Howdy,
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Chris Ramey wrote:
> Yes, the fence was close to the pavement. Not the event's fault. Yes,
> there were some incidents that could probably be better discussed off of the
> public forums, but the fact is, the incidents had more to do with driver
> errors, and bad luck than course faults. I think the drivers would likely
> agree.
>
> The course was fairly distanced from the edge of the pavement given the
> site. The start and timers were well away from the finish, as were the grid
> and impound areas. Perhaps they should have planned an escape route in
> case of brake failure, but the people getting near the start by spinning
> through the finish were simply not driving responsibly on those runs.
...
> It is a worthy excercise to analyze the course after incidents, but the
> conclusion here is that the course was not lacking in layout, IMO.
Ok, I wasn't there. I must not have anything valid to say.
That said...
Autocross is a sport where people are encouraged to push their car over
the limit _because_ making a mistake will not result in damage. Lots of
us enjoy that about autox.
Your implication above that its ok to have a course where a mistake will
cause damage and that its the driver's responsibility to not make that
mistake does _not_ fit what my idea of autox is.
This bears saying more and more it seems.
Mark
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|