Mr. Cone:
I have to disagree with you. One of the main reasons myself, and
I'd venture to say many others, autocross instead of participating in
multi-car events is the knowledge that there really is no reasonable
chance for contact with another car. Now, myself, I also go under
the assumption that there is no real chance that I would hit
anything that could damage my daily driver/race car, which I
certainly could not afford to pay to have fixed and Allstate would
probably not cover. Obviously there will be exceptions where
someone pulls a bonehead move and wraps their car around a light
pole that was 50 feet from the actual course but that does not
appear to be the case in the Peru incidents. In this case I believe
that there was not enough safety (based on what I've heard; I was
not there) built into this section of the course to allow someone to
lose control of their car without infringing on the other course.
Wrecking with another car is *NOT* a part of, and should never be
an outcome of an autox run.
Just my $.02
Mike
In response to Rick Cone's message regarding Peru Pro, the crash and the near
mi, dated 22 May 00,:
> I will give my summary sentance first, so those that don't want to
> read, or agree with me, can delete and move forward with team.net
> email.
>
> *Significant* Vehicle damage is one of many outcomes of an autox run.
>
> Now for the details.
>
> Yes, I am an expert on this subject, thank you very much. Just ask
> anyone that runs in the Atlanta region, or look at the north turn
> parking lot at Atlanta Motorspeedway. There is still paint marks on
> the light pole that I hit 3 years ago. But to move on to Peru...
>
> I proved early, very early on Saturday that an accident could happen
> there. If it were not for the quick reflexes of the Nissan Sentra
> driver I was running against, we both would have incurred vehicle
> damage. The total time to change the course, give 15 minutes of walk
> time, and re-run the cars that had completed there runs would have
> been no more then 30 minutes longer, then the downtime we had getting
> the two Neon's off the course after they made contact.
>
> Now, knowing first hand, what *could* happen, did I let up any in that
> section? Not on the left course. I did have a little confidence
> issue when I got back to the right course. But after the one run I
> was back at 100%. On no less then 2 other occasions the rear end of
> the car stepped out in there, but knowing what could happen I was able
> to keep on top of it.
>
> Did anyone notice that ALL of the incidents were with small front
> wheel drive cars? I lost it because the rear tires were not as warm
> as I thought. I drove beyond the me+car limits. I don't know about
> the other cases you will have to ask them.
>
> If I am running an event that the person in charge of Rally/Solo has
> approved the course, the Chairman of the SEB (and other commite/board
> members) has walked many times. When I pull to the line, its a safe
> course. I don't/can't think of it anymore.
>
>
> *Significant* Vehicle damage is one of many outcomes of an autox run.
> So are cones, blown motors, rollovers, timing errors and 1 in a
> million national championship winning runs. That is what we are after
> is it not. To win? If not lets just turn off the timers and *parade*
> around the course.
>
> I will state this right now.... I feel badly for all of those that
> were the victims of the near misses. Those that had to take evasive
> action to avoid collision. Its a shame if you have to blow all of
> your driving talent for the weekend to avoid an out of control
> car/driver combination like me. But it is part of the sport. As they
> say, thats rac***, excuse me, thats autocrossing.
>
> Lets move on to Petersburg.
>
>
>
>
>
Mike Neary....what's it to ya?
'97 Acura Integra GS-R, DSP
http://www.qis.net/~zoomie
http://www.autocrossers.org
|