You have a valid point, Steve but one that is valid only if applied from the traditional club racing paradigm of "it's all about me and whether my car is competitive or not."
When I was actively lobbying for IT2, I got a lot of criticism from people saying exactly the same thing - I should quit being an "agitator" and just pick a car that is competitive.
My point was that SOMEONE ought to be keeping an eye on the strategic picture. This takes the position that pure supply-demand, market-forces kind of thinking isn't ultimately good for the club, of course - that some "managed economy" practices might be beneficial...
Look at it this way: If initial car classification is driven only by member request, AND if most people behave rationally and select cars that are likely to be competitive, the mean performance of a class simply cannot help but increase.
Generally speaking, people are more likely to ask that cars with high potential be listed than those with low potential. Racers are then more likely to select high-potential cars than others, particularly racers with the most resources available to allocate. While there will always be cases that run counter to these rules, the trend line is established by the masses, kind of like birds eating moths that stand out against their backgrounds at rates disproportionate to those suffered by moths that blend in. More of those camoflaged bugs will successfully reproduce.
If someone guesses wrong with an initial classification (aguably the case with the CRX Si in A) and a car has a substantial advantage - or is percieved to have one - that process only accelerates. The response among members is to ask for other high-potential cars to be classified and the response by the CRB is to back-fill the class by listing them, rather than addressing the original error if that's even possible.
Where do we end up?
The IT2 proposal asked for proactive strategy to address the problem of the ITS orphans. It wasn't within the "me first" paradigm so it went nowhere: It would have required more strategic planning than the system is set up to handle.
The net result is what we have now been whacking away about for weeks now: The top of A becomes IT2 and the rest of A potentially suffers - to the degree that people suggest new classes as reactive solutions.
Hmmm.
K
When I was actively lobbying for IT2, I got a lot of criticism from people saying exactly the same thing - I should quit being an "agitator" and just pick a car that is competitive.
My point was that SOMEONE ought to be keeping an eye on the strategic picture. This takes the position that pure supply-demand, market-forces kind of thinking isn't ultimately good for the club, of course - that some "managed economy" practices might be beneficial...
Look at it this way: If initial car classification is driven only by member request, AND if most people behave rationally and select cars that are likely to be competitive, the mean performance of a class simply cannot help but increase.
Generally speaking, people are more likely to ask that cars with high potential be listed than those with low potential. Racers are then more likely to select high-potential cars than others, particularly racers with the most resources available to allocate. While there will always be cases that run counter to these rules, the trend line is established by the masses, kind of like birds eating moths that stand out against their backgrounds at rates disproportionate to those suffered by moths that blend in. More of those camoflaged bugs will successfully reproduce.
If someone guesses wrong with an initial classification (aguably the case with the CRX Si in A) and a car has a substantial advantage - or is percieved to have one - that process only accelerates. The response among members is to ask for other high-potential cars to be classified and the response by the CRB is to back-fill the class by listing them, rather than addressing the original error if that's even possible.
Where do we end up?
The IT2 proposal asked for proactive strategy to address the problem of the ITS orphans. It wasn't within the "me first" paradigm so it went nowhere: It would have required more strategic planning than the system is set up to handle.
The net result is what we have now been whacking away about for weeks now: The top of A becomes IT2 and the rest of A potentially suffers - to the degree that people suggest new classes as reactive solutions.
Hmmm.
K
