John Mahoney wrote...
> Gates I feel should be wide enough to allow each competitor to pick a line.
etc. etc. etc.
The purpose here is not to get into a debate over wide vs. narrow gates. that
is another subject entirely and worthy of repeated discourse, but it is not
the issue here.
The issue is a belief that the rule requires 15-foot minimum gates. It does
not. So if a course designer finds a situation where a narrower gate would
accomplish some specific purpose, he is free to use it.
> ...narrow gates does not make a safer course.
Very true. Just because a designer is free to use narrower gates should he
choose to do so, he should not be lulled into thinking it a panacea that
will automatically slow people down and make his course safer. The mere fact
of a narrow gates does not equate to safety. Thoughtful design does, and on
occasion a narrow gate may be a useful element. Given adequate space, so also
can a design with very wide gates.
I am not advocating narrow gates in this specific discourse, only pointing out'
that the SCCA rulebook does not preclude their use. Thus, the reported
complaints of some at Rt. 66 that the gates were illegally narrow were
incorrect on the allegation of illegality. They were legal, and could have
been retained had the designer/event chair/SSS chosen to leave them alone.
I cited my Mirror Khana example only to illustrate that narrow gates could be:
1. legal
2. enjoyable
3. challenging
and therefore should not be avoided simply as a knee-jerk reaction based on
a misreading of rulebook requirements. If you choose to avoid them for other,
philosophical reasons that is another matter (and another discussion) entirely.
--Rocky Entriken
|