Printable View
Are they inherently more dangerous than our rolling starts? Is there data that proves this? What other reasons could there be for always beginning our races with the rolling start? Just curious. I for one think a standing start could be fun, but maybe I am misguided...
I've done standing starts with NASA and, even though they were interesting in the sense that it was a new experience, I don't think that they are either (1) more fun, or (2) more dangerous than rolling starts. If anything, I think they may be both (1) more boring, and (2) inherently safer!
For one thing, cars aren't going as fast when they get to T1 with a standing start, so while there is increased risk of contact AT the start, everyone is going slower when it's time to slow down and turn.
Second, there's no opportunity for those (those of US, I should say) at the back of the pack to get any kind of run on what's going on up front. I tend to think that I'm generally a pretty good starter, gaining places on the opening lap but I lose that advantage when we are all moving at the same time. If anything, sight lines and what-not make it harder to actually see what's going on up front so we tend to have our qualifying disadvantage magnified by being slow off the mark.
I've always loved the rock 'n roll of a good accordian in the first turn, as people try to go four wide, two in the dirt, and all brake-smokey - making dumb moves. I have some basic strategies that pretty much always work and I don't get to play them with a standing start.
K
Even though I have a torqueless RX-7, I like the idea.
1- For the guys in the back, they will actually have a chance. Man...at places like the Glen, they're racing and you have two corners to go if you ummmm...errrr...crash in qualifying! Of course, at the Glen the starter stand is probably too close to the last turn to fit 67 cars on the grid. Might have to have a temp stand furhter down.
2- It's a change of pace and requires a different skill.
3- It eliminates a lot of the dumb ass moves people make BEFORE the flag. (I've been on the grass UNDER the starter stand avoiding a car that was headlight to headlight tome, who started EIGHT rows back...and we never got a green... shheeeesh!
4- I think it IS exciting from a spectators POV.
The downsides:
Line of sight...if a guy on the third row stalls, he's dead in the water. A guy on the 15th row is moving mighty fast when he gets to the third row and "Holy stalled car Batma....POW"
There will be guys who will say their clutch can't take the earth pounding torque of their Blastmaster 2000, and it will be unfair.
Still, at certain tracks where the fronst straight is wide, I think we should do it on double race weekends. Pocono, and NHIS come to mind in the NE as definates, and a myabe for Lime Rock. Maybe Atlanta and Daytona in the SE??? Certainly any of the "rovals" are prime candidates.
Stalled cars are the danger of a standing start. You reach down to grab 2nd, foot to the floor, and the cars in front of you split to reveal somebody going zero mph. This is not good.
Its also harder on the clutch and the drive train.
I've done a fair bit of both, and like the rollers better.
JMO.
In rolling starts a lot of stupid things happen, but everyone shares one thing in common...they're moving.
In standing starts, a lot of other stupid things happen, but some may not be moving when encoutered.
In both situations, faster cars, for one reason or another, may be placed at the back of the grid making T1 rather frightening.
If I'm in my ITC car, revving the engine, dumping the clutch, and bogging down way below the torque curve when those sticky Hoosiers hook up from a standing start, and an ITS car a few rows back that didn't make the one minute warning to the grid is running up my backside...someone could become upset.
Same thing could happen in a rolling start, but both of us stand a better chance of not meeting in a really disappointing fashion.
I'll admit, it would be fun, but so is skydiving. Plus, my drive train is fragile enough. :119: