--- Donald R McKenna <donbarbmckenna@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> Yes, if you get into the juice too early. The
> surface is far from "perfect"
> but the improvement, from 11-7, was so dramatic that
> in a shorter time than
Well, as one who did uncharacterstically well on 11/7
I certainly got my come-uppance yesterday. Things
seemed much harder (in group 5)Sat than when I ran (in
2?) on 11/7. I got nothing out of my first 2 runs,
rushed back to the pits, put on a set of *street
tires* and went several seconds faster. All of a
suddenI had grip !! Running on tired, tread-free
Kumho's was definitely not the right choice. A full
tread tire made all the difference and I won't repeat
the mistake.
There was a line, but it demanded patience beyond my
ability. The rule book suggests a course at least 15
feet wide; technically the cones were > 15' apart, but
the usable course was < 15' IMHO. Irrelevant, I know,
but get off-line and the word "rallycross" came to
mind.
Kudos to those who figured it out (easy part) and were
disciplined enough to drive the line.
Sunday at Mather was thankfully a whole lot less
frustrating. I'm working on suppressing Oakland from
my memory.
There were comments last week about the technical
difficulty of the course at 3COM. Would the same folks
object to Oakland on the same grounds that it is no
preparation for Nationals? Or is the course design
more important than the surface?
Craig
|