That's good news that Cindy has made a Course Design Committee. They just
don't need to make the courses too slow or tight for the big cars in street
prepared or prepared. And I don't think anybody should be allowed to design
a course for their car, which I know some people that do that. There should
be a rule against it! There should be a rule also where u have a fast
section, a medium fast section and a slow section, but no section where a
big car can barely get through it. That's an unfair advantage for the small
cars. Bye for now.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck" <golden1@britsys.net>
To: "adam popp" <raft321@fuse.net>; <autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 12:41 AM
Subject: Re: Slow Courses On Big Sites Is Not Fun!
> Adam, I don't know where your info is coming from, but it is diametrically
> opposite the discussions I've had with home office. The complaints I heard
> and that were being addressed by the national office was that courses at
> national events have been getting too tight and gimmicky to the point of
> becoming painful to run. 05 Toledo Tour and Oscoda Pro being the most
> dis-cussed (pun intended). This came to a head IMHO at Oscoda where a
number
> of competitors joined together and filed a protest against the course
> design. Cindy has addressed these complaints by convening a course design
> oversite committee to review national event courses for such things as 1st
> gear pivot turns, features without sufficient "down course" spacing,
overly
> tight gates that dictate line, "walls of death" top of third gear
dragstrips
> ending in a heavy braking zone and other such features that do not add to
> the quality of the event. This oversight was instituted for Peru and Ayer
> Tours and all events thereafter. I applaude her taking this step to
assurer
> all events will reflect the types of courses found in Topeka in Sept
within
> the limits imposed by the event sites themselves. For this reason alone I
am
> looking forwards, rather than with dread, to the Toledo Pro in two weeks,
I
> expect to finally see a course design worthy of a national level event at
> that great site.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "adam popp" <raft321@fuse.net>
> To: <autox@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 8:22 PM
> Subject: Slow Courses On Big Sites Is Not Fun!
>
>
> > Hello everyone. Well, I heard there was a lot of complaining at the
> Toledo
> > National Tour about the courses there being to fast. They weren't that
> fast,
> > come on now. Then, I heard from a source at the most recent cendiv event
> this
> > weekend at Grissom AFB, that the national tour at Grissom was tight and
> slow
> > because people complained about the national tour courses in Toledo.
Then
> this
> > cendiv event I went to where I was expecting a typical Grissom course,
was
> not
> > as good, it was slower and tighter.
> > Now people, why are you in autocrossing if you don't want to go
fast?
> > Slow courses on big sites such as Grissom or Toledo Bax airport are not
> fun,
> > like I mentioned in the subject line.
> > I also heard the SCCA wants the top speed at the national tours to
be
> > 60mph at any site from now on. Give me a break, I hope that's not the
> case.
> > You will take a lot of fun out of autocrossing if put the top speed at
> 60mph
> > instead of 70mph where it has been. And you may loose a lot of members
and
> > money because so. I hope SCCA Solo 2 is not headed towards slow courses
on
> big
> > sites more in the future, because if so I might just run the local
events
> > where we like to go fast. That's my opinion, I'm out.
|