I prefer them inside, as you know, Don. But then I do focus on the cones and
not the lines which are merely cues on which way the course goes. San Diego
does not line their courses except at the Tour, so they lined it outside
because "that's what they do at Topeka."
That's what they have done at Topeka for the last 5-6 years. Before then,
it was inside, outside, wherever, maybe not at all. The Solo II Rulebook does
not require the lines be inside or outside, just that the lines be there.
I suspect the reason the Topeka courses lately have been lined outside is
in reaction to some California regions lining on the inside, and they
definitely DO NOT want to do it like they do it in California.
Therefore, I concur, we should line on the outside, and thereby induce the
rest of the country to line the courses on the inside...contrary to what we do
here.
;-)
--Pat Kelly
Donald R McKenna wrote:
> DISCLAIMER:
>
> Although I'm a member of the SFR SOLO II Steering Committee (SC), the
> following reflects only my personal observations and is not intended to
> either represent or reflect on opinions of my fellow SC members.
>
> Now the subject:
>
> Did anyone, who ran the Tour at San Diego last weekend, get "bitten" (hit
> cones) due to the unfamiliarity of the course being lined on the outside?
>
> Earlier this year, as the SFR Steering Committee (SC) was updating the SFR
> SOLO II supplemental regulations (supps), we revised the paragraph (now #
> 18) which requires course lining.
>
> The previous supps, the 1998 version, paragraph #15, read: " The course will
> be lined with gypsum or appropriate substance on the "inside" of the pylons
> marking the course".
>
> At the November '99 SC meeting Charlie Davis proposed a revision to the
> supps that, although still requiring lining, would have made it optional to
> line either "inside" or "outside" the cones. Essentially, after a lot of
> spirited discussion for a couple of meetings, the 2000 supps were revised to
> accomplish the intent of Charlie's suggestion and paragraph #18 (as posted
> as a link off the SFR SOLO II web page) now reads: "Both sides of the
> course will be lined with gypsum or an appropriate substance when allowed by
> the weather and property owners. Slaloms may be lined or unlined."
>
> The jist of the discussions, preceeding the acceptance of the new wording,
> concerned some strong opinions of proponents for either "inside" or
> "outside" lining of our courses. The resultant paragraph #18 wording is
> intended to allow or encourage, depending on one's point-of-view, lining
> different courses either way.
>
> Although I initially was in favor of leaving things as they were, I
> eventually became a proponent of always requiring lining on the outside.
> However, I believe, if we routinely line both ways, as the new supps
> paragraph #18 allows, we will develop a keener sense of focusing on the
> cones, as the (penalty) edge of the course, thereby reducing our dependance
> on the line for defining that (penalty). Although I still prefer always
> lining on the "outside", if variability in lining eventuates at SFR events,
> I believe those who run out-of-area events, that are lined on the outside,
> will be less likely to incur cone penalties at those events.
>
> In addition to those who ran at San Diego, what do the rest of you think,
> and why? Anyone have any "life experience" to support an opinion?
>
> As an added observation, I'm absolutely in favor of ALWAYS lining any and
> all courses. After driving (attempting to drive) the San Diego Friday
> practice course, which was unlined, we were all reminded of how vital the
> lines, wherever they are located , are in helping to see the course flow
> ahead.
>
> Don
|