I agree with you, in part, Ron. Though I don't necessarily think it's
something we should include on EVERY course.
A few years ago, I drew out a course that was nothing more than three
interlocking circles (skid pads) with a fourth circle (skid pad)
imbedded in the last one. I never had the guts to actually put it on
the ground until last year. The first and third circles had a
300-foot outside diameter while the middle circle and the circle
imbedded in the third circle were about 200-feet. The course width
was 30-feet all the way around.
We ran it two times in one direction, then two times in the other
direction to equalize tire wear and oil/fuel starvation problems.
Everybody who ran it said it was an absolute hoot to drive except for
the sea of cones it took to set it up. It gave you a sort of picket
fence effect out of your peripheral vision.
Just a different approach to something many of us have thought about
but never tried.
John (Old Fartz & TLS #37) Lieberman
Ron Katona wrote:
>
> What's wrong with a 180 or even 360 degree skidpad turn? I understand
> the original post said only to "try" to avoid those, but I'd rather try
> to include at least one such turn in every event even on large lots. I
> think a steady state 180 or 360 is a work of art if done properly by a
> talented driver. You often see rookies hopelessly understeering or never
> achieving a tight steady line in such corners.
>
> To me, this is one feature that separates autocross from road racing.
> You can't do a 360 on a road course (on purpose). It doesn't have to be
> gimmicky, just include one in the normal flow of a good course.
> --
> Ron Katona
|