OK, I'll throw out my opinion (having designed courses for probably close to
20 years and driven them for almost 30, not to mention having been a Safety
Steward). I personally feel a straight finish with straight braking zone is
safer -and- more fun. Now it sounds like the finish in question may have
stretched the point a bit, but I prefer to design with the finish on a
straight line after a low 2nd gear turn and only enough of a straight to
accelerate a bit then the lights and a nice shut down before a sharp turn to
exit. The other benefit to this is much less spinning, off course, lots of
cones down, smash the lights, give many reruns activity. There should be
enough turns and other challenges in the rest of the course. Human nature
seems to make people give that little bit extra at the finish and if it is
some sort of tight turn that is susposed to slow people down, they don't -
they go for that little extra bit to make up for what they did wrong on the
rest of the course. And a well balanced course design can make up for an
susposed advantage a mega horsepower car might have. IMHO
Rick Brown
FP 240Z
> 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
|