I wonder about the future of Topeka as the Nationals site.
It struck me as way too rough and brittle for the BIG SHOW.
The South course had to be modified significantly during one
of the days to avoid a huge pothole that had developed
during the morning runs.
That course modification is another reason this year's Nationals
shouldn't be used too heavily for PAX data.
Kent Rafferty
> Perhaps this is a good time to ask: why not have Nationals on asphalt?
>
> Points for asphalt:
>
> 1) It is easier on tires -- less expense.
>
> 2) It is easier on the cars -- less expense and less likelihood
> of mechanical failure ruining a few people's Nationals.
>
> 3) Its somewhat safer (now, I am not going into some ridiculous
> rant about how we're all going to roll our cars and die; rather
> I'll just say that even a very rare rollover is one too many and
> will tend to scare off potential drivers; also consider that the
> higher likelihood of mechanical failure is also a safety issue).
>
> 4) Its just as challenging for drivers: it will tend to be slower
> making it a bit easier, but it will also tend to be less uniform
> (elevation changes; texture changes) making it a bit tougher.
>
> 5) Most regional events are on asphalt -- large curb-free concrete
> is often tough to find. And thus Nationals always on concrete
> definitely favors those few who get to drive on it more often.
>
> I think the biggest negative is probably that you need to make sure that
> you find _good_ asphalt -- asphalt that is loose, cracking, breaking up
> in spots, etc., is not what I am talking about above.
>
> Another negative, I'd guess, is that in light rain, concrete may drop off
> in traction more slowly.
>
> I am just curious why it is commonly accepted that "Nationals must be
> on concrete"??
>
> Brian
>
|