I don't think a Neon was likely to have been over about 65. Tops. Same
for the Miatas. With that said, I believe the course was a little
faster than that *typicall contemplated* the by rulebook. How a
particular SSS views that regarding *legality* can certainly vary.
Words like "normally" give a little wiggle room to allow for the
certainty that we'll never be able to predict how fast a car can go, or
even how fast a car went (as the current thread proves) with absolute
certainty. Hard limits are not practical, or enforcable, and might
cause the "attorney for the plaintiff" to say we weren't following our
rules and hence we were negligent. Wording like that should be avoided.
IMHO (and that's all there are with slippery words like "normally" in
the mix) the word "normally" in the rulebook is meant to say that if the
course is designed such that a well-prepared, well-driven SP car can
exceed the mid 60's while properly following the course, it's faster
than desirable. IMHO, it's also faster than should be approved, for
competition reasons. But I won't say, and neither will the rulebook,
that it is therefore "unsafe".
When considering Common Sense and Solo II Courses, it might be
appropriate to read the rulebook section by that name, section 1.3.
This section must be read together with the 2.1 sections, and gives a
good balance of what is preferred. 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, as I doubt the SSC or SEB would endorse such
practices.
But again, all of this is subject to a great deal of interpretation and
debate, just as it should be. That's why we call it "wiggle room"! 8-)
Keep in mind that prior to 1996, the rules used the same "soft" wording
but referred to a limit of 70mph for the fastest cars in the sport. I
think that was slower than any of us wanted to go. The "new" wording
because it applies to cars in Stock and SP (with speedometers) is easier
to police, and not coincidentally, considerably faster.
--Byron
Josh Sirota wrote:
>
> Scott & Glenda Meyers wrote:
> > A friend in a Neon relayed to me after this SD event that he entered at
>least
> > one corner at 75+ mph, and he's not one of the faster drivers - going to
> > relevance here, not commenting on his ability :-)
>
> While I do think that the SD NT was atypically fast, I don't believe for
> a second that any Neons were doing over 75mph.
>
> Standard posturing, claiming speeds higher than they were. Anyone
> remember the old Wendover permanent course? I was only barely mid-80s
> in my CM car (I know, that was top speed, rev-limiter in top gear) and
> lots of people were saying they were at over 100. Didn't believe that,
> and I don't believe that Neons were over 75 at SD. 70, maybe.
>
> I *do* believe that lots of faster cars were into the upper 70s and 80s
> though, and I'd guess that the *very* fastest cars might have reached
> 90. In CM, we only reached mid-80s.
>
> Josh
|