Special Stage Forums banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
>There is now a forum for discussing Group F. I felt it would
>be better to keep them all in one area for now. Click [a
>href="http://www.specialstage.com/forum/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=list&forum=DCForumID40&conf=DCConfID4"]here[/a]
>to go to it.
Awwwww shucks way to kill the BROADER discussion of the place or need for GpF in North American rallying.





John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat
 

·
Administrator Emeritus
Joined
·
1,253 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Um, right. The Group F forum is for discussing the possible new group, Group F.

Discussions about "the place or need for something like GpF in North American rallying" may continue here in the USA forum.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
>Um, right. The Group F forum is for discussing the possible
>new group, Group F.
>
>Discussions about "the place or need for something like GpF
>in North American rallying" may continue here in the USA
>forum.
Err...Uhhhh... I'm cornfused.
So, if I want to discuss (what I perceive as) necessary changes to the current class stucture, then I can discuss that here in the USA Forum, where most of Specialstage readers go first, right?
But, if I want to specifically discuss what those changes should be, then I have to do that somewhere else, where most people will not even bother to look. Am I correct in saying that?

It seems to me, the discussion of G222 was going pretty good, until you segregated it from the general discussion. Now it's gone.

I assert that cost control measures need to be discussed in the USA forum. US Rally is small, because it is perceived to be expensive. This perception comes from the media concentrating on the millionaires running "technologically superior" cars high on the start list. If my first exposure to rally had come from TV, I wouldn't even be paying attention now. Instead, I found out about rally from some guy who rallied a Subaru Brat. So, I decided to get involved when I saw it done at a level I could identify with.

My point is that these expensive cars dampen the interest of potential PARTICIPANTS. They may attract FANS, but who wants to try to race against a team with a bazillion-dollar budget? I'd say that any rational person with the skills to work on his own car (that means WORKING CLASS) wouldn't even think about it. Do we want to attract participants/competitors, or do we not care?

I've heard that racing is expensive, but you old guys with all the loot make it sound like it costs more than it really has to. You spend a hundred bucks on one meal, sleep 2 to a room in fancy hotels, and then say that you spend $5000 a weekend and that's really how much it costs to go rallying. You live luxuriously because you WANT to, not because you have to. But I digress. If we do indeed want to attract (or at least not repel) fellow competitors, then we shouldn't be broadcasting how stratospheric the expenses are.

Instead, the whole rally community should be talking about how to make this hobby LESS expensive. Not merely discussing whether or not we need to control costs, but actually talking about the specific mechanisms to use in controlling costs. Last winter, the specific proposals were organized in a framework under the name "Group 222." This winter we're talking about cost controls again, this time borrowing from a very successful class in Finland called "Group F." The name has been borrowed, and the specific rules of the class are under investigation. But, to put the discussion in the context of rallying at large, it needs to stay in the USA forum.
The idea of a cost-controlled, 2WD class that allows actual car prep is not mature enough to stand on its own.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,246 Posts
keep the technical aspect seperate.

dont flood the front page.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top