Just to add another perspective:
Since classes combine cars of varied power and size in one group,
like perhaps, AP, for example, where the HP can range from 70hp to 140
plus, and more (albeit on lightweight to more than lightweight chassis),
a course that is very fast, as was the San Diego design, IMO, favors the
cars with more horsepower.
I'm not quite sure how the SEB or any of the rule-making bodies
consider a "basic" course when combining cars into classes; but course
design can affect the event's results. One some events the high hp cars
will win, one others, the smaller more agile cars will win. However, at
nationals, the course designs should not favor one over the other.
Have no idea on how to achieve that ideal, just throwing it into the
thought pot.
--Pat Kelly
Jay Mitchell wrote:
> John speculates:
>
> > I think
> >you're on the left coast somewhere, aren't you?
>
> Nope.
>
> > Certainly you must be
> >autoxer of some repute.
>
> Depends what you mean by "some." ;<)
>
> >Anyways, no I never do get a chance to look at a
> >speedo on a course. But I know my rev limiters in the gears and
> I am
> >quite capable of telling when I've topped out in second or had
> to go to
> >third. In addition, in the midwest sometimes we measure speed
> .... with
> >radar guns. Wow!
>
> So, lemme get this straight: you're saying that you don't know if
> you had fun until you finish your run and find out from a radar
> reading that you got over some magic number? I always thought
> "fun" was a feeling, but who'm I to say?
>
> >And we don't measure "average" speed. The instance where you
> mentioned
> >averaging 45 mph was hardly your top speed on that course. Could
> it have
> >been north of 55?
>
> Of course. But it was YOU who said that "Any courses slower than
> 55 or so are way too slow for me. " And I pointed out that EVERY
> course is "slower than 55" at least part of the time. So, the
> question becomes how MUCH slower than 55 and for what percentage
> of the time? Are you saying it's OK if you get to 65 mph once
> during a run but then have to slow for a 30' radius 180? That's
> fast, but it's certainly not my idea of fun.
>
> >Faster courses often safer? Yes. Faster courses are usually set
> up on
> >larger sites where you don't have to break the 50 foot rule for
> curbs,
>
> According to your statement, then, it's the SITE that allows the
> greater safety, not the course. Or are you saying a course that
> you call "slow" would still be less safe than the faster course
> if both were laid out on a larger site? BTW, there is no "50 foot
> rule for curbs," it's 30 ft. There's a rule about spectator
> viewing distances (75ft. if memory serves, but my rule book isn't
> here).
>
> >I'll be thinking of all you safety nazis
>
> That is, in my case, an entirely inaccurate and inappropriate
> characterization. You should learn to exercise a bit more care in
> your choice of words.
>
> > when I choose to drive away
> >from an event because it's slow, tight and stupid.
>
> So, tell me this: how many events have you left after you took a
> run? And how would you know otherwise?
>
> >And 55 mph is well within the rules.
>
> I remind you of your own words: "Any courses slower than 55 or so
> are way too slow for me." I've seen lots of open, challenging
> courses where the slower Stock classes didn't get to 55 mph.
>
> >And just like I'll leave an event that has a slow course, you
> can choose
> >to leave an event if it's too fast for you.
>
> I haven't taken any position on what is "too fast." I've never
> gone home myself over that issue, and I've gotten well into
> fourth gear in my ASP car on more than one occasion at Solo II
> events. I'm simply pointing out that absolute speed is NOT a good
> indicator of fun or of good course design, and that there are
> very good reasons for the speed guidelines in the Solo II rules.
>
> Jay "no SSS license here" Mitchell
|