I would agree that the rules are appropriate for Solo and clearly the
problem was in the following of the rules.
But, since the error was the SSS's, can you explain why the penalty was
applied to the competitors?
Greg Scharnberg
At 07:42 AM 2/20/2006 -0700, Byron Short wrote:
>When I joined the SEB 9in 1994 I tried for two years to change the rule,
>finally succeeding in my third year which was 1996. The previous rule
>had pretty much the same wording except that it applied to "the fastest
>cars" rather than "the fastest stock and street prepared cars". It was
>a lot like pulling teeth with the majority of the board over the first
>two years arguing that BM cars weren't going as fast as I imagined. I
>was able to prove the speeds based on testimony from a BM driver and a
>known rev limited speed which he hit several times (exactly where I
>calculated he should have) and the rule changed. The goal at that time
>was to make the rulebook match the sport by increasing rulebook speeds
>in a subtle (but not small!) way.
>
>So the rule isn't ancient, although stock and sp cars have changed a LOT
>in the last 10 years.
>
>Reijo is also exactly right on why we continued to use the vague
>wording. Hard numbers are dangerous as they are far more litigatable
>(if that's a word) than softer wording. However, by the time you get to
>80+ any pretense that you were trying to comply with the rules gets
>pretty hard to argue with a straight face.
>
>It's really all about limited speeds primarily with cornering speeds,
>not straight away speeds. Yes, the top speed in the course will be
>attained in a straight, but the two corners at each end of the straight
>will have as much to do with the final max speed as the straight
>itself. And since Solo is supposed to be about "handling", we shouldn't
>be bummed out about turning.
>
>Speeds in corners increase in proportion to the square root of the
>cornering g's. Dog-meat HS cars on dot rubber still pull 1.1 to 1.2
>g's, and the hot SS and ASP cars pull 1.2 to 1.3g's. So the cornering
>speeds for HS and SS/ASP are pretty similar. 60mph @ 1.3g's = 55mph @
>1.1g's. Two 60mph corners connected by 100' of straight is a big
>feature, but the car would have to accelerate at more than 0.7g (as it
>exited that full g corner) then brake at 1g and have 1/4sec of time for
>the chassis to settle in order to hit 70mph. 0.7g @ 60mph takes a lot
>of power (358hp net to the ground in a 3200 pound car). And cars in
>solo don't accelerate at their full straight line potential very much
>because of the twists and turns that we use. Similarly, braking rarely
>exceeds 0.7 - 0.8 or so even though the cars with the rubber we use will
>brake at 1.1-1.3g's in a straight line brake test. (Quick math, but
>should be close...)
>
>The point is, courses can be fun within the current rulebook (although I
>would love to see the cornering speeds wording get softer and
>contemplate "low 50's" rather than the 45mph wording we have now).
>With the current crop of uber-cars it's incumbant upon the course
>designer to "do the math". And be honest about what's an actual corner
>that will slow a car, and what's just a flat-foot bend.
>
>My hat's off to the protest committee with the testacular fortitude to
>do what they did. Big ones.
>
>--Byron Short
|