Talk:Autocross

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Lack of Publicity" Section[edit]

I've removed the Lack of Publicity section from the article. This isn't a big enough issue among autocrossers to warrant a discussion in the article of whether or not the SCCA should publicize the sport more. Recury 16:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amongst top-flight professional autocrossers, this issue is the primary reason behind the lack of member retention, competitor burnout, and overall dissatisfaction with the sport. It absolutely belongs in this article, and has been restored. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.103.226.30 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 26 April 2006.

People also argue about classing and tires and pretty much everything else that has to do with autocross, (what else are you supposed to do between heats?) but these debates do not belong in an encyclopedia article about autocross. If you are that passionate about it, discuss it on a forum. Also, if you plan on doing much more editing, please get yourself a username so people know who they are talking to. Recury 20:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. That section is not even remotely appropriate in content or tone for a WP article. You would need to find significant published supporting documentation for all the many opinions you are inserting here as unqualified fact. If you have questions about what kind of information belongs or does not belong in a Wikipedia article, ask or try reading Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
Fox1 (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs[edit]

  1. A History section. Does anyone know of any books or articles that have info on the history of autocross (either in the US or around the world)? I found almost nothing with Google, certainly nothing that would be of any use. The rest of the article needs sources too but we can probably get most of those off of the internet.

This long-dead thread from the scca forum suggests Rocky Entriken would be a good source to contact for information about the history of autocross. You may also want to read this. --Evenprime 00:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will try to get in touch with him. Recury 20:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Some different photos. We can probably lose one of the first two images since they are pretty much of the same thing. The Formula 500 one I just put there kind of temporarily. Ones that would be better would be something that shows a typical autocross-style layout, either a photograph from a high angle or a course map and probably a photo of an A Modified car or some other specially built autocross car as well. Recury 02:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links to local clubs[edit]

Does anyone else feel that we should stop linking to local clubs in the article? There are probably hundreds of autocross clubs around the country -- if we're not going to link to them all, then linking to some random subset of them is pretty arbitrary.

Stephen Hui 12:00, 30 July 2006

Yeah, people are just spamming whatever club they are in, I think. I just didn't remove them because I don't feel like arguing with people who try to add them back. But, yes, according to Wikipedia's guidelines on external links, they definitely shouldn't be there. Recury 19:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support the removal of local club links. -- Coneslayer 19:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, removed the local club links. I went ahead and removed the links to forums too, since we aren't supposed to have those either. Recury 19:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should add something like "National Clubs" and "Regional Clubs" sections. The links add value, but the external links section might not be the right place AND removing most clubs but leaving Sports Car Club of America is playing favorites. -- Hank Wallace 19:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph describes the club situation adequately and putting external links in the article itself would be even worse than what we had before. I don't see how linking to the major autocrossing club in the US is "playing favorites," but I wouldn't be opposed to removing that as well, since it isn't really needed at this article (it's at Sports Car Club of America, anyway). Recury 20:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might describe the club situation, but I disagree that it is adequate. If your concern is about external links, how about a solution that would include internal links like BMW Car Club of America? I simply want people to see places to navigate to for more information. -- Hank Wallace 20:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm late to the discussion, but I'll explain why I added both the text about independent and marque clubs and the links in question. It was, IMHO, fine to say that independent clubs exist, but it was even better to demonstrate it by linking to a few. As is usual for wikipedia, though, people will choose to remove useful information in order to enforce a uniform style to the articles. Evenprime 03:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How's this for a compromise? I'm adding an external link to the DMOZ directory of autocross websites, so if people want their local club linked to, they can get it added there. Recury 13:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. -- Hank Wallace 19:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do what you want. I won't meddle. It is a tolerable compromise, but I still think that major sanctioning bodies, marques and a few independent clubs ought to be listed in the article. It is just silly to yank accurate and useful information from articles. The tendency for this to be done is one of the reasons I've become less interested in contributing. Evenprime 01:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put SCCA back. It makes absolutely no sense for us not to link to *major* national autocross sanctioning bodies. That includes SCCA, BMWCCA, NASA, etc. FCYTravis 22:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Rice[edit]

Could the picture of the Cavalier please be replaced with a more typical autocross car? A SM M3 perhaps? How about a Mini? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.119.0.39 (talk • contribs).

Well, the Cavalier is in the "Participation" section, which emphasizes that you can race your daily driver. I don't think it's a bad choice... there is a Miata in the first image, which is a "typical autocross car" if there ever was one. (On the other hand, I'd be the last guy to complain about pictures of MINIs. -- Coneslayer 17:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The concern I have about the Cavalier is that it doesn't look like a daily driver, what with its custom paint and all. I also think a Mini or an STS Civic would better illustrate that point. --Stephen Hui 02:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I rotated out all of the pictures, replacing them with images that I felt were higher quality and more representative of what most people drive. Thanks to Craig Wilcox for allowing use of his photos! Stephen Hui 16:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging ProSolo article into this one[edit]

The content of the ProSolo article hasn't been updated since its creation, and is identical to the blurb on ProSolo in this article. I say we delete the body of the ProSolo article and instead redirect it to the autocross article. Stephen Hui 15:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it isn't absolutely necessary that it has its own article, especially if no ones going to write more than two sentences on it. Recury 17:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Stephen Hui 15:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Gymkhana (motorsport)[edit]

Since Gymkhana essentially is a sport in the form of autocross with minimal difference only at the track setup and such, I'm proposing a merge for that. --Blackhawk charlie2003 (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with a merge for gymkhana. It is very close to autocross with its own unique classing. The current article is simply horrendous and I will be working to edit it. --Erikmjacobs (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gymkhana is not like autocross. Gymkhana focuses way more on driver control, whereas autocross focuses on speed. Gymkhana employs the use of 180 and 360 degree turns that require sliding the car where autocross generally looks down on sliding the car on purpose. Gymkhana deserves to be expanded upon and to keep it's autonomy from autocross. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.65.203.197 (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Ghykhana is not about the fastest time, Its more about car control. IF anything, gymkhana should be merged with drifting. I would still disagree to that fact that gymkhana is held at slower speeds. Drifting = Style, Autocross = speed around a set course, Ghymkhana = style and speed. 3 seperate entities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.1.1.101 (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC) (comment moved from another section Aug 24, 2015)[reply]
I second keeping Gymkhana in a separate article. As someone who autocrosses regularly and enjoys watching gymkhana videos, they are certainly different enough to warrant two articles. Whereas autocross emphasizes efficient driving with an ultimate goal of speed through the course, gymkhana has a significant element of flourish. Furthermore, if Autotesting and Motorkhana have articles distinct from autocross, then gymkhana certainly should, as it differs even more significantly than those. --dinomite (talk) 04:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of a merge, though I admit to being a newcomer to the subject. Gymkhana seems to me a more extreme form of autocross rather than an entirely different entity. However, in lieu of consensus on the matter, I've removed the "also called 'Gymkhana'" line from the autocross article and added a Gymkhana reference at the bottom. If the two are to remain separate articles, further distinction should be made in both. --50.109.165.162 (talk) 05:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible lead[edit]

Just the first sentence. "Autocross is a form of motorsports that emphasizes safe, low-cost competition and active participation." This seems a silly detail meant for a section later in the article. The sport may be safe and low-cost, but are those really the sport's most important features? 74.183.191.55 (talk) 06:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement; the definition of the term should precede any other attributes. I've gone ahead and reversed the first and second sentences; hopefully this will not be controversial. --50.109.165.162 (talk) 05:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Autocross vs Autoslalom / Solo vs Solo2[edit]

In some countries there exist difference between Autocross (or AutoX and I believe it is also sometimes known as Solo) and Autoslalom (or Solo-2). Don't know which one is Gymkhana. Unfortunately I am not familiar enough with the subject nor can I find much information on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.178.130.6 (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?[edit]

Is this page necessary? Could it be a disam page or could the others merge here? Rally Wonk (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also a sixth page;
There are no such things as 'American Autocross', 'FIA Autocross', 'British Autocross'; there is Autocross which varies in different places. Rally Wonk (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just formally proposed the merge of Autocross (USA) to Autocross. It appears the significant difference is the surface type. There are large portions of text already common to either page. The remainder is a heavy weighting to the SCCA's autocross, which might do well under a move to SCCA Solo or similar if there is demand for somebody to develop that. I would not, thus the merge proposal. Rally Wonk (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Autocross&oldid=1217569828"