Chuck & Phil G's e-mails have clearly presented the other side of change.
During our seven years of SCCA participation, Jim and I have spoken to many, many gawkers on race weekends. These are the most sited comments uttered concerning the F500 cars: 1. 2 cycle engine & CVT, "I don't know anything about them". 2. Some cars are funny looking and don't look like race cars. 3. These cars are too small for me. 4. The more interested really liked the simplicity of the chassis design, suspension, and set-up process (we use bathroom scales). If our analysis is anywhere near accurate...F1000 should grow like crazy. Like any endevor...demand and economics are the driving issues of success. People will spend their money in classes they like not on whatever it is we, the group, may want/like. The product is what it is. Changing the off/on switch location, color availabiity, or upgrading the flux capacitor is not going to change the product. I do not agree with those few people who think pucks/shocks changes are going to increase class numbers. Also, if safety were an issue it would have been addressed long ago. How many years have F500's been racing? Our real safety issue is racing with other classes. The discussed changes, guaranteed, will make a few people happy and cost all of us undetermined bucks to convert. There is no eveidence what-so-ever these changes will grow the class. On the contrary, as Phil G. has stated this change would definitley cause a reduction in the class. Along with Phil, Schultz Racing will not accept the "Keep Up With The Jones" philosophy of racing. In karting the manufacturer generated new product need philoshopy results in a constant turnover of participants unable to keep up with the economic demands from one year to the next. After 3 or 4 years people would drop out. Tired of the constant need to annually ungrade pipes, engines, tires, etc. Karting does survive because of the somewhat constant production of kids. Kiddie production guarantees a constant influx of eager newbiees into karting. DSR has undergone a member generated change to tunnel cars. I can understand their relavence of staying cuurent and experimenting. That has always been the concept of that class back from when it was called HM. The latest change, good or bad, has resulted in a two tier class of cars. The tunnel cars of course are way faster then the non tunnel cars. This is the nature of this product (class). Anyway who wants to race a car that's 19 seconds off pole time? The F5 class is viewed as and is a niche class. The class was originated and designed as such. There's nothing "wrong" with that. That concept has allowed Schultz Racing (and many others) to participate in SCCA National and/or Regional racing. Like others we chose the class because it fit our (unequal) levels of economic affodabilty and mechanical expertise. No other SCCA class did so. SCCA has given us a process for change/s. I don't think popularity is their sole criteria of change. Has anyone asked what the criteria is? As I've said before..."you may win this battle but lose the war". War being annual class participation standing. Regional racing anyone???? Louie Schultz Philly Region ________________________________ FormulaCar Magazine - A Proud Supporter of Formula 500 The Official Publication of Junior Formula Car Racing Subscribe Today! www.formulacarmag.com or 519-624-2003 _________________________________ _______________________________________________ F500 mailing list - [email protected] To unsubscribe or change options please visit: http://f500.org/mailman/listinfo/f500 *** Please, DO NOT send unsubscribe requests to the mailing list! ***
