Jay,
I respectfully submit that you left step three prematurely. :^) IMO, 1.6
covers all aspects of this argument. It explains why the SSC is involved,
and why Howard is allegedly concerned. Both for safety and concept reasons.
Since I wasn't at the event, I can't argue the safety aspect of this
particular course, so I won't.
Anyway, it was just a snotty little note, please don't take it too
seriously.
As a non-attendant at the event in question, I have a question to toss out:
My understanding of the course (as it has been explained here on team.net)
is this: It was fast and fun, and culminated in a flat out finish section
that had many (most?) cars exceeding highway speeds for a measurable period
of time, with little steering input. (woo hoo!)
If this was indeed the case, what exactly is the point of a flat-out finish,
other than to prove that a car with more power can possibly overcome sloppy
driving in the technical bits by going faster in this section? Sure, it
gives us all a rush to go fast, and I'm sure I would have enjoyed this
course, as it sounds like fun. But is it in the spirit of what Solo II
courses are "supposed" to be? Does it fit within the 1.6 rules? Okay, that's
three questions. Sue me.
I'm serious about this. I've noticed it in course designs at other events,
and it concerns me. Both from a safety standpoint, and from the thought that
these events are supposed to be about precision driving, not drag racing.
With respect to all reasoned opinions,
William (you'd think I'd know better by now) Loring
|