>The issue of top speed and applying 2.1 comes down to two questions for me:
>1. Is it fair for course designers to take advantage of the space to make
>a safe course that exceeds 65mph?
If it can be done safely, I don't see why not. To me, "safely" would mean a
larger than normal overrun area at the end of the high speed straight, just
in case an inexperienced hotshoe gets in over their head and blows the turn.
At higher speeds the consequences of mistakes are exponentially higher. If
the course design takes this into account and is still safe, I say go for
it. A wall or curb 20' after a hairpin at the end of a 70mph straight
doesn't cut it in this case.
The problem with high speed autox is the amount of space that's necessary,
which is generally beyond the scope of your average parking lot. If you're
on a half mile long airport runway and shoot a high speed straightaway down
half of it, you've got room for a huge overrun, and 80mph would be
reasonable and safe, not to mention a real kick for people who don't usually
drive that fast. If you've got it, use it, but if you can't do it safely,
don't do it at all.
One thing I like is a course that puts cars with poor power and good
handling on even ground with cars with good power and poor handling. Along
with a foot-to-the-floor straightaway, how about a tight slalom and a couple
of hairpins on your way back? That would give the lower powered cars a
place where they could shine over, say, an old Chevy Nova that'll cream them
on the straightaway.
>2. Is it legal for course designers to take advantage of the space to make
>a safe course that exceeds 65mph?
SCCA rules are not an area in which I'm anything resembling an expert, and I
quite honestly don't know. I'm sure others have thoughts on that. :)
- Justin
|