Mark Sirota <msirota@isc.upenn.edu> sez:
> David Hawkins wrote:
> > As someone who runs a silver car with white numbers, I'd have to
> > question this post. Is the intent to really have numbers that can be
> > seen on the other side of the course?
>
> Yes. Frequently, the question is, "What's the next car to finish?"
> And the easiest way to answer the question SHOULD be to look up at the
> course and see what car is about to finish.
Yep - BTDT. Tellyawat David, you go ahead and hide your numbers with silly
color combinations, and the folks in timing won't count your runs. Seems
fair to me...
> It's no harder to have numbers readable from far away than it is to
> have unreadable numbers. So why not make them readable? What possible
> reason is there to do anything but the best possible thing?
Bingo. Your numbers are there to serve one purpose: to identify you, the
driver. They're not to make some stylish statement. They're to be easily
and quickly read. Do we have to require meatballs on all the cars just to
have readable numbers?
While we're on the subject of bad numbers, let's talk about second drivers
and the number "1". A red "1" on a red car (or yellow on yellow, black on
black, etc) is not an un-one. It's a confusing number. If you have to hide
your "1" instead of removing it, use a sheet of magnetic, static-cling or
racers tape approximately the color of your car that is much larger than a
"1". Or at least put a slash through it or something.
Your desire to run two drivers in a car does not reduce your responsibility
to have readable numbers. Indeed, it's more important than ever because
there are two drivers driving an identical-looking car... except for those
numbers.
-Andy (with big blue numbers on a little white car)
72 Pantera - Rocky 91 Miata - Steve 96 A4Q - Rudolf
80 928 - Phantom 97 Miata - Nadia 84 RZ350 - Sting
|