Dan Wolford wrote, in part, and Charlie answered:
> > How about a slalom
> > where the decision to enter on the right or left is
> > optional - let the driver decide the best line.
>
> I used to design courses with these. John Kelly
> convinced me to not have optional slaloms somewhere
> around 20 years ago. (that day is marked on a
> calendar somewhere!) There is the "clean line vs.
> dirty line" arguement. There is also the opinion
> (it's mine, and John Kelly's among others)that there
> should be one course. How you drive it, how wide you
> take corners, where you apex,etc. is certainly a part
> of the equation. Deciding which side of a series of
> pylons to drive on isn't a part of autocrossing to me.
Over the years I've enjoyed the challenge of determining the quickest way to
enter/exit an optional slalom. But, like Charlie, John convinced me,
although a bit less than 20 years ago, of the wisdom and FAIRNESS of having
only "one" course.
That epiphany took place at a Divisional in Irvine where, while working the
course before running, we stop-watch timed many same-class and similar cars
taking the different entry directions. Although the number of folks taking
each direction was about equal, we determined that one direction was
consistently quicker. AND, the entry side we had planned to run was slower!
Since everyone didn't have the opportunity of working before running, much
less having the slalom included in their work station, we inadvertently
experienced an "unfair advantage" by having been able to do that timing.
Of course, optional slaloms are still used at many events as evidenced by
this year's San Diego National Tour courses. Although speed maintenance at
entry/exit of slaloms is critical when evaluating which entry side to
choose, it's also important to determine the number of turning maneuvers
required for each entry direction. In many cases, although not in all, the
direction with the fewest turns will be the quick way.
Don
|