Randy Blaylock
Highlander Motorsports
Does this hypothetical tangle occur when the novice in the March Indy car is passing the senior in the FA, or is it some other form?
If the elements of this example are indeed the test, then we should also segregate the novice in the hypothetical 650hp Viper from the other novice in the hypothetical 70hp Datsun roadster. I guess we're going to need two NCW groups. At least in the first example, theoretically one of the racers is supposed to have the experience to hopefully mitigate those risks, within a historically less populated group.
We all know this isn't really the crux of the issue. Also, the success of the PRO-3 class is not the issue here, and they certainly did not ask to be the focal point of where this discussion has gone. Can we stay on topic please?
The real and legitimate issue here is how to ensure the continued existence of Conference for EVERYONE, then we can move on to the territorial pissing.
In order to continue to exist, the correct balance needs to be one that emphasizes continued solvency, before anything else. There isn't any government assistance program for racing, and we won't be receiving any bailouts. With solvency ensured, we will then have the luxury to apply whatever altruistic measures are deemed necessary and palatable within that framework, to support whichever groups that consistently have an imbalance of entries, and thus revenues.
If this means promoting proven successful special race roups, which as a documented matter were in fact the tipping point from red to black for both IRDC, and perhaps more importantly ICSCC, then that is what we should do.
If the elements of this example are indeed the test, then we should also segregate the novice in the hypothetical 650hp Viper from the other novice in the hypothetical 70hp Datsun roadster. I guess we're going to need two NCW groups. At least in the first example, theoretically one of the racers is supposed to have the experience to hopefully mitigate those risks, within a historically less populated group.
We all know this isn't really the crux of the issue. Also, the success of the PRO-3 class is not the issue here, and they certainly did not ask to be the focal point of where this discussion has gone. Can we stay on topic please?
The real and legitimate issue here is how to ensure the continued existence of Conference for EVERYONE, then we can move on to the territorial pissing.
In order to continue to exist, the correct balance needs to be one that emphasizes continued solvency, before anything else. There isn't any government assistance program for racing, and we won't be receiving any bailouts. With solvency ensured, we will then have the luxury to apply whatever altruistic measures are deemed necessary and palatable within that framework, to support whichever groups that consistently have an imbalance of entries, and thus revenues.
If this means promoting proven successful special race roups, which as a documented matter were in fact the tipping point from red to black for both IRDC, and perhaps more importantly ICSCC, then that is what we should do.