San Diego was the first I saw lines outside the cones.
I was hesitant at first and thought I might get
confused in my limited experience. After my first
run, and the next five, I never thought about them
again. The lines helped as always, but the cones are
what I drove around. Inside or out, seems OK by me.
patrick
--- Donald R McKenna <donbarbmckenna@earthlink.net>
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
>
Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com
|