RE: Because I can
Kevvie,
nobody said it was great, but at least we know it was very likely _challenging_ if the 'best in the world' were averaging 80km/hr, challenging _relative_ to mashing the gas flat accross the scrub brush, and challenging when we see that some smaller 1.6 cars managed to make it pretty high up the leaderboard, that doesn't happen when it is flat and straight and huge turbo boost decides the highest gear a car can pull and courage or stupidity decides to leave it down.
All you boys from Colorado seem to be missing the point (or a number of points including the absurdity of telling people on a _discussion forum_ to "keep their opinions to themselves")
If people of only moderate skills, and that means everybody here, average very high speeds it doesn't mean they 'good', it means the roads are simple.
If just going flat out in a straight line is that exciting there are events on open roads that cater to that, I think there's one in Utah or Nevada.
And discussing whether the single stage at Cog was more or less dangerous than other _equally dangerous_ stages at other events misses the point entirely.
Routemasters have been choosing, and safety plans written and approved for stages that allow far too high average speeds to be reached by far too many inexperienced (and often thats young, but not always) people, and on top of being a bad choice for the saftey, it is bad for the _sporting nature_ of the event, as these fast roads are favorable in an overwhelming degree to very high HP cars. This prompts potential beginners to assume that to be competitive, they too much have a high dollar, high spec car.
Or not bother to enter.
Bad for the sport, bad for growth, potentially bad for the insurance but that's a different can of worms.
Now the fact that the total milage for the Cog event was way under the minimum for a National Championship event, that's been glossed over.
John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168
Vive le Prole-le-ralliat!
Vive Le Groupe F!
