Someone else wrote:
"It was an expensive entry and the equipment required is also not cheap
(SA95 helmet, suit, underwear, balaclava, gloves, shoes, GCR compliant
rollcage and fire extinguisher etc.). I guess I have now got $1K tied up in
safety stuff for the car. But it sure was fun to get out of second gear and
ring the car out. (70mph at the top of this rather short hill).
If the equipment required to enter a Solo2 event was a little more expensive
at a national level the entry list would decrease significantly.
>From what I have read on this list about recent rollovers and crashes I
think the improvement in driver safety stuff is necessary at the national
level!!!"
I went Solo I racing a few years back as a crew member and got to go to Road
Atlanta, Roebling Road and course's like that down south. A real good
experience for me. BUT I thought that solo II was supposed to be a
grassroots type of car racing that gives everyone, no matter what type of
vehicle, a chance to participate. If you want lower numbers of attendees
and higher costs(entrance fees, safety equipment, etc) that go Solo I racing
and you actually get to race on real road courses and are required to have
all the safety equipment that you could ever want. I feel the solo II
program should stay in the format that it is and if you want the lower
entrants and higher cost then go to solo I. If we are having too many
attendees at the Solo II level then maybe the SCCA should think about adding
a couple more events to the schedule.
Joe T
|