> Have to disagree here.
>
Me too.
> The 'incidents' came through a section of offsets run soundly in the
> middle
> of 2nd gear. If you can't set up a set of 2nd gear offsets without
> criticism, then our sport is finished.
>
I think that should read: If you can't set up a SAFE set of 2nd
gear offsets then our sport is finished".
> 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.
>
So we only let people who won't make errors compete?
> 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.
>
This sounded good up to the point of "given the site". Are we
responsible for creating safe courses and running safe events only when the
site configuration allows it?
One of the things I like about the sport is that I don't have to
"drive responsibly" while on course (that doesn't mean I won't act
responsibly).
> My only criticism of the course was the first section of jerky offsets,
> which were improperly marked, with pointers on the wrong side of gates,
> too
> many cones, a poor mix of new and old cones, and a lack of chalk line.
> This
> particular section did not give rise to any incidents, however, just a lot
> of bad runs.
>
So people being injured and cars being damage are less of topic of
criticism than a lack of a chalk line?
> 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.
>
Maybe your conclusion is such but I can't believe that it is a
conclusion of the majority.
> Atleast 2 out of the 3 incidents were not stupid
> mistakes. The Z06 could not do anything different
It sounds like the "stupid mistakes" were made long before the cars
hit the course.
Ronald M. Madurski
Lockheed Martin Information Technologies
304 625 2269
ronald.m.madurski@lmco.com
/// 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
|