Course design is such a personal and even philosophical kinda thing, that
everyone grabs onto what makes sense or feels good to them. Some views are
based on experience, and some are not.
My two cents worth is that I have observed *many* more DNF's from confusing
course designs caused by TOO MANY PYLONS than ever from too few. I have seen
some really good courses ruined by lining the course with pylons, rather than
letting the eye flow naturally to the next apex.
There is such a thing as "visual over-stimulation", and is compounded by too
much visual input (many pylons) especially at speed. Ever notice how different
the course 'looks' at speed from the walk through?
OK - two more cents - It should be the challenge of who drives best that
determines the winner, and not who survives the 'visual jungle'. DNF's are an
accurate testimony of course appropriateness. The bench racing after any event
should be about what line was best, and not about how hard the course was to
"see".
Finally, when one drives briskly on the road (or even road course) there is
not substantial or overcoming visual input; you look ahead to the next turning
opportunity and adjust your driving style accordingly. This is what skill
should be tested, and should be reflected on Solo 2 courses also, IMHO.
Thanks,
Scott Meyers
Follower of the 'minimum pylon course design' school,
or "Quality, not Quantity" - I tell my wife that one too...... ;-)
|