In a message dated 5/23/2005 4:48:18 PM Pacific Standard Time, cyclist@sbcglobal.net writes: A discussion with Charlie about the 'Boxes' brought out an interesting explanation of the difference betwe
<< A discussion with Charlie about the 'Boxes' brought out an interesting explanation of the difference between true 'Chicago Boxes' and the type we actually see as elements in our courses. Maybe Cha
Don't remember the last time I saw a true Chicago Box at a local event. It's prominently featured in the Evo Phase I course, where we were taught to drive it like a 3-cone slalom. -- Viet-Tam Luu (a.
Author: "John J. Stimson-III" <john@harlie.idsfa.net>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 18:09:49 -0700
I always thought that a real Chicago box was a rectangle with one side left open and a cone in the middle of the open side which you have to drive around. Depending on the size of the rectangle, it c
-- "John J. Stimson-III" <john@harlie.idsfa.net> That's an accurate description of it. If the open side of the box is around 120' long or larger, with the single cone in the middle, it'll be fun (Sun
I'm inclined to agree with the "fun" remark but on the other hand if we decided that "straight = fun" we'd be drag racing and not autocrossing. :-) -- Viet-Tam Luu (a.k.a. "Tam") SFR-SCCA Solo2 #14 E
True, AAS had a 135' spacing slalom once. Or should I say "curvy straight." I was thinking about shortening up the distance on some of my slaloms by a few feet. Maybe 55-58' instead of 65' or so (lik
The minimum distance between slalom cones in the National Rules is 45 feet. Most of us would consider that distance tedious and not very fun. Not sure what the measurements of the Evo Phase 1 Box are
Mike Wood responded: Actually, Mike is a good person to ask... Did you go throught the slalom flat out? How far did you get before you had to lift? I'd like to know what that slalom was like in the f
Did you go throught the slalom flat out? How far did you get before you had to lift? I'd like to know what that slalom was like in the faster cars... Actually, when I was driving home and thinking ab
Well, I think it was narrow courses and sharp apexes that were the real cause. I don't know that the slaloms we had at the time were a specific problem. My point is that if the slaloms I'm laying out
I've been reading some of the posts and get sort of rattled by references to more 'technical' courses. Now that I'm driving one of the more lumbering cars at the event, i.e., not a lot of power, but
I don't think of my courses as terribly technical. I think of Ben's courses as being very technical. OTOH, there were some technical elements on Sunday. It's interesting that PAt has cars on opposite
No where near flat on either course in my car. James OSP - Our Slalom Pros --Original Message-- From: owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net [mailto:owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net] Well, I think it was narrow
We run on some really great courses here, but are we stuck with only one style of design? Sometimes, why not have a very tight slalom, or a true chicago box? Mix things up, not every course has to be