| Subject: Re: Do we need bales for the test day? |
Author:
Pete Eliot
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 10:51:48 08/02/02 Fri
In reply to:
gilder
's message, "Re: Do we need bales for the test day?" on 17:57:01 08/01/02 Thu
>I understand and support the general principle of
>protecting courses. However, I think there are several
>benefits to running the test day without protection,
>to determine exactly how much and what protection is
>actually required, before someone goes out and spends
>a large sum on a guesstimate number of bales, which
>will then need to be stored over winter, and will be
>unlikely to last the whole of next season.
>
>Obvious benefits include:
>
>1) We will have much more confidence in the number of
>bales required after having spent a day running the
>course. Without running, it would be necessary to err
>on the side of caution and order more than are
>probably necessary.
>
>2) There are safer, and cheaper forms of protection,
>depending on the situation, but we won't be able to
>make an informed decision without running the course.
>For example, we may decide that boards would work
>better over large parts of the armco, which would
>provide significant savings on cost, time and hassle.
>
>3) I may be entirely wrong, but looking at the
>pictures that were posted, it looks to me the only
>place requiring bales would be the final hairpin, and
>so 700 bales seems excessive.
>
>4) If the prospect of running it without protection
>puts some people off, I would be happy to pay extra
>for fewer people to make the day work financially.
>More likely, the chance of fewer people would be more
>than offset by the savings in not having to sort out
>bales and storage this year. Plus, I doubt anyone
>would be put off anyway.
>
>5) Buying the bales now, and storing them through
>winter, I think we'd be lucky if they lasted to the
>end of next season. It would make much more sense to
>buy them at the beginning of next season.
>
>6) The longest running luge hill in the country does
>not use any protection, and never has, over the five+
>years of operation.
>
>7) We can be a competitive lot, but provided we take
>no timing equipment, and everyone treats it as a fun
>day of practice, I don't think we are open to
>significantly higher risks. Even if we're careful,
>someone could still get hurt, sure, but that's true
>even with protection, and is a risk we take everytime
>we get on a board.
>
>All that said, and even if it does make sense to you,
>I'm sure you still aren't comfortable with the idea.
>Chris was not in a good place back on that day in
>traws. What will probably help is if other racers
>agree with the principle of a fun practice and test
>day, and are happy with the risks.
>
>So, is anyone else happy with that level of risk, or
>am I being reckless?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 