Very good point. It's not just their own peril, but the peril of all of
us who love the sport.
BTW, the SI & SII rules have plenty of rules to allow drivers to go
faster. Solo Trials, Flat Track Solo I, and all the way up to regular
Solo I. But in each increment, the cost of insurance and safety
requirements also increases.
We should take circumventions of course design rules as seriously as we
would take a competitor with a serious "over-preparation" for the class
he has selected. Trying to slip one past the rules in course design is
dangerous to the entire sport.
--Byron
Rm84fm@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 3/26/99 3:51:21 PM Central Standard Time, bshort@AFSinc.com
> writes:
>
> > "While there are no hard limits to speed, IMHO the region which often runs
> with courses which would allow the best-prepared and best-driven SP cars to
> exceed 65 on course, do so at their own peril"
>
> Byron -
>
> I solute all you and others have said re: this subject, except the above.
>
> >From a SSS point of view, high speed - high risk courses are a danger to us
> ALL. If there were an increase in incidents, and God forbid, a serious injury
> or even death as a result of high speed, high risk and poor common sense -
> SCCA pays, the Regions pay, and in the end we all pay. Not just monetarily,
> but potentially in the ultimate loss of Solo 2.
>
> It's already getting tough for small Regions to get access to decent pavement,
> and ANY incident is detriment to the participant, the local Region and SCCA.
> And we NEVER know when something might happen.
>
> Despite my discuss w/ the SEB's indifference w/ the Solo Vee... I love this
> sport and don't want to lose the opertunity to drive my Vee in a parking lots
> across the SEDiv.
>
> And next time you need a push out of a course exit (e.g., '98 Nationals)...
> I'll be there for ya.
>
> Rick McClure
> FM36
|