the more I think about it, my "three-for-free" rule in the Mirror Khana is
sort of a Mulligan rule.
Here's how it works. Mirror Khana is the event that uses no clocks. Two
drivers run heads-up against each other (one starting halfway around the
course from the other -- no wheel-to-wheel here -- from a common s/f line
that crosses two parallel straightaways). First one back to his starting
point wins.
with no clocks, whaddya do about pylons? Well, we allow three for free. You
can hit three cones without penalty, the fourth cone is a DNF (but a driver
who hits 4 on the run will still win if the other guy hits 5).
At all the key places on the course, I put down double cones, side by side.
All the important apexes, a few of the important track-out exits are
doubled. And in three places where advantage could really be had, they are
tripled.
there was one place on the course, the "elbow," which was double-coned. A
left-hander feeding one of the finish straights. Drivers who knew (or
believed) they were clean would take out the elbow with the rightside wheels
of their car, thus turning a fairly abrupt turn into an easy lift-and-go.
The mere act of tripling the elbow brought that to a halt (few are the
drivers so confident they are absolutely clean they will chance taking out
all three).
IOW, a key aspect of a mulligan rule is cone placement in the course design.
--Rocky
-----Original Message-----
From: John Lieberman <johnlee@softdisk.com>
To: Rocky Entriken <rocky@tri.net>
Cc: Engstrom <engstrom@onramp.net>; 'AutoCross Mailing List'
<autox@autox.team.net>
Date: Thursday, November 11, 1999 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: Cone Mulligans
>Yep! More good suggestions. You could also limit the total number of
>mulligans that any one person could buy for the entire day and the
>total number that could be used on any single run to, say, two?!? Or,
>after you set out all your other restrictions, tell everybody that
>they'll only be allowed to use their mulligans on one run. And that
>run won't be determined until the event is over by drawing numbers out
>of a hat. Anybody else? Are you making a list, John M? 8<{)
>
>John (Old Fartz & TLS #37) Lieberman
>
>
>Rocky Entriken wrote:
>>
>> How about ruling that no two consecutive cones on the same side of the
car,
>> and no two out of three consecutive slalom cones, can be bought as
>> mulligans?
>>
>> Then if you really want to prevent a mulligan at a specific danger zone,
>> double-cone the apex and/or exit. (They get to claim one as mulligan,
must
>> take the penalty for the other whether a cone-hit or off-course). Make
your
>> slaloms at least 4 cones and they MUST weave at least two of them.
>
|