Sean O'Gorman
03-24-06, 02:15 PM
from another forum:
"...I guess that's rules creep."
It takes a lot of will - in the sanctioning body and among racers - to keep this from happening. I've officially given up trying to slow it down in IT, with a couple of recent decisions that demonstrate a lack of that will among current series reformers and entrants.
Just plan on starting over ever 10 years or so, and you'll be fine. Nibble away incrementally at budgets by pushing or tweaking the rules little by little, and at some point the only way to fix it is to throw up arms and call a Mulligan.
IT was a Production Mulligan, when the rules were perceived to have gotten prohibitive to new racers so SCCA called a "do-over." LP Prod was the same ol', same ol' when even the guys in Production decided that it was out of hand. The GT classes repaced the Sedan classes when someone decided that a whole different approach - the "stock car" tube chassis - should replace the old TransAm style "ship-in-a-bottle" cage design. (The one that's the same as we use in IT now.)
In the "pro" classes, the dynamic is typically that the series dies completely, and is reborn around a new rules set. The IMSA GTP prototypes (themselves a economist-revisionist vesion of Group C) got so expensive that they have subsequently been replaced by several iterations of sports cars, each of which has died off. That line branched into the ALMS and DP cars - which do you think will survive under current racing/marketing Darwinian pressures?
HC's top class has signed its own death warrant by pushing the envelope. The USTCC is just a different group of people, doing exactly the same thing to the same end - applying the same strategies to make the same mistakes as did IMSA's Radial Sedan, Champion Spark Plug Challenge, and International Sedans; the North American Touring Car Championship (NATCC or "Not Sees" - still one of the less fortunate racing acronyms); and a whole genology of "showroom stock" endurance series.
While it is absolutely true that spending cannot be controlled directly by rules, it IS true that straightforward rules - and their vigorous enforcement - can dictate that the law of diminishing returns kicks in earlier, discouraging more and more spending. Cheaper, less-costly-to-run cars SHOULD increase participation. The current GrandAm/GAC rules are a good example of this, and I have some faith in the iron fist of the France family and NASCAR-influenced culture there to keep things in check. There's evidence of some weirdness creeping (sorry) into the GAC rules model specs but someone might actually be in contol there.
Racers who don't understand history are just as likely to repeat it, as are politicians.
K
Discuss. :gomer:
"...I guess that's rules creep."
It takes a lot of will - in the sanctioning body and among racers - to keep this from happening. I've officially given up trying to slow it down in IT, with a couple of recent decisions that demonstrate a lack of that will among current series reformers and entrants.
Just plan on starting over ever 10 years or so, and you'll be fine. Nibble away incrementally at budgets by pushing or tweaking the rules little by little, and at some point the only way to fix it is to throw up arms and call a Mulligan.
IT was a Production Mulligan, when the rules were perceived to have gotten prohibitive to new racers so SCCA called a "do-over." LP Prod was the same ol', same ol' when even the guys in Production decided that it was out of hand. The GT classes repaced the Sedan classes when someone decided that a whole different approach - the "stock car" tube chassis - should replace the old TransAm style "ship-in-a-bottle" cage design. (The one that's the same as we use in IT now.)
In the "pro" classes, the dynamic is typically that the series dies completely, and is reborn around a new rules set. The IMSA GTP prototypes (themselves a economist-revisionist vesion of Group C) got so expensive that they have subsequently been replaced by several iterations of sports cars, each of which has died off. That line branched into the ALMS and DP cars - which do you think will survive under current racing/marketing Darwinian pressures?
HC's top class has signed its own death warrant by pushing the envelope. The USTCC is just a different group of people, doing exactly the same thing to the same end - applying the same strategies to make the same mistakes as did IMSA's Radial Sedan, Champion Spark Plug Challenge, and International Sedans; the North American Touring Car Championship (NATCC or "Not Sees" - still one of the less fortunate racing acronyms); and a whole genology of "showroom stock" endurance series.
While it is absolutely true that spending cannot be controlled directly by rules, it IS true that straightforward rules - and their vigorous enforcement - can dictate that the law of diminishing returns kicks in earlier, discouraging more and more spending. Cheaper, less-costly-to-run cars SHOULD increase participation. The current GrandAm/GAC rules are a good example of this, and I have some faith in the iron fist of the France family and NASCAR-influenced culture there to keep things in check. There's evidence of some weirdness creeping (sorry) into the GAC rules model specs but someone might actually be in contol there.
Racers who don't understand history are just as likely to repeat it, as are politicians.
K
Discuss. :gomer: