So, what we need is "cookie cutter" courses...
Let's have the top course designers (relative term) across the country
prepare a manual with perhaps 10 course designs (the average number of
events a region hosts per year) and make them of average size, (another
relative term), and keep the speeds within the limit's of the rules (more
relative stuff, nothing absolute) and safety designed by committee,
regardless of site location, site size, site obstructions, site runoff,
etc., and let each region use this as their bible. No more, no less. It
shouldn't matter if we have a small congested lot, or a large un-obstructed
lot. One size fits all.....Just think of all the fun we could have, and how
well the sport would grow...Why, I bet after a couple of years of that, we
could have 1500/2000 at National, no problem....Not to mention all the
record breaking attendance at regional, divisional, and national tours. Who
needs diversity?....
Phil O.
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Loring" <bloring@tirerack.com>
To: <autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: Speed Creep - Powers to Be Opinion
> 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
|