>From: Chris Tutor
>
><<Ok. I just gotta ask. I am about to run my first AutoX in a couple of weeks
>in
>a Honda Civic coupe. What are the chances of me flipping it? My Honda is much
>taller and much less wider with far less-sticky tires than that poor Miata
>(btw, it was a truly beautiful car).
At 11:06 PM 9/23/99 , GSMnow@aol.com wrote:
>The last one was the ES car at Nationals. I did not see it happen, but know
>the area of the course well, I worked that course, and drove it. It was a
>very fast slalom into a tight 90 right turn. Many cars were getting upset by
>the manuever. The concrete has amazing grip and VW's lean ALOT.
Perhaps this is a good time to ask: why not have Nationals on asphalt?
Points for asphalt:
1) It is easier on tires -- less expense.
2) It is easier on the cars -- less expense and less likelihood
of mechanical failure ruining a few people's Nationals.
3) Its somewhat safer (now, I am not going into some ridiculous
rant about how we're all going to roll our cars and die; rather
I'll just say that even a very rare rollover is one too many and
will tend to scare off potential drivers; also consider that the
higher likelihood of mechanical failure is also a safety issue).
4) Its just as challenging for drivers: it will tend to be slower
making it a bit easier, but it will also tend to be less uniform
(elevation changes; texture changes) making it a bit tougher.
5) Most regional events are on asphalt -- large curb-free concrete
is often tough to find. And thus Nationals always on concrete
definitely favors those few who get to drive on it more often.
I think the biggest negative is probably that you need to make sure that
you find _good_ asphalt -- asphalt that is loose, cracking, breaking up
in spots, etc., is not what I am talking about above.
Another negative, I'd guess, is that in light rain, concrete may drop off
in traction more slowly.
I am just curious why it is commonly accepted that "Nationals must be
on concrete"??
Brian
|