----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Barrett" <speedtimer@charter.net>
To: "Keith Turk" <kturk@ala.net>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: Fast Lane
> It all boils down to man power,lots more equipment and most of all the
> real estate to handle additional courses and do it safely. We have had
> cars, bikes and push vehicles turn out and cross over the other courses.
> So far we have been lucky, why add to the chance of something going wrong.
> The system of two courses works well. It's something we have to deal with.
>
> Glen
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Keith Turk" <kturk@ala.net>
> To: "Skip Higginbotham" <Saltrat@lubricationdynamics.com>; "Tom Bryant"
> <saltracer@awwwsome.com>; "Sparky" <wmtsmith@landracing.com>;
> <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 3:17 PM
> Subject: Re: Fast Lane
>
>
>> Guys... are we thinking in the wrong direction? Could we focus our
>> thoughts on Slower vehicles and the Second course, or set of courses
>> with the Pit's in the middle?
>>
>> Think of it as the same thing we have now... Plus another timing tower
>> set up for a slower course....
>>
>> Then the standard would be....
>>
>> 1. Over 125 you move to the second course ( 1 mile course )
>> 2. Over 175 allows you to move to the Long courses ( 2 mile course )
>>
>> Then you go to our current system with cars set up to run on the two long
>> courses both 5 miles... to qualify for the longest course you have to
>> run over say.... 225 at the 1/4
>>
>> I'm with Tom... there wouldn't be a position that would allow me to favor
>> anyone who's car goes to the front because it's faster.... The riot
>> would be justified...
>>
>> K
|