Seeing these threads makes me want to build a car for this. Then the sad realization that I'm in a RallyX black hole comes up.
Seeing these threads makes me want to build a car for this. Then the sad realization that I'm in a RallyX black hole comes up.
Glad no one on here rolled! Seems like a pretty negative review of this venue.
(Made me google to see if there was any videos, there wasn't, but check out this guy rolling his 4runner http://youtu.be/BK1_pPnB5d4?t=1m17s)
I made it back home in time to send my wife off to work and drive the kids to school which is the greatest success of the weekend.
As the rest of you finish your drives, come check in.
mazdeuce wrote: Congrats to Evan and Pete and everyone. My co driver won PF but I did nothing. Ah well, next year. The SCCA needs to seriously reconsider this site. I was working safety (the CRX rolled in front of me and I got to fill out the paperwork) and I have some pretty strong opinions on how some things were handled. I will say that none of the rollovers happened on degraded portions of the course. Somehow with all of the course problems that we had that led to two wheeled shenanigans, both of the non mechanical rolls happened on fairly smooth but incredibly grippy corners.
I vote the south.
FooBag wrote: Good luck to you guys that are racing & stay safe! I rolled a car at that venue last fall & it was no where near as wet as what you're describing.
Because pictures are fun:
This was last fall and, as you can see, much drier than Nationals this year. Evidently, the Safety Steward was sitting in his truck when it happened, freaked out, and floored it to the scene...into a concrete barrier. Team Monster (or whatever they want to call themselves) needed an excuse to add Lexan to their free car anyways.
And yes, the blue critter is part of the aero-package:
I got home about an hour ago. Drove through the night but stopped for a couple hours of sleep at a rest stop.
Now that I am a MR national champion I'll have to find another class to run in.
cghstang wrote: Trade you for a MF car?
Hmmmm...nope. I'm thinking more like SR in a RX8 or E36 M3. That class is getting overrun with Miatas and we can't have that.
First big set of pictures I've found from the weekend... Rupert Berrington Photography
EvanB wrote:cghstang wrote: Trade you for a MF car?Hmmmm...nope. I'm thinking more like SR in a RX8 or E36 M3. That class is getting overrun with Miatas and we can't have that.
PR was just three Miatas. That class needs some participation. You get a PR car, I'll get a PR car, talk one more person into it and we can double the class.
Oh, and damn fine driving Evan. It was fun watching you in a car with functional suspension.
cghstang wrote:mazdeuce wrote: PR was just three Miatas.One of them is really funny looking...
The funny looking Miata is the one I want for PR.
The odd thing is that three cars rolled. One mechanical when a wheel broke off, and two on corners where there were no ruts. I hesitate to call either incident driver error because two drivers rolling under similar circumstances on clean corners indicates a problem, but there was nothing about either corner that indicated that they were a hazard prior to either incident. I wasn't working safety during the first roll but was told that no changes to the corner were made. After the third roll, we changed the corner but it was a change that had been announced earlier and the car was on it's roof by the time it reached the part that I was concerned with.
I was a safety steward and I'd love to discuss safety with you guys. For some reason the SCCA has decided that rolls are bad press so we shouldn't talk about them. I don't think we should focus on them, but pretending that they didn't happen isn't constructive either.
In reply to mazdeuce:
I honestly feel that most concerns regarding rolls (which are normally "soft" rolls when at a rallycross) are due in part to having a tight course design that mirrors a traditional autocross course opposed to attempting to simulate a lower speed stage rally course. Trying to strike a balance that allows a course to be free and flowing, allowing several different lines to work, while still managing to keep speeds down enough that it isn't a 70mph romp is the challenge and key. Making it too constricted with overly tight slaloms and box turns is a recipe for low speed rolls.
I'm not saying, or even suggesting that it was the case at the event but rather just making a general statement regarding to course design in prevention regardless of surface condition.
ZB pointed out brilliantly that the 3rd (berkeleying 3rd!!) roll-over happened and where was the Chief Safety Steward? Sitting in his BMW on the opposite end of the field, hanging out. I saw him get out once this whole weekend, hobble out (because he's about 114) ten feet to a corner, then get back in the BMW.
Course is killing vehicles like Jeff Dahmer? Pfft, we've got people lined up, let's go!
JohnRW1621 wrote: Looks that Jerry is having his hat handed to him in SA but I would still rather be him, doing it, rather than myself here at home writing about it. Continue to fight Jerry!
I got off my butt and entered the event, and at least the last run was a good, clean, decent speed run. Ended on a high note. Even with all the craziness and problems/delays/bullE36 M3, I'm still glad I went and did it.
In reply to Jerry:
The chief safety steward was nice, but yea, there is only so much you can do when you can't get out of the car.
That's an interesting observation about the tight corners and problems. Both of the rolls were in tight corners with very hard high grip surfaces instead of the higher speed corners that tore apart.
I have a huge problem with the whole "we'll just run the last 8 cars and then fix it" mentality. I understand the idea of parity, but I was asked to run cars over conditions that I would never allow regionally. At what point does safety trump parity? Isn't there a half way point where I can move a corner two feet to save cars/people and we can deal with it because we're rallycrosssers and dealing with changing conditions is part of the game?
One last (probably not the last) remark about the course/facility. Runs were from 51 seconds to the mid 60's. If the courses were designed to be more open and reduce the tight corners they would be even shorter. And you would still have to put all three courses on the same piece of land. Aside from soil conditions, this brings serious question on whether this site is appropriate for the National Championship.
I'm hoping to become a safety steward for next year. I had the impression the safety steward could pretty much stop an event if he found something unsafe, and at least back it up with logic? Not get over-ruled by either the SCCA BOD or local region running the event? (I couldn't tell who was who sometimes.)
In reply to mazdeuce:
Agreed, it definitely sounds like a larger property is needed in order to allow for a proper course design in terms of safe design and length of run. Knowing what sounds to some of the concerns, I wish that I had been there in order to observe first hand and provide better insight towards solutions.
Jerry wrote: I'm hoping to become a safety steward for next year. I had the impression the safety steward could pretty much stop an event if he found something unsafe, and at least back it up with logic? Not get over-ruled by either the SCCA BOD or local region running the event? (I couldn't tell who was who sometimes.)
You would think that? Wouldn't you? I made my case about the safety steward operating conditions at the town hall meeting on Saturday. In case any of you there were wondering, I was the safety steward in the cowboy hat. I am very open to criticism of the job I did personally and the safety stewards collectively.
You'll need to log in to post.