OK, so now I'm Bad Guy #1!
Let's start buy revisiting the fact that I did say that I had heard the "rumor" from several people involved that this is what transpired. The fact is in posting this question ("Has anyone else out there heard this story? "), I AM trying to independantly verify the "story." Nowhere did I state that I knew this was in fact the full and accurate truth of the matter, I would better describe it as a very disturbing "rumor" that was passed along by an individual who did have a very vested ($$$) interest in the matter. I've always thought of this board as an open forum for opinion, a place where questions can be put forth, insight can be gained, etc., etc. I most certainly did not mean to indict the individual mentioned for any wrong-doing, I was merely stating that "if this is true," then there's clearly a conflict of interest involved. If this is in fact NOT true, then my question has been answered and now we ALL have heard both sides of the story (since I heaven't heard anything official from SCCA about why the car was reclassed - specifics, not just "potential to dominate the class.") If that person or anyone associated with him/her feels that my questioning of the events that supposedly transpired feels that I have wrongly accused or offended, I sincerely apologize. I am only seeking clarity.
I would state that it's at least my belief that no one person on the commitee that reviewed this matter should have had any personal interest in the matter (i.e. actively competing in ITB in ANY car) for it to be completely fair. Realistic? Probably not gonna happen.
You stated:
"MORE than this one person...felt as if the Honda Accord LXi had the potential to dominate ITB. The fact that it won't be as competitive in ITA isn't as important, in my opinion, as we have a lot of Volvos, Golfs, BMW's, and other cars that would be made obsolete if the Honda remains in ITB"
I have to respectfully disagree on one thing: If it is true that the SCCA has a standardized procedure for classifying cars based on the weighing of a number of different variables such as displacement, weight, engine configuration (# of valves, SOHC, DOHC, etc), and other such factors, and the Accord LXi was judged by the same standards (the "magical secret formula" I sarcastcally refer to) as all other cars and fell within the "window" of performance potential that is called "ITB" then why was it moved? The comp board has clearly shown in the past that they won't make adjustments to a car's spec's based on the effect that car might have on other car's competitiveness in the same class. In questioning my "theory" Mr. Coffin, with the 8V Scirocco example, you are actually making my point! Based on the fact that the Scirocco has an obvious mechanical advantage over the Golf that it is classed the same as, it has the potential to "dominate" the Golf and should therefore be moved to ITA since, according to your logic concerning the decision with the Accord, we're not as concerned about Schirocco owners being uncompetitive in ITA as we are concerned about Golf owners maintaining their same level of competitiveness in ITB! This CLEARLY is in direct conflict with the statement in the GCR pertaining to IT regs that the rules and the governing body that creates and enforces them DOES NOT guarantee the competitiveness of any car model in any class. Obviously this is not too big of a concern since folks running the Golfs are doing rather well. However, if someone built a real ringer of a Scirocco, who's to say that the precident set by the comp board with respect to the Accord couldn't be argued just the same for the Scirocco? Or any other car? Heck, I saw a red Volvo (you all know who I'm talking about) at Road Atlanta that beat the Accord, and everything else in ITB, both at the regional a few weeks ago and at the ARRC last fall. Maybe those Volvos have the potential to dominate ITB - I for one think they should be moved to ITA! You would think the sensible thing to do if they felt the Accord was too competitive would be to add a few hundred pounds to the minimum weight for the car... OH NO! That would be viewed as a competition adjustment! Do you understand the nature of the sarcasm? Why do we stick to a position sometimes and then willfully do the opposite in other cases?
I'm not condemning the job anyone who serves in a leadership position with SCCA. I really do value the fact that these people make time in their lives to help administrate and guide this organization and give the rest of a place to "go and play." To a person who views road racing as my personal "raison d'etre" they are all my HEROES.
I just don't think that the decision was the correct one, flame me if you like. To say that because I haven't served on the comp board I should hold the people who made this decision beyond reproach is rediculous IMHO. Let the world know what specific reasons caused this car to be reclassed when others that appear more dominant aren't and the nay-sayers will be quelled.
And Mark, you can bet you'll see me on the track! I look forward to it
Sorry 'bout the long post...
C Ya
Richard
