Special Stage Forums banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

1,027 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

1) 61.60 Herman
2) 67.56 Bob Lake
3) 77.07 Estes Lake
4) 65.32 Passmore
5) --.-- Bob Lake II
6) 65.63 Estes Lake II
7) 68.47 Passmore II
8) 58.09 Gratiot Lake
9) 80.59 Delaware
10) 54.09 Burma
11) 82.08 Brockway
12) 78.02 Delaware
13) 55.36 Burma II
14) 76.47 Delaware II
15) 56.51 Gratiot Lake II

Generally Speaking what is too fast?
An Average speed over x-mph (55?, 60? 65?)?
Is there a different metric to use to gauge stage speed?
-- A set of criteria to be gathered and evaluated?
--- How many of these criteria can be measured?
---- Are there subjective criteria to be included?

Of the above stages which ones are too fast?

I have driven all of these stages, on multiple occasions, and although my speeds don't match these times, these roads are fast...

Herman, Bob Lake, Estes Lake Passmore never seemed too fast, but maybe Bob Lake and Estes Lake are too fast for today's cars.

Delaware - This has always been fast. It's a great stage, but if we are going to write rules it would probably go bye, bye unless chicanes were added around the of the long straight before (after) the delta.

Brockway -- everybody loves it, not sure of the finish location this year, but really at 82 mph is this a safe stretch of road?

How many stages would be left if these stages were in Canada?

I love LSPoR,and these stages but we all gotta think long term, and we need rules or changes that will ensure the future of the sport...


Faster Mabricator
3,611 Posts
Incorrect Brockway Speed

The finish control on Brockway did not syncronize their watch with rally time so everyone had something like a 45 second flier. Thus the speed was much slower than posted above.

48 Posts
There is no reliable metric to judge safe and unsafe stage speeds.

All I know is Steamboat didn't have any trees or huge boulders in close proximity to the stage roads.

1,027 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Agreed there are no absolutes.

But there are safer and less safe speeds.

Physics don't lie, a crash at a slower speed is more likely to be survivable than a crash at a higher speed.

Given an equal amount of time spent racing, (with equal safety gear) racing at slower speeds should result in less sereve impacts than the same amount of time at higher speeds.

There are and should be considerations for road character with regard to selection of stage roads.

Previously perfectly acceptable roads may no longer be acceptable due to the increase in speed of the cars (and notes and whatever else). That is unless we can show that the cars are also safer. The saftey of our cars has not changed significantly but the speeds have changed.

I think there are reliable metrics for evaluating the general safety character of a given road, agreeing to what the metrics should be and how those metrics would impact the roads we currently use is an ugly but maybe needed conversation.

My opinions only...


1,998 Posts
While Doug is correct - it's impossible to COMPLETELY judge the safety of a stage from just numbers - I think we should develop a formula that ALERTS us to stages that MIGHT be too fast. It will always be subjective to some extent...and Cog is a good example.

I'm assuming that Mike posted the FASTEST speed on each stage. It might be educational to calculate the MEDIAN speeds. The median speed of the top ten competitors might also tell us something.

The high speeds at LSPR kind of surprised me, considering the conditions. Not to cast aspersions on your math, Mike...:)


1,027 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
speeds are the fastest car, from the RA scores/website

It is likely that the fast guys are also smooth with few mistakes, it is likely there are several if not many cars capable of those speeds, but the drivers are not as smooth or make more mistakes...

I think Bruce makes a very good point.

straight at T
2,472 Posts
>1) 61.60 Herman
>2) 67.56 Bob Lake
>3) 77.07 Estes Lake
>4) 65.32 Passmore
>5) --.-- Bob Lake II
>6) 65.63 Estes Lake II
>7) 68.47 Passmore II
>8) 58.09 Gratiot Lake
>9) 80.59 Delaware
>10) 54.09 Burma
>11) 82.08 Brockway
>12) 78.02 Delaware
>13) 55.36 Burma II
>14) 76.47 Delaware II
>15) 56.51 Gratiot Lake II

>How many stages would be left if these stages were in

By the CARS rules, the following stage would not have counted for event scoring (by the times listed above) due to the fact it exceeded 132km/h:


The following would have had their time capped due to the fact they exceeded 120km/h:

Estes Lake
Delaware II
Deleware III

If it was dry, I'm certain you could have added the following to the list:

Bob Lake
Passmore I/II
Estes Lake II

Edited to fix because I didn't have a rulebook handy...

35 Posts
>By the CARS rules, the following stages would not have
>counted for event scoring (by the times listed above) due to
>the fact they exceeded 121km/h:
>Estes Lake
>Delaware II
>Deleware III
>The following would have had its time capped due to the fact
>it exceeded 110km/h:
>Passmore II
I think Adrian might have the threshold numbers wrong. According to NRR IV K 1-4 anyone exceeding 120 km/h average gets scored at 120, if any car exceeds 132 (120 + 10%) the stage is scrubbed.

If any car breaks the 120 km/h average then the stage can not be used in subsequent years unless significant changes are made to reduce the average speed.

Just another Subaru
786 Posts
I thought all the roads were relly fun.

What would we do to slow stages down?

The "cow fences" at steamboat seemed like a wierd way to go about it.

I am sure every stage would have been over the 120kph mark if the roads would have been dry.

So do we just scrap the rally?

Erik Schmidt
1 - 10 of 10 Posts