine. I'll likely have 400+ lbs of steel plate in it to make it legal.

My Spec Miata requires significant ballast, and I weigh 205.  Does that make Spec Miata broken by design?  I don't think so. 

Sure, XP appears to be a little bit busted in some ways on how the minimum weights work in some cases.  It's a relatively new class, though, and still going through some growing pains.  But I think that simply using the argument that you "have" to add ballast isn't a great one.  Everyone in a minimum weight class should want to be adding some amount of ballast.  You usually get to put it in a good place, at least.  Plus it leaves you cheeseburger wiggle room.  And room to race at the same total weight with codrivers of unlike size, if you wish.

And I'll add to what Andy said.  Every class has its own ruleset to be maintained.  You think that happens for free?  Oh, wait, other than the cost of the paper in the rulebook, it DOES happen for free.  But it takes a lot of volunteer time.  Move the minimum back to 12 and you need a grand total of THREE different cars each with two open and two ladies drivers to make numbers and be able to run for two different championships.  Seems a bit silly to me. It's hard to get volunteers who can continually spend the necessary time on these advisory committees.  The SEB spends a good amount of time just doing *that*, in fact.  Nevermind the actual rules.  Nevermind getting willing SEB members.  I mean if *I* am the best my entire region could come up with... 

Time lag is a little bit of an issue at startup, and you could see bubbles in it due to rule changes, but the SEB takes those matters into account when trying to decide these sensitive issues.  But I'm having a lot of trouble thinking there are people sitting on the fence just looking for things to "stabilize" enough to build a GP car.

Also note that while I make no claims about who ran when or what, a quick perusal of the results shows that the top three in GP would have been fourth, fifth, and sixth in FP.  The winner would have been tenth out of twenty in EP.  And in their most natural fit, the winner would have been ninth out of 17 in DP.  Heck, the top three in GP would have had six cars behind them in XP!  It's not like consolidating that one class into some other P class would render them unable to have any fun.  *shrug*  Plus they'd likely have more allowances that would allow them to be even closer to the leader there... 

All my own opinion, of course... 

--Donnie
 

Howdy,

Andy Hollis:

marka:

Each of those two factors by themselves results in a pretty serious reduction in the potential pool of competitors.  With both factors together its frankly amazing to me that we have as many entrants in these classes as we do.  I think we, as the solo community, are richer with these types of cars and competitors at our events and as such shoul set more realistic minimums that reflect the more limited pool of competitors those classes would appeal too.  Let's encourage people to come out to events rather than threatening the ones that are already there!

Mark

And this is the heart of the matter.  Your post does a nice job of of detailing the major contributors to "why" the situation is as it is.  The question, though, is how much of our resource do we cater to smaller and smaller classes?  And furthermore, at what point does a National Championship lose its significance?  And don't the people in those classes actually want someone to run against once in awhile?  Isn't it kinda silly to run around all year with no one in your class regionally, and many times at Tours?

I dunno.  Isn't it kinda lame to compete in a 19 year old grocery getter economy car on street tires?

Different strokes for different folks dude.

And what "resources" are we running out of here?  Rulesmaker resources?  First, its a volunteer position.  If you don't like what you need to do there, quit!  Don't cry me a river about how you have to do what YOU VOLUNTEERED TO DO.  Second, in the time I was involved with the PAC, the SEB is who drove lots of the rules changes, not the prepared competitors.  You think Prepared folks all wanted classing progression?  You think Prepared folks wanted to restructure and eliminate AP?  The SEB wanted to do that for its own reasons.  Those reasons being valid or not (I happen to think they were, FWIW) isn't the point.  You can't *** about the work you need to do when YOU are the one assigning yourself the work!

I'm quite sure that the PAC and MAC would be MORE than happy to take over the onerous job of maintaining the rules if its too much for the SEB to handle.

What other resources are we worried about?  Some jackets?  Charge P & M competitors $10 more to enter nationals then, with the promise that you won't destroy their classes because they don't happen to meet YOUR perfect little idea of what autocross should be.  I bet everyone would be more than happy to pay the fee, if they actually thought you'd hold up your end of the bargain. 

 

The class participation guidelines don't say "your class goes away".  They suggest when *something* should be done, like consolidation.  And if the latter can be done in an equitable way, everyone wins.  Participants get actual people to run against for a change.  This *is* a competition, right?  Or is it a social club?

You'd think someone as uptight about having a magic # of competitors as you would be stauchly opposed to Ladies classes as well then.  Yet strangely enough, I've _never_ heard you publically say anything about them other than comments of support, even though they have way less numbers than most any P or M class.

That said, I don't think anyone is afraid of consolidation if it can be done in an equitable way.  But I think we're all smart enough to realize that trying to combine wildly disparate cars is unlikely to be done in an "equitable" manner.  But throw out your ideas, and we can all talk about them.  Until then, I think P & M folks will look at the AP->XP move (notice how none of the competitive XP cars are former AP cars?) and the canning of BP entirely as examples of what the SEB thinks is an "equitable" solution. 

PS: I'll add one to your list of why P has fewer participants.  It reflects old-school thinking on how people naturally progress their cars these days, outside of SCCA rules.  Before R-compounds, to go significantly faster you *had* to go to slicks. And for that, you built a "real race car".  There was nothing in between.  Now, many factory cars are already very close to "real race cars" in equipment and resultant performance.  Add R-compounds and you are running very quickly indeed.  And for some lowered powered cars, add forced induction or a motor swap, and you are running as fast as Prepared.  These are the things people do for the street.  P is a dinosaur in this regard, as it does not reflect popular culture.  And, as you say, its a much longer development road to get there.  Today's generations are into immediate gratification.  Building a P car is anything but, unfortunately.  Some embrace that, while most will choose otherwise.

Horseshit.  What class can you remove your interior in, other than P or M?  None.  And I see that just as much (more, actually) as I see someone with a motor swap or added turbo.  These classes you think follow the current state of the art are _constantly_ bitching about how they can't do something that's a totally common modification.  Witness the (SEB induced) fisasco with emissions in ST.  Witness the wonderfully decisive moves with strut tower braces in ST, SP, and SM.  Its just in the past year that the SEB has _finally_ managed to figure out how to allow SFCs in Street Prepared.

Not to mention... Those classes that allow you to do motorswaps and adding forced induction?  That's SM.  You know, where one of the classes is "on the bubble" due to lack of participation.

P isn't the dinosaur here.  Its your perception of P & M classes that's out of date.

Mark 

Howdy,

Andy Hollis:

The DM/EM section of the rulebook is freakin' HUGE for a class featuring highly modified cars and it grows every year.

If you don't trust the rulesmakers, don't ask them to rule on anything.  But be satisfied with what you have.

Oh my god!

DM/EM have been asking the freaking SEB to do the smart thing and stop the madness with the "if it doesn't say you can, you can't" philosophy for as long as I've been reading their mailing list!  THE SEB IS WHO IS MAKING THE DM/EM section of the rulebook big and huge!  Not unsurprisingly, with a class as free as DM/EM, there's a whole lotta crap to say "you can do this".

And since when does ANYONE in our sport just sit there and take it when they're getting sh*t on?  Be satisfied with what you have?  How about "do your damn job or quit so that someone who wants to be there can do it?"

Mark 

marka:

And what "resources" are we running out of here?  Rulesmaker resources?  First, its a volunteer position.  If you don't like what you need to do there, quit!  Don't cry me a river about how you have to do what YOU VOLUNTEERED TO DO.

Part of the job should be to make sure the job doesn't get to the point that nobody will volunteer to do it.  Where would we be then?

Plus, I'll point out that Andy did "quit."  He put in way more time than most ever will, and the sport is better for it, even if you seem to have some axe to grind against him.  So now he's on the STAC where he'll hopefully be able to spend a little less time than he did before. 

Second, in the time I was involved with the PAC, the SEB is who drove lots of the rules changes, not the prepared competitors.  You think Prepared folks all wanted classing progression?  You think Prepared folks wanted to restructure and eliminate AP?  The SEB wanted to do that for its own reasons.  Those reasons being valid or not (I happen to think they were, FWIW) isn't the point.  You can't *** about the work you need to do when YOU are the one assigning yourself the work!

I don't know when you were on the PAC (and don't much care).  All I know is that in my year on the SEB so far, this is not how things are.  I feel like the SEB has had an awesome relationship with the all the ACs.  We've had tough issues to work through in some cases, but it's definitely been the competitors driving these changes.  How anyone could even think that a board (which is made up mostly of non P and M competitors, I admit) would even care to sit around dreaming up changes to push upon those categories is beyond me. We've all got things we'd rather do with our lives than stir up hornets nests intentionally...

--Donnie

Howdy,

djb_rh:

And I'll add to what Andy said.  Every class has its own ruleset to be maintained.  You think that happens for free?  Oh, wait, other than the cost of the paper in the rulebook, it DOES happen for free.  But it takes a lot of volunteer time.  Move the minimum back to 12 and you need a grand total of THREE different cars each with two open and two ladies drivers to make numbers and be able to run for two different championships.  Seems a bit silly to me. It's hard to get volunteers who can continually spend the necessary time on these advisory committees.  The SEB spends a good amount of time just doing *that*, in fact.  Nevermind the actual rules.  Nevermind getting willing SEB members.  I mean if *I* am the best my entire region could come up with... 

Donnie, one of the primary reasons I left the PAC is that no matter how good a job the PAC did, the SEB could (and relatively often did) f*ck it up anyway.

You want an example?  DP/GP.  The PAC argued up and down that there needed to be a token penalty/break in place for the old tech cars and the SEB jammed down our throats that we were going to modernize the world.  And what happened?  The BOD got involved because any damned moron can see that a 4 valve miata motor had more hp potential than some crap spridget motor. 

 

Time lag is a little bit of an issue at startup, and you could see bubbles in it due to rule changes, but the SEB takes those matters into account when trying to decide these sensitive issues.  But I'm having a lot of trouble thinking there are people sitting on the fence just looking for things to "stabilize" enough to build a GP car.

You're having trouble with that?  Are you freaking kidding me?  GP has been in front of the gunsights the entire time its existed.  Would you _really_ build a car knowing that the class could be gone in a year or two?  Heck, forget about building a car... Would you buy one for 50 cents on the dollar knowing that in two years the car could be _completely_ worthless?

 

Also note that while I make no claims about who ran when or what, a quick perusal of the results shows that the top three in GP would have been fourth, fifth, and sixth in FP.  The winner would have been tenth out of twenty in EP.  And in their most natural fit, the winner would have been ninth out of 17 in DP.  Heck, the top three in GP would have had six cars behind them in XP!  It's not like consolidating that one class into some other P class would render them unable to have any fun.  *shrug*  Plus they'd likely have more allowances that would allow them to be even closer to the leader there... 

Yeah, because we all know that all the autocrossers that come to nationals do it to have fun.  Stock classes are just _full_ of people running in uncompetitive cars, uncompetitive tires, etc.  'Cause, you know, they might not have a shot to win no matter how good they drive but they're having fun, right?

Donnie, be honest.  Would _you_ get in a car that would have to be driven like a hero to get 4th in class?

I hardly think so.

Using your logic, GS and DS should be combined.  AS and SS might not be a bad idea.  Heck, ESP and AS are pretty close too.

Oh, that's right... That logic doesn't apply there, because those classes have a slightly higher number of competitors so they're more worthy of the SEB's precious time.

So here's a solution that will make _everyone_ happen.  Combine the SMAC, PAC, and MAC and put them solely in charge of sections 16, 17, and 18. 

There you go.  Now the SEB has more time to focus on the classes it apparently cares about, instead of wasting its time on the classes it doesn't.

Mark 

Howdy,

djb_rh:

Part of the job should be to make sure the job doesn't get to the point that nobody will volunteer to do it.  Where would we be then?

Plus, I'll point out that Andy did "quit."  He put in way more time than most ever will, and the sport is better for it, even if you seem to have some axe to grind against him.  So now he's on the STAC where he'll hopefully be able to spend a little less time than he did before. 

First, I don't have any axe to grind against Andy.  I like Andy.  I consider him a friend, though one I don't see in person very much.  Clearly, he and I both have strong opinions about this, and this isn't the first time either of us has discussed them.  Just as clearly, each of us isn't afraid to say what they're thinking, because they know the other person can handle it. 

Second, don't setup some strawman argument.  I agree that if the job got bad enough that nobody would volunteer to do it, that'd be bad.

But that's not what we're talking about here.  If the participation metrics change a little for SM, P, and M the SEB's job isn't going to get significantly harder or easier or anything else that would affect liklihood of folks volunteering.  And just off the top of my head, you've got three current members who run P or M cars (Dave, Tina, and Chris... Or did Chris leave?).  Seems like your board would have less volunteers if those folks weren't part of the club...

 

Second, in the time I was involved with the PAC, the SEB is who drove lots of the rules changes, not the prepared competitors.  You think Prepared folks all wanted classing progression?  You think Prepared folks wanted to restructure and eliminate AP?  The SEB wanted to do that for its own reasons.  Those reasons being valid or not (I happen to think they were, FWIW) isn't the point.  You can't *** about the work you need to do when YOU are the one assigning yourself the work!

I don't know when you were on the PAC (and don't much care).  All I know is that in my year on the SEB so far, this is not how things are.  I feel like the SEB has had an awesome relationship with the all the ACs.  We've had tough issues to work through in some cases, but it's definitely been the competitors driving these changes.  How anyone could even think that a board (which is made up mostly of non P and M competitors, I admit) would even care to sit around dreaming up changes to push upon those categories is beyond me. We've all got things we'd rather do with our lives than stir up hornets nests intentionally...

I was on the PAC not that long ago (I don't remember the exact years, something like 2002-2004 maybe?).  And like you say, you weren't there.  If someone that was wants to disagree with me, go for it. 

The SEB had a decent relationship with the PAC then too.  That's not the point.  The point is that if the SEB wants to start bitching about using up so much of its precious time dealing with SM, P, & M classes (something that didn't happen then, btw) then perhaps the SEB could explore options & ways to fix that other than eliminating or "consolidating" those classes.  Btw, the first option lots of people pick, when faced with a daunting amount of work, is to ask for help doing the work.  I think its a little more rare for those same people to attempt to redefine the job so that the amount decreases.

 I'm not trying to intentionally be insulting here.  I'm serious.  If the primary driver behind this is that SM, P, M (and any other small) classes are chewing up too many SEB resources, give the job over to the SMAC, PAC, and MAC directly.  Seems like everyone wins then.

Mark 

marka:

Yeah, because we all know that all the autocrossers that come to nationals do it to have fun.  Stock classes are just _full_ of people running in uncompetitive cars, uncompetitive tires, etc.  'Cause, you know, they might not have a shot to win no matter how good they drive but they're having fun, right?

Donnie, be honest.  Would _you_ get in a car that would have to be driven like a hero to get 4th in class?

I hardly think so.

Uh, I did.  Last year.  I don't intend to make a habit of it, I admit.  But plenty of people go to Nationals in a lot of different classes that KNOW they have no chance of winning and in fact have little chance to win a trophy.  They still enjoy it and come back.

Using your logic, GS and DS should be combined.  AS and SS might not be a bad idea.  Heck, ESP and AS are pretty close too.

Oh, that's right... That logic doesn't apply there, because those classes have a slightly higher number of competitors so they're more worthy of the SEB's precious time.

You have an interesting definition of "slightly."  And there have been proposals around about GS and DS changes relative to each other. 

And just because times overlap doesn't mean classes should combine.  I never said that.  I was only pointing out that combining a couple classes isn't death to every car in the slower class.

So here's a solution that will make _everyone_ happen.  Combine the SMAC, PAC, and MAC and put them solely in charge of sections 16, 17, and 18. 

There you go.  Now the SEB has more time to focus on the classes it apparently cares about, instead of wasting its time on the classes it doesn't.

Thanks for filling me in on what I care about.  I was unsure until the above post.  I will pass it along to my colleagues on the SEB, too, just so they are better informed.

The SEB cares about the overall health of the Solo program, which includes EVERYTHING in it, whether you agree with how the SEB operates or not. 

--Donnie 

marka:

Second, don't setup some strawman argument.  I agree that if the job got bad enough that nobody would volunteer to do it, that'd be bad.

But it's not a strawman argument when one of the main points in Rocky's letter, and a point that gets restated by others, is that "what does it hurt to keep adding classes?"  It's followed by the fact that events resources are really per driver, not per class (and Rocky even goes so far as to add that if Nationals *did* hit the 1250 cap we could just add a couple more days to Nationals...I'm sure the National Office staff would just LOVE that!) and completely ignores the fact that rules must be maintained by someone. 

But that's not what we're talking about here.  If the participation metrics change a little for SM, P, and M the SEB's job isn't going to get significantly harder or easier or anything else that would affect liklihood of folks volunteering.  And just off the top of my head, you've got three current members who run P or M cars (Dave, Tina, and Chris... Or did Chris leave?).  Seems like your board would have less volunteers if those folks weren't part of the club...

The point isn't about some small change not really affecting things much.  The point is you have to draw a line on all those small changes that each don't affect things much.  At a certain point, they add up.  

I was on the PAC not that long ago (I don't remember the exact years, something like 2002-2004 maybe?).  And like you say, you weren't there.  If someone that was wants to disagree with me, go for it.

I'm not trying to discount your experience.  I'm just saying that your experience doesn't appear to be indicative of how things work NOW, at least not from my perspective.   I have never initiated any P or M rule changes.  I have never tried to be anything more than a sanity check to what the PAC or MAC want us to do.  I believe the rest of the SEB has acted accordingly in the past year as near as I could tell.  Sure, occasionally being a "sanity check" does cause for some discussion and occasionally even a change to what an AC wants to do.  It's been very rare, though. 

The SEB had a decent relationship with the PAC then too.  That's not the point.  The point is that if the SEB wants to start bitching about using up so much of its precious time dealing with SM, P, & M classes (something that didn't happen then, btw) then perhaps the SEB could explore options & ways to fix that other than eliminating or "consolidating" those classes.  Btw, the first option lots of people pick, when faced with a daunting amount of work, is to ask for help doing the work.  I think its a little more rare for those same people to attempt to redefine the job so that the amount decreases.

 I'm not trying to intentionally be insulting here.  I'm serious.  If the primary driver behind this is that SM, P, M (and any other small) classes are chewing up too many SEB resources, give the job over to the SMAC, PAC, and MAC directly.  Seems like everyone wins then.

Apparently I wasn't clear enough.  I'm not only interested in making the SEB job one that we can handle sanely, but the job of all the ACs one that THEY can handle sanely, too.  My impression is that ACs have been asked to do more and more over the years, but there will be a breaking point.  Like I said, it isn't easy to find willing and able volunteers for these ACs all the time.  The most common reason people leave ACs is "I just don't have the time any more."  I tend to doubt that most of these folks had significant life changes that took away that time.  They just didn't want to do it any more.  (And I'm not picking on any of you past AC members!  Thank you for the work you've done and the time you gave!  I'm just pointing out that it happens, and the last thing we need to do is try to take more time from those folks.)

And I'm not saying we're at some critical point, necessarily.  Just that there are reasons for things, and if you want to use the argument that "oh, what's one more class to administer?", well, there is a valid answer.  Those small things do add up.

--Donnie

 

Howdy,

djb_rh:

Thanks for filling me in on what I care about.  I was unsure until the above post.  I will pass it along to my colleagues on the SEB, too, just so they are better informed.

Anytime.  I'm always happy to help.  :-)  Make sure you let Dave and Tina know too, 'cause they seem to have been confused about it... :-)

 

The SEB cares about the overall health of the Solo program, which includes EVERYTHING in it, whether you agree with how the SEB operates or not. 

I know the SEB cares about the Solo program.  And I appreciate the folks that put time into work on the SEB.  I don't think anyone there has an agenda or anything else.  Its just that this whole discussion (and others I've had with other current and former SEB members) smacks too much of a strict "only support those classes that a majority of the competitors compete in" and I think that's a flawed approach that _doesn't_ look at the overall health of the Solo program and everything in it.

We all want what's best for Solo as a whole and we all feel passionate about it.  We just have some differing opinions on exactly what that means at times.

I'll be at the national convention in a few weeks, I'll buy you a beer and we can talk about it if you want (or I can buy you a beer and we can talk about something else!).  People tell me that in person I'm not nearly as much of a pr*ck as I seem like on the internet.  :-)

 

Andy Hollis:

modernbeat:

One of the problems with this is that nobody trusts the SEB to fix it in an equitable way. This argument isn't about changing the number of competitors, it's about keeping the SEB away from their beloved classes.

Then why do P & M competitors do the following: 1) Write letters asking for changes, and 2) protest competitors for differing interpretations on the rules?  The former clearly invites rules change directly, while the latter usually does when the rules cited are not clear and generate clarifications (welcome to DM/EM aero, for example).  The DM/EM section of the rulebook is freakin' HUGE for a class featuring highly modified cars and it grows every year.

If you don't trust the rulesmakers, don't ask them to rule on anything.  But be satisfied with what you have.  The problem seems to be that the existing curmudgeons don't want anything changed "in their beloved" class, as you say, but those are the very things that keep new blood from embracing the classes.  Interesting conundrum.

--Andy

PS: Just saw this thread: Why B-Mod needs to change

I'll reiterate. I don't trust the SEB as a whole. I've been told of some of the converstaions, and two of the SEB members have told me how they personally felt about some issues (you being one of them) that I felt were good ideas and seen the SEB do things that I felt were bad for competition. Who am I to say they were bad. They're the experts. I'm nobody when it comes to rulesmaking. But I still felt like MY best interests weren't looked after. And I'm the guy willing to spend $30k on a car that can ONLY be used for autocross in one of those failing classes. The Minimum Participation issue is one of the big failings in my eyes. The non-answers given at the Convention and at the forum at Nationals just cements that distrust.

On the DM-EM issue. I don't think the EM guys have many hangups. The DM guys, with Del Long setting the example everyone else in the class is following, are nit-picking the rules apart trying to break the rulebook. It's trying to write him into submission while not creating take-backs that has bloated that section. The aero section for DM-EM is a mess. Fix it. The class is not supposed to have aero, ban it. Don't try to define bodywork that gives minimal aero.

We've talked about unpopular decisions. I think that a number of decisions made in the last five years were made JUST to make a small group happy, whether that was a small group of competitors, a small group of sitting SEB or AC members, or to extract revenge. I think some of those decisions were BAD for competition, they drive people away from the more modified classes, and encourage them to stay in low prep classes.

I think that when people see a real P or M car and are awed, a large portion of that awe comes not from the level of commitment it takes to engineer, build, and learn to drive on of those machines, but from the realization that someone has the guts it takes to build one in the face of uncertain rules and shifting classes.