Eric wrote:
>One thing to remember, and my only comment on this thread, a fast course can
>be considered (there is no 100% though) "safe" and still be illegal
>according to the rules and the intent of the rules.
That's entirely correct. However, the upper speed limits as stated in the rules
present several problems:
1. The phrase "should not normally exceed" leaves lots of room (maybe too much)
for interpretation. Whereas I fully understand the legal minefield that would
be laid if a single absolute maximum speed were designated, it has to be
understood that reasonable (and very safety-conscious) people can and will
disagree over the correct interpretation of the above phrase.
2. Even with the best of intentions to keep maximum speeds below 65 ("the low
60s,") for "the fastest Stock and SP cars," it is a practical impossibility to
know in advance if a given course design will meet that criterion throughout
the competition. Even after multiple preruns by an experienced autocrosser in a
well-prepped car of suitable speed potential, the possiblity remains that
someone will discover a different line or strategy that allows higher terminal
velocities than were intended by the course designer. We are competing after
all.
>We simply must follow
>the safety rules as they're non-negotiable.
The rules that are presented as absolute minima and maxima (about parameters
that can readily be measured) can successfully be treated in that fashion.
Rules that specify a range of values and use terminology like "should not
normally" are (intentionally) vague, and it should come as no surprise that not
everyone agrees as to how they should be interpreted. If the specificity of the
maximum speed rules can be improved, I would think that we would all benefit.
We would still have the problem of advance knowledge (or lack thereof) of
possible maximum speeds. What are we supposed to do if, on the second or third
run, the fastest SS driver finds an additional 10 mph terminal velocity in the
fastest section of the course, and that added speed puts him(her) into the "low
70s" instead of the "low 60s?" Do we shut down the event and redesign the
course on the spot?
IMHO, there was no intent on the part of anyone involved with the Ft. Worth
Tour to skirt any portion of the Solo II safety rules in the design of this
course. In fact, the course redesign prior to the event to reduce maximum
speeds indicates to me that the rules were being taken very seriously. That's
just a guess, however. For definitive answers, I'd suggest asking Peter Fehn
(event chair, also a SSS and SSS instructor), Tommy Saunders (course designer),
Kurt Janish (who did the course setup and predrove the course), or Roger (the
real) Johnson (who provided design assistance).
Jay
|