>My understanding of the course (as it has been explained here on team.net)
>is this: It was fast and fun, and culminated in a flat out finish section
>that had many (most?) cars exceeding highway speeds for a measurable period
>of time, with little steering input. (woo hoo!)
>
>If this was indeed the case, what exactly is the point of a flat-out
finish,
>other than to prove that a car with more power can possibly overcome sloppy
>driving in the technical bits by going faster in this section? Sure, it
>gives us all a rush to go fast, and I'm sure I would have enjoyed this
>course, as it sounds like fun. But is it in the spirit of what Solo II
>courses are "supposed" to be? Does it fit within the 1.6 rules? Okay,
that's
>three questions. Sue me.
>
>I'm serious about this. I've noticed it in course designs at other events,
>and it concerns me. Both from a safety standpoint, and from the thought
that
>these events are supposed to be about precision driving, not drag racing.
>
I would rather finish a course under power in a straight line with an
appropriate
amount of run off (slow down) room. Stop Boxes, finishes on curves, and
finish
slaloms are produced by course designers who have run out of ideas. I have
seen more drama as a result of a finish on curve than a straight line. You
mentioned that I driver with a fast car can make up for "previous sins" in a
fast
straight finish. That same driver with the "fast" car WILL still try to
make up for
previous sins even if the course finishes with a turn or slalom. The
results of
the later will be a damaged car, participant endangerment and or smashed
timing
equipment.
After all, do racers generally have to stop, turn or abbruptly slow down
immediately
AFTER crossing the finish line in any other form of motor racing?
Yes, we have Solo Trials, Solo I's and even Road Racing. In the case of
Solo
Trials, it would nice if National would put one of those on in Topeka after
Nat's.
We have the room and some of us have the desire.
Scott (ain't scared) Peterson
17 CP Mustang
|