Moving the date later in the year makes for strong chances of running into
snow on either the tow to the event or home. Matter of fact, we went over
one Rocky Mtn. pass, the rain was close to snow...another 4 degrees or a
few more feet in altitude would have made the trip "very" interesting. When
the nationals were in October, when our kids were little, we ran into snow
cover in the Sierras. Fortunately the roads were dry, but we stopped and
the kids played in the snow for a moment or two.
One of the considerations is the school year, as some folks have kids,
and don't want them to miss any school; and/or some are teachers and it's a
little tough to splain why you want to bug out for a week or a few days at
the beginning of the school year. Not cool. The present dates do
conflict...so I expect we automatically eliminate some prospective
champions already.
--Pat Kelly
Scott Meyers wrote:
> OK - ground rules.
>
> The location should be somewhere nearly equidistant between the coasts.
> This is why Kansas is so attractive as it is so "mid-country". I think
> the location could move somewhat south without too much hardship.
>
> The surface could be *either* asphalt or concrete - preferably something
> that does not require constant patching. I would guess that the majority
> of sites nationally are asphalt.
>
> Side note - The concrete in non-cold weather or snow states is far
> superior to the current site. Tucson runs at Davis Monthan Air Force
> Base and the concrete there is as good as the day it was made. However,
> it is too small for our purpose, and is not centrally located.
>
> The dates could be moved farther towards the true end of the year if
> this were hosted in a warmer climate. It seems awkward to end our
> competitive year and then continue under the old rules for three more
> months. Why not begin the new SCCA Solo 2 rules in October if this can't
> be moved?
>
> **The Tough One** -> The site has to be both available and large enough
> for our "show".
>
> It seems that SCCA has done an good job with trying to meet all of the
> conditions necessary. I hear the current contract is nearly up for
> Topeka (?). If so, lets do spend some time looking for another location
> with a few more attributes.
>
> Any other ideas?
>
> S Meyers
|