>Good point, but I am refering to the amount of effort put
>into creating the class not the amount of participants. So
>by box I mean, equal efforts going into producing each tier.
OK, I did not catch that, I see what you are saying now.
>The only way to have an equal chance, as you know, is a one
>makes championship. Which as far as I know, just doesn't
>happen at top level motorsport, since the engineering is
>also part of the competition. I don't follow motorcross, but
>I am sure it is like that too. Is there a manufacture
>dominance?
See, I dont expect to have an equal chance against the factory teams from a funding and budget prespective, but what I DO expect is that the governing body will not legislate me out, (20yr rule, 5 race minimum rule, ect.) before I even get a chance! I will never have equal amounts of $$ as the factories, neither do the privateers in motocross, but they do play under rules that are not slanted against the privateer.
>I mean, look, because of
>>the sad state of afairs here we cant even put an american in
>>the top 3 of our
OWN championship! Why is that?
>
>That is a shame, but I think that is an effect of our series
>being held back for so long. From what I have seen, the
>American drivers seem to have become faster and better from
>having the foreigners here. So given a couple of years...who
>knows
I agree, it has been held back by stupid rules, that have been arbitrarily handed down to us without any say, warning, or imput. Personally I am glad the Euro's are here, I think we can learn from them in many ways, and they will give us a performance target to shoot for. My point, and I didnt make it clearly, is more aimed at "What do we do to get those guys out of here?" and by that I mean in the good way, IE the factory teams dont need them because they can already find the level of talent they need right here in the US. The way you build a large crop of young drivers is to get folks out there! You dont get lots of young guys starting this sport if they all think they must have an Evo, or a WRX, you do it by getting them to realize "Hey, I could use Grandma's Volvo to start, and get a WRX/Evo later".
>Right, but there already is a "top" in place for them to
>strive for and provide something for them to see and say "I
>want to do that" That is why I say both need to happen at
>the same or similiar times.
We already have a "top" place to go, the difference, and the problem, is it has beed turned into the manufarturers lounge instead of the top of a racing series.
>I'd venture a bet that no one is really competive in
>motorcross unless they have the latest machine and of course
>the latest Troy Lee Designs safety gear.:9
Thats not the point! The point is, the AMA (governing body) doesnt CARE what you ride and provided you pass tech, they will let you ride a 1974 Bultaco, or a 2003 Yamaha, they dont care and neither should the SCCA. Old machines dont make them look bad, crappy competition does.
>Also it is much cheaper to get into motorcross, and you
>don't have to close down a road to practice. America has way
>more trails and such to practice on than the Europeans too.
You make my point for me there. Sure it should cost more to rally than to motocross, but should the amount of dollars you spend to rally be a factor in how far you are let rise in the box/pyramid?
>there is really no right answer for this debate
I think there is a right answer, but I'm not telling.
