Mike you need to be a little more informed if you are going to be so definite.
First a Street Solo II and a Solo Trial are nothing alike. A Street Solo II
which will not be approved in almost all cases, is a Solo II with even more
restrictions that a normal Solo II. Read slower speeds and stricter safety
guidelines. SCCA has taken the stance they will not sanction any New Street
Solo's. This could change, but I think it is a pretty firm rule.
Solo Trials are a step between Solo II (low speed) and Solo I (High Speed).
Yes people have a choice as to run or not, that has already been made clear.
The important point is that this, by reports, was a SCCA Sanctioned event
operated far outside the safety rules of the Sanction. In addition the local
officals made no attemptsw to correct the problems. And yes shame on all of
you there who did not complain to the event officals and insist something be
done. If nothing was done they should have left after promising to file a
report with SCCA National Office.
As Mid-West Divisional Safety Steward if this had happened with in my
Division, I would be demanding reports from region officals and recommending
disciplinary action against all officals and the Region; if the reports are
true. Yes every SCCA member interested in Solo II should be upset with this
Region. NOT hammering those who choose to use this forum to complain.
As stated above this was not a Solo Trial and incidents should not have been
more likely, and the competitors had a right to expect the lower safety
concerns dictated by the Solo II Rule Book. They should not have been forced
into making a decision as to take this level of chance or not.
Racer---X wrote:
> Have we all forgotten about personal responsibility? If the coure were all
> that bad, you could have 1. added some input on course design or 2. Loaded
> up and left. I have YET to hear from anyone doing either. As far as speed
> limits are concerned, was this billed as a Solo2 or a street solo? I have
> attended a few street solo's, solo trials, whatever you want to call them.
> Speeds for the faster cars were likely (make that easily) over 100MPH, and
> there was very little danger to the drivers and only slightly more to
> property. Yes, incidents are more likely at these events, but that's life.
> If you don'y want to take the chances, then DON'T
>
> Michael Karp
|