I am responding to this message in two parts This is part one, which
responds to Jay's criticism of DSC.
> >Not quite true. Why do people DNF?
>
> Lots of times, it's because of poor course design. There's absolutely
nothing in
> the present Solo II rules that prevents one from laying out an
easily-followed,
> intuitive course. That some Regions do otherwise is a problem that is
locally
> created and can be locally solved, with no need to change the entire
sport.
>
> I consider the number of "driver got lost" DNFs to be a good indicator of
the
> (lack of)quality of a course design.
Hmmm - it is your contention that proper course design would answer a
rookies DNF's in it's entirety?
(About walking a course)
> Which is one of the skills you need to win at Solo II. I have no problem
at all
> with this situation, and I'll bet I've got lots of company. It's actually
one of my
> favorite parts of Solo II.
My favorite part is driving my car at speed. Tulsa has walking paths for
those that choose to walk during their weekend, and Mall walking is becoming
popular, too.
Solo II suggests you walk the course before driving it, a navigational thing
IMO. DSC allows a competitor to learn the course by driving it at practice,
simply a different approach from Solo II. Much like DSC starting by a
Christmas tree - a different approach from a starters nod, arm waving, or
finger pointing - it is just another approach that accomplishes the same
thing.
BTW, you can still walk a course at a DSC event, if you do so before the
practice runs begin. Because that is how I learned to Solo, I am more
comfortable walking before practice myself.
> > <snip> Novices and less experienced drivers do not
> >achieve the same level of course familiarization as the more experienced
> >from course walking.
>
> No news there, but lemme make sure I get this straight: you consider it a
> _problem_ that Solo II competitors get better with experience?
Why would one want to be more experienced at walking at a motorsport event?
Most come to drive their cars, and drive them fast. DSC gives them more time
doing that by allowing them to practice before competing, sorta like fun
runs
_before_ the event. Just a different approach, that's all.
> >Some regions even do a "Parade Lap" after the course
> >walk for this very reason.
>
> Allowed by the existing rules.
And reinforcing my thoughts that practice laps are not a bad thing.
> >A severe breakout rule, anything over 1/2% of qualifying time is
penalized.
>
> That's .3 seconds on a 60 second course. You really believe that a good
driver
> can't perform comfortably within that window without breaking out? Kevin
is
> right: the way to win Solo DSC will be to drive well within your comfort
zone
> and go for consistency over speed.
At least it is the drivers skill being measured, and not his car. And
(although not a "skilled" driver by any strectch of the imagination) I was
unable to duplicate my times that consistantly without actually "going for
it". By going for it, I was able to be much more consistant than trying to
"sandbag" consistantly - especially with such a narrow margin. Just as a
side note, none of us had electronic help, either.
I challenged Kevin to try it at his next event, and report back with his
results - - and also report how enjoyable a driving experience his
"sandbagging" was compared to "going for it". I challenge you to do the
same, and let us all know your real world experience, instead of your
theories.
> >Time will tell. At least I am trying to accomplish that goal. I certainly
am
> >a lot closer to that goal than SCCA Solo II is, at this point - don't you
> >agree?
>
> No. There is no way in any sport which relies on equipment to remove the
> advantage that better equipment gives to the competitor. A better car will
always > afford an advantage to the competitor who is driving it. In Solo
II, that advantage > is much smaller than most of the folks who don't win
care to admit, but that's only > a natural reaction to frustration. "It
can't _possibly_ be my driving, so it _must_
> be the other guy's better car."
I certainly hope we can agree to disagree. I don't think you were trying to
catch a quarter million dollar RSR with a little rotary or 4 cylinder car
last year, either. Or run a 15 year old 90 horsepower Fiero against a late
model ACR heads up, as the SCCA would have us do (for example). It is my
hopes that DSC brings those type disparities at least a little closer than
the Solo II community has been able to.
> >Come on down, you can either congratulate me after the event, or witness
> > my humiliation.
>
> One event won't be indicative. The real test is whether a format like this
will gain > sufficient acceptance to survive nationwide over a period of
years. Frankly, if I
> really believed that Solo II were going to be replaced by something like
this, my > competition car would be on the market tomorrow, and I'd be
looking for
> another hobby. There's one data point, FWIW.
There is no thought of replacing Solo II. The goal is to offer an option
that currently isn't available. As long as a DSC event is not run on the
same weekend, my money is on competitors running both type events (much like
the road racers in your part of the country running both SCCA and NASA).
If DSC goes National, it is because competitors like the format, and for no
other reason. Once again, DSC is not meant to be a threat to Solo II. I
wouldn't want to see the SCCA classing chaos with monthly "clarifications"
go away - it is worth the entertainment value, if for no other reason.
(Last year, I couldn't say that. But of course, there were no other options
available last year!).
BTW, if you sell your competiton car, you could always take up Mall walking.
:-)
G
|