--part1_b4.59b5020.265ae725_boundary
--part1_b4.59b5020.265ae725_boundary
Content-Disposition: inline
Return-path: <ConeChasr@aol.com>
From: ConeChasr@aol.com
Full-name: ConeChasr
Message-ID: <62.3a0b464.265ae6fe@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 15:39:42 EDT
Subject: Re: Peru Pro (a bit long)
To: sburkett@ooi.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Unknown
Howdy,
I do think the three things you point out are, for the most part, true. Yes,
the course rewarded agressive driving (Lord knows I wasn't). This was a "stop,
turn and gas like hell" course from my viewpoint in GS. It really did also
seem that the aggressiveness went up a few (ok, a helluva lot of) notches on
Sunday, as was expected.
The box was very fast. However, it was only flat for the low horsepower cars.
I made it once flat clean and many times dirty. My car also never got loose in
this section. It did seem to have the same amount of grip as the rest of the
tarmac. Of course, this is all FWIW.
Daniel Ledford
99 Mitsu Eclipse GSX <==rather docile this weekend...
In a message dated Mon, 22 May 2000 3:07:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Steven
N. Burkett" <sburkett@ooi.com> writes:
<<
On Mon, 22 May 2000, Steven T. Ekstrand wrote:
> I could understand it if the accident had happened during one of the first
> pairs on the course, but this was apparently one of the last? How many
> close calls do you need before somebody realizes it may be prudent to move
> a few cones between run groups.
For whatever reason, most of the close calls were on Sunday, *after* the
actual collision. I think that there were three factors:
1) By Sunday, everyone knew that the box was full-throttle.
2) The driving appeared more agressive on Sunday. Actually, the course
seemed to lend itself well toward agressive driving, in my (novice)
opinion.
3) Several folks reported that the course seemed a little less grippy. I
have no idea whether this is true.
--part1_b4.59b5020.265ae725_boundary--
|