>
>
>I do not like high speed very much. It is not taxing to the
>driver, but is likely to fry a turbo motor or get somebody
>killed if anything goes wrong. The fun / safety / challenge
>equation is all wrong.
>
>Prescott has high speeds, Laughlin as them, and STPR does
>too.
>My impression is that we do it because the roads are
>available.
>
>
>For the sake of competitors safety, I would like to see max
>stage speeds enforced. My understanding is that both SCCA
>and
>FIA have such rules. Perhaps we should start enforcing
>them.
I believe there are average mph/km per hr rules, not max per se.*
>
>Who would injured by transitting straight-aways?
>
>paul t-
Well put Paul.
But then when the roads get narrow and more interesting, they aren't pool table smooth, and then people bitterly complain about that like when Bill got so much grief.
But rules? What would you suggest?
I think a 1 mile straight is pretty long but my car can top out pretty quick to 105mph, AND I'm a sniveller at 90+.
So....
Maybe the only _meaningful_ series, the WESTERN STATES thang could work out a max length, or something for we "who aren't worthy"..
How about encouraging Routemasters to use their noodle and remember that 99.5% of the folks are happy amatures, and they maybe don't need to so this, if there is any realistic altertnative.
*I have seen English events with a "bogie time" where if you beat the bogie, ie you are say quicker than the 15 minutes on a given stage by say 14m20sec, you get 15 anyway.
This has the added nice effect of not wrecking the overall results of the guys in any but turbo cars.
This is easy to calculate, implement, and do.
So therefore I guess we can't even consider discussing it.
John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168
Vive le Prole-le-ralliat