On May 24, 2005, at 05:07, Richard Urschel wrote:
> Please define "technical."
From Team.Net...
>> On Friday, October 31, 1997 10:21, TeamM3@aol.com
>> [SMTP:TeamM3@aol.com]
>> wrote:
>>
>> In a message dated 97-10-31 05:34:36 EST, you write:
>>
>> While I didn't attend Nationals, my understanding is that the
>> courses were
>> very technical (a polite way of saying overly tight, sorry course
>> designers).
>>
>
> I've heard this correlation made by several before, and I'm
> confused as to
> whether I'm using the term "technical" incorrectly or what.
>
> I've always used "technical" to describe courses or sections which
> reward/penalize heavily for using the exact proper line or
> approach, or
> require a specific car control for good performance (trail braking,
> TTO,
> tossing the car). There's no association in my mind with speed.
> Non-technical courses have an obvious line to them, no matter how
> tight,
> or may require good car control skills of a common type.
>
> As an example, Jeff Reitmeier set up a course at Candlestick here
> in SFR
> this year which had a big fast left-hand sweeper leading
> IMMEDIATELY into
> a 90 degree right to the finish (ok, ok, we didn't turn over any
> Bimmers!). I thought it was a very technical section - you had to
> come
> out of the sweeper on the inside of the turn (unusual and
> difficult), and
> manage to get some braking done *while* transitioning the car from
> left
> to right. Lots of people spun there. Many others got through the
> right
> hander with major push and slowness or conage. Some few people,
> and by
> and large they were the more successful drivers nationally, made that
> section look easy and came through the finish hard on the gas. (I
> just
> shot straight off course, but that's me...)
>
> That section wasn't either slow or tight at all - it was "technical".
> Wasn't it??
>
> KeS
|