Originally posted by Bill Miller:
...what does one series have to do w/ the other? The fact that you have an additional series to race in, and that you can be competitive in that series w/o any changes to your car, is, IMHO, a really nice bonus that not many people have. To come here and complain that a rule change that addresses a strongly perceived inequity in one series, because it impacts a totally unrelated series (that many in the first series can't participate in), is disingenuous at best.
I think the last thing he is being, is disingenous. He is telling you that he has enjoyed the option of being able to compete in two series, now with this change, he can't and expect to remain competitive. Since he can't, he will choose which one to compete in...how is that disingenious?

I relate it to the choice I made when purchasing my FFord (and my Vee). I bought a model (Crossle 32F) that was eligible to race with the Vintage club in my area (VARA) and was very competitive there, while also being able to race with SCCA (SF in CSCC region) if I chose to, a very competitve model there as well. Not only did having that option give me some flexibility, it also meant that when I sold the car I would have twice the potential market. Not a bad thing and certainly weighed my original decision to purchase that cars. If VARA implemented a rule(s) that would not allow my car to also participate in the SCCA at a similar competitive level than I would have made a choice to run with one series or the other.

Granted, I don't believe that the SCCA has a responsibility to its' members to maintain dual eligibility in its' rules. Nor should they make rules that aren't in the best interest of the majority of their members for the benifit of the minority. They do need to be aware, however, when fighting for the racers dollars (a battle that they are losing out here) how such decisions may affect their entries.

-Daryl DeArman
Caldwell D13 Vee



[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited November 28, 2004).]