Matt Murray wrote:
>We have chastised many for "not being
>at the event", or that they don't really know how fast they were going.
>I those posts ignore the real issue.
I think there are three issues: 1) the safety/legality of the Ft. Worth Tour
courses, 2) the appropriateness (or lack of same) for Solo II of the higher
speeds in courses like the Tour courses, and 3) general trends in course design
over tha last 25 years. Of immediate concern was 1), and, IMHO, it has been
established that the courses were legal, albeit at the upper limits of legality.
>These tangents, though amusing or good excercise for the delete key, miss
>Paul's orginal underlying message. The other comments that perhaps we
>might be increasing our acceptance of an unsafe issue or course, that
>a few years ago, would have caused a course redesign.
Taken strictly in terms of safety - minimizing the likelihood of injury to
participants, spectators, and damage to property - I state categorically that I
am _not_ more tolerant of unsafe courses than I was ten years ago. I don't see
that tolerance in others either. OTOH, "Higher speed" does not lead directly to
"less safe." The most flagrantly dangerous course I have ever seen was a
particularly slow one.
>If it was only Paul's post, you could chalk it up to a non-SCCA guy or an
>elistist PCA person, but here you have some voices of reason echoing,
>though not exactly, what Paul had written about.
If we're now going to have a discussion about the types of courses and speed
ranges that are most appropriate for competitive equity, I think there are
valid arguments that we've seen some courses in recent times that are "too
fast," but those arguments are not linked to safety.
>From what I have read TMS had acceptable run off room, but the stock
>speeds may have exceeded the intent of the Solo 2 rules.
I disagree: when a single competitor in either of those two categories manages
to very briefly reach 68 mph at one point on each course, it is my belief that
the intent of the rules has been met and that the course design was legal.
>So here we are a few bazillion posts later. I suspect the SEB is either
>looking at the wording of the maximum speed rules, especially when some
>states do have interstates with a posted 70 or 75 MPH, and quite a few
>vehicles with the ability to reach those speeds in a very short amount
>of time, or the SEB is looking to reduce overall course speeds,
>regardless of what is legal on an interstate.
I agree that the concept of what is acceptable for Solo II competition needs to
be examined with the idea of bringing down maximum speeds. I've seen far more
competitors pissed off because of courses that were "too tight" than "too
open," though. It's not an easy issue to resolve.
>With unprotected bodies
>on a course, I'm inclined to lean towards any suggestion(s) of a way to
>reduce those overall speeds.
Absolute speed can be somewhat academic if a moving car ever comes into contact
with an unprotected body. Corner station positioning and worker attentiveness
are the keys to safe event operation here. At the Tour, I saw one worker run
across the course directly in front of an approaching car (which quickly
stopped and got a rerun). No amount of rulesmaking can prevent this sort of
problem. It requires enlightened self-interest on the part of workers.
>It won't be easy or painless. My good wishes and support goes to those
>with a tremendous responsibility in resolving these issues and the
>future health of out sport.
I'll second that.
Jay
|