On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 11:26:27 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:


This summarizes the two poles of the argument. Those who believe taking 'major calculated' risks should continue to be part of the game, and those who would like to minimize those as a means to win.


Not sure if that's what I'm coming away with. I actually think most/all of us agree that "major" risks (where major = a high likelihood of injury or death) should NOT be part of the game. I certainly feel that way, and that attitude (along with a lack of skill, time, and commitment) have limited me to a few near-podium finishes at Nationals.

My strong feeling is that the accidents BB is ascribing to bad-behavior driven by a quest for points is a complete red herring. Clay's analysis (if proven to be true) along with all I've seen in the accident report seems to support my point of view. While taking a break from sanding gelcoat in the shop last night, 3 of us (with a combined racing experience in excess of 120 years) had a hard time naming even one attempt to climb out below 600 feet, much less 500, 400, or 300.

So the question is - what exactly would a hard deck solve? More importantly, what other unintended behaviors will it drive, and at what cost in complexity of administration etc. My take is that it's a solution looking for the wrong problem to solve.

Erik Mann (P3)
ASG-29