Don McKenna writes:
<< Although I initially was in favor of leaving things as they were, I
eventually became a proponent of always requiring lining on the outside.
However, I believe, if we routinely line both ways, as the new supps
paragraph #18 allows, we will develop a keener sense of focusing on the
cones, as the (penalty) edge of the course, thereby reducing our dependance
on the line for defining that (penalty). >>
You were startin' to scare me, there, Don. I proposed allowing lines on
either side for various reasons, some of which have to do with making it
easier on course designers, some of which have to do with the actual driving.
First, let me tell you that when I autocrossed in the Midwest (mostly with
Gateway Autocross Association in St. Louis), we really never talked about or
considered what was being done in California. Pre-internet, the world was a
larger place!
I came to San Francisco Region in late 1980, and joined the Steering
Committee some time in '81 (I think.) I found that putting the pylons where
I wanted them, then lining the course on the inside was a real pain, and the
pylons rarely stayed where I wanted them, having been moved by people who
never volunteered to chair events. I saw John Kelly lining the course first,
then putting the pylons on the outside edge of the line. My first several
attempts at this did not work out very well, and I abandoned this method for
a while. At one event, Jeff Perkins asked me if he could help by lining the
course. I said yes, and when he asked me if the line had to be on the
inside, I said "No." Not long after this, John Kelly proposed the
"Perkins/Davis" rule requiring lines on the inside, and the Steering
Committee approved it. I went back to learning how to line first, then
pylon, and have done it ever since. I believe that to this day, John and I
are the only ones in SFR who line first.
I don't seem to be hampered by where the lines are, and usually perform at my
best in Topeka, for some reason. I think that lining courses on both sides,
and having courses with various different visual cues is a good thing
overall. John's Round 1 course and my Round 2 course were easy to follow.
MY thinking on that was that we usually get a lot of first timers at the
first several events, and let's make it easy to follow. Then I hear
complaints that my course "was not National caliber." I'm currently on
Fred's list to design a course at Candlestick at some point in the year,
where I can give you a "National style" course. Some people won't like that,
either. It WILL be lined (immediately) outside the cones, and the visual
cues will be the way they do it "back East."
We have a successful local program right now. I say "local" because we have
lots of entrants, good profits, and I think we do most things (tech and
posting as notable exceptions, currently) pretty well. We aren't taking a
very high percentage of our local competitors to Pros, Tours, or Nationals
right now, and on a percentage basis, we really aren't doing very well in
terms of producing National Championships. Why? My personal opinion is that
up into the 80's SFR was just way ahead in terms of competition. I think the
rest of the country caught up. We have the opportunity to take the lead
again if we want to. Our informational (the website), rookie, instructor,
school, and "rookie, wanna ride?" programs are great. We need to let our new
competitors know that they are a part of our social circle, and we need to
get them enthused about going out of town, and that we'll walk courses with
them, and help them with all the unfamiliar elements of those events. We can
build a program that makes the National Champions of the future.
Lets figure out what we can do to make it happen!
CHD
|