George Ryan wrote:<quad4fiero@webzone.net>
>Not quite true. Why do people DNF?
Lots of times, it's because of poor course design. There's absolutely nothing
in the present Solo II rules that prevents one from laying out an
easily-followed, intuitive course. That some Regions do otherwise is a problem
that is locally created and can be locally solved, with no need to change the
entire sport.
>The answer to that question is generally
>(on a properly designed course, as you pointed out) directly relative to
>that drivers level of experience.
I consider the number of "driver got lost" DNFs to be a good indicator of the
(lack of)quality of a course design.
>But those same drivers have learned
>how to walk a course.
Which is one of the skills you need to win at Solo II. I have no problem at all
with this situation, and I'll bet I've got lots of company. It's actually one
of my favorite parts of Solo II.
>But how about the first time driver? Do you remember
>your first time?
Yep. 1973. I didn't win (by a long shot), but I didn't DNF.
>I have talked with people that are in charge of the Novice
>program, and they agree - Novices and less experienced drivers do not
>achieve the same level of course familiarization as the more experienced
>from course walking.
No news there, but lemme make sure I get this straight: you consider it a
_problem_ that Solo II competitors get better with experience?
>Some regions even do a "Parade Lap" after the course
>walk for this very reason.
Allowed by the existing rules.
>Aw, shucks, Jay - I thought I heard somebody say they wanted this sport to
>be more popular - like NHRA, for example.
It's a hobby, for crying out loud. It has no intrinsic spectator appeal - nor
will your variant, which makes no pretense at improving that situation - and
yet attendance by _competitors_ keeps growing from year to year. Let me make
this clear: I do NOT want to see Solo II become as popular as drag racing or
roundy-round dirt track events. Attempts to get there, if carried far enough,
are likely to completely ruin the sport. Without making it more popular.
>Those same people (in "high"
>places in the SCCA pecking order) are searching for ways to do that, and
>attract those customers away from drag racing - again as an example.
This is a (hold on here, big revelation) CLUB, not a business. We are members,
not stockholders. We joined to participate in activities we enjoy, not to
generate a profit for somebody else. Why does this have to resurface so
frequently? SCCA has shot itself in the foot every time it went for the "big
time" pro racing series, whereas Solo II has flourished under the benign
neglect of the "top management." I think some more benign neglect might be in
order myself.
>From your comment, I can only
>assume you feel the "rank and file" do not share these goas?
I'll put money on it.
> That other than
>the following, exposure, and media coverage, you don't want the SCCA to be
>like them. Isn't that kinda like having your cake, etc.?
Who said I want a "following" or media coverage? "I suppose that those who
meddle in public life get what they deserve. But we must tend our gardens."
(Apologies to Moliere) Where's the evidence that Solo II isn't working just
fine in its present form?
>A severe breakout rule, anything over 1/2% of qualifying time is penalized.
That's .3 seconds on a 60 second course. You really believe that a good driver
can't perform comfortably within that window without breaking out? Kevin is
right: the way to win Solo DSC will be to drive well within your comfort zone
and go for consistency over speed.
>Time will tell. At least I am trying to accomplish that goal. I certainly am
>a lot closer to that goal than SCCA Solo II is, at this point - don't you
>agree?
No. There is no way in any sport which relies on equipment to remove the
advantage that better equipment gives to the competitor. A better car will
always afford an advantage to the competitor who is driving it. In Solo II,
that advantage is much smaller than most of the folks who don't win care to
admit, but that's only a natural reaction to frustration. "It can't _possibly_
be my driving, so it _must_ be the other guy's better car."
>Come on down, you can either congratulate me after the
>event, or witness my humiliation.
One event won't be indicative. The real test is whether a format like this will
gain sufficient acceptance to survive nationwide over a period of years.
Frankly, if I really believed that Solo II were going to be replaced by
something like this, my competition car would be on the market tomorrow, and
I'd be looking for another hobby. There's one data point, FWIW.
Jay
|