The Course Design Thread

[jim.gandy]

Yes, I'm using something from my monthly Road & Tach column to try to start a new forum topic. Can we use this thread to discuss course designs? What people like and don't like, what's fun and what's a pain, what's safe/unsafe, etc etc...

Anything's fair game -- just remember course designers are volunteers, so try not to call anybody a nincompoop.:) Especially me, I'm thin-skinned.

I'll start it off...

At the risk of being called a sniveler, let me offer my opinion that the course used in our Solo Round One on April 6th was maybe a little too open. (And hey, I was the event co-chair!) I’m not saying it was too fast – the speed was fine, and the course was fun to drive. I judge the openness of a course by how much of it I can drive with Wide-Open Throttle (WOT).

Yes, my car is a Miata, so obviously I see more WOT on just about any course, compared to a Vette or a Viper. It's just that I think the April 6th course had as high a proportion of WOT for my car as any course I’ve driven at Stead. In addition, I heard WRX drivers saying things like, “Great course – lots of fun!” That always makes me suspicious – I’m kidding, I’m kidding!

But why even mention it? Because it’s at WOT that altitude has its greatest effect on autocross performance. Some cars (I’m thinking Jim Uchytil’s monster Vette, for example), almost never get to use WOT in a Solo event, so their Solo elapsed time would be very nearly the same regardless of altitude. At the other end of the spectrum, think about Kevin Sheridan’s Bugeye Sprite on race tires – if he’s not on the brakes, he’s flat out, and altitude is killing him.

This stuff comes into play during class-to-class competition (PAX), and it also messes up things inside single classes – when course design forces an A Stock S2000 to use proportionately more WOT than an AS Vette or WRX at our altitude, the Honda is being penalized.

Let me make three rash statements, and then I'll duck. 1) Altitude is a problem for us. 2) More WOT makes the problem worse; less WOT lessens the problem. 3) A course can minimize WOT and still be fast and fun. Comments?

[MikeK]

I like courses that are wide, and therefore have a variety of possible lines that you can choose for each corner. I think this separates the noobs from the experts more than anything else. Riding with an expert on a wide course and seeing what lines they take is also one of the best learning experiences I have had at autox. If the course is very narrow, it just becomes a "follow the line of cones" exercise.

This is one of the reasons I like lovelock. You have to think and plan ahead for each corner to take the optimum racing line.

[MikeK]

Let me make three rash statements, and then I'll duck. 1) Altitude is a problem for us. 2) More WOT makes the problem worse; less WOT lessens the problem. 3) A course can minimize WOT and still be fast and fun. Comments?

p.s. My car has power so I'm going to disagree with all of these :)

[sperry]

While I will agree with the statement that WOT courses exaggerate the altitude issue, I will also say that tight courses tend to be slow and painful. They're less fun, and less like national-style courses.

When you hear people like Mark Sipe complaining about having to use 1st gear, it's not 'cause he hates shifting, it's because it means the course is binding and doesn't flow the way the expertly designed national courses tend to flow.

Now I'm not saying courses have to be open to flow, but it's much harder to design a tight course that flows than an open course that flows. Like MikeK said, open courses flow well because good drivers inherently pick flowing lines through the cones. It allows the good drivers to separate themselves from the bad drivers, and IMO driver skill is a much bigger factor in times in our region than altitude or PAX issues ever are. I'd rather have a fun, open, flowing, easy-to-navigate course than one that sacrifices those features for more PAX/altitude friendly course. After all, a fun event should be the primary focus for the course designer in my opinion.

[Dean]

I would suggest that we keep the HAP related discussion out of the course design thread. So quick answers. 1. Take it to the HAP thread. 2. Not true IMHO and I will discuss as it relates sort of to course design. 3. No, it can't.

And I take the entire blame for Event #1s course.

Jim U's power on tire break away aside, you and I probably spent near the same percentage of time at WOT.

In the world of type 1, 2 and 3 corners, to maximize the advantage of the 1s and 2s, you will always try and maximize WOT and 100% braking. No amount of "course design" other than a continuous set of connected corners (type3s), AKA a slalom (of which there was a huge one of as I recall), will you have a low amount of WOT. Good drivers will always try and maximize the binary pedal positions.

It just sounds like you drove the course correctly which happens to be the way it was designed. The first 405 degree right hander from the start and ending before the second time through the crossover could have been driven with modulated throttle/braking instead of as an increasing radius 180 degree corner a big brake and a late apex 225 corner but the former would have been much slower.

The same is true with the series from the crossover back to the 1st 180. you could go a whole lot slower and use much less WOT by scrubbing through the first decreasing radius left hander and tracking way out causing turning much harder in the right hander into the Sat. course. and could continue to not drive an optimal line through the chicane.

OK, back on course design.

Good course design is about visibility and flow... On flow from event 1: If the Chicago box had been 25 feet closer to the "second 180", it would not have been nearly as "fun" because the arc out of the 180 would not have matched the entry to the box. (That whole 210 degrees was at partial throttle by the way.) The same goes for the left hander before the slalom into the slalom. There was enough width/freedom in the course that you could choose your arc through those elements.

As I said in a thread here or on SECCS, I am a big fan of open courses with minimal cones. I had to use way more than usual to cram a 35+second course into the left half of the tarmac for Saturday's School and T&T.

The key to designing an open course is that as you exit each element, you should be pointed at the next element and it should be about the only thing worth looking at in that direction. They also tend to make extensive use of pointer cones and pointer walls to aid the driver in determining what direction they should be looking/turning. My wide open crossover and the Evnt #1 course from the Chicago box on are good or at least decent examples.

Due to the close proximity of sections of the school course, the next element was not always obvious when you exited an element in reality as it was on paper at my house. I found this out during Friday's setup and thus had to add many outside and pointer walls and even some inside walls to make it clearer. I think I succeeded for Sat. but missed 1 small section for Sunday which became obvious on Sunday afternoon as more drivers DNFed. I blame part of that on the wind though for not allowing them a good head up and turned visual walk and much of the flour blowing away.

If you truly want to minimize WOT, you must restrict drivers to a minimum width relatively slow and tight course. And IMHO, those are often less fun.

I was only on the rev limiter in 2nd in the STI for a minuscule amount of time after the second time through the crossover and actually grabbed third for about 2 seconds before the first 180. I don't recall what the limiter in second is, but I would guess my top speed was under 60 which is well within the guidelines for Solo course design given my significantly non-stock car.

[Kevin M]

As the driver a small displacement, low power-to-weight car I say: bollocks to minimizing WOT. If you want to use HAP to fix the altitude disadvantage that's one thing, but I'd never approve of intentionally slanting course design to favor a particular kind of vehicle on a regular basis. Not to mention that flowing courses are both more fun and more challenging to nail down IMO.

Over the course of the season, we generally get "Miata" courses and "Corvette" courses and several shades in between. It works out okay in the end. Besides, cost is not an issue when it comes to the altitude debate, because DS/FS and ESP cars aren't really any more expensive than ES/GS/HS and DSP/FSP cars are.

The course I did with Dean (see attached) was intentionally done to be as flowing and "organic" as possible last October. With the universal exception of the roundy-round, which will be eliminated for July, I got dozens and dozens of comments about how much people liked driving the course- even those who coned away good runs or didn't think they drove particularly well.

Attempting to handicap the course designs for a particular segment of autocrossers just goes against the basic idea of the sport IMO. There are elements that favor R compounds over street tires, too- should we ban the ones that clearly favor one or the other to make it more "fair" for those on one side or the other for that camp? Can't say that I would advocate it. In fact, the only course in my recent memory I specifically did not like was one as you are proposing- tight lanes, no straight lines, lots of short-radius corners. I don't want to criticize the designer(s) of that course because as I understand it the effect did not match the intention. But it was a course that was extremely difficult to drive because it was all very low speed, with no periods of extensive acceleration. Very few people would advocate a course that intentionally causes multiple downshifts for a significant portion of the field; can you reconcile your desire for a Miata- I mean, low horsepower car- friendly course that keeps most of the field in second gear?

[S2kreno]

I thought the course was good (would have liked to have driven it better but that's another story). It had width, offered a choice of lines, and the hairpin and decreasing radius thingie provided a challenge too. Of course, I traded an altitude-challenged S2000 in for a supercharged Lotus this year so and I'm trying not to be hypocritical here. Why don't we leave things as they are, and those who want more courses designed to suit their vehicles can get them by volunteering to chair events :)-

[solonut]

Jim, I didnt hit the rev limiter at all on sunday, I was WOT but not at max speed. I was trying to push a hole in the floorboard to go faster. Last weeks course was good for beginners as it was fairly easy to read. and most novices dont have enough confidence to do what we do with our years of experience.

[dknv]

I like courses where there are a minimum of cones; I prefer not to see walls of cones that force you into a lane. I like courses that have variety, including some WOT section(s), as well as tighter turning sections (i.e. the long slalom last weekend) where you have to figure out the right speed to drive it in optimum time. Having a variety of elements in a course allows more equality for different kinds of cars to excel in different sections.

I love a course where I can shift to 2nd, and leave it there. I prefer not to have to navigate a binding corner that forces me to downshift or risk bogging in the exit. That said, I think 'pin cones' are interesting to have in a course from time to time. And, I like slaloms that are truly direction-optional - not making it obvious which way is a faster entry or exit. They present an added challenge to solving the mystery of the fastest way. :)

[MPREZIV]

I personally enjoy the aspect of BOTH of the affore mentioned course "types", fast and slow.

There's a particular type of course that myself and my car are most "comfortable" on, as I'm sure most of the people here can agree, but I really appreciate what I can take from the LESS comfortable courses, in that I have an opportunity to learn some new tricks, so to speak. I actually LIKE those courses that are out of my comfort zone, that make it a challenge to put the car where it needs to be, and still maintain a smooth, fast line. Sure, it's tons of fun having the perfect course for myself/my car where I can just BLAST through in a ridiculously short time, but I think it makes better drivers having both course types, that cause one to learn both how to handle the fast, high speed transitions, AND the slow, tight, "must slow down to be fast" sections.

$0.02

[man2machine]

Absolute novice here, but here goes: I liked the last course a lot. It let me stretch my cars legs a little. But I absolutely hated the slalom at the end. Me no likey slaloms so close when my car is a pig right now, lol.
m2m

[Dean]

Absolute novice here, but here goes: I liked the last course a lot. It let me stretch my cars legs a little. But I absolutely hated the slalom at the end. Me no likey slaloms so close when my car is a pig right now, lol.
m2mSlaloms are probably the most challenging element available to Solo course designers. They come in many flavors, but all have the same basic driving requirements.

1. Turn the car before the cone, not at or after it. AKA Don't be late.

2. Don't try to go faster, try to go smoother.

3. Look at least 3 cones ahead.

That is all.


The most common teaching term used in slaloming is backside.

The theory is you should try and drive over the backside of each cone, not get anywhere near the front of the cones. To do that, you have to already have the car at a 30+ degree angle past/between the cones when your front tire passes it.

The funny thing is that you say you liked the course, but not the slalom. There were actually 3 slaloms in the course, and you only disliked the last one. The Chicago box after the "second 180" is a 3 cone slalom at exactly the same spacing as the 6 cone at the end. And there was a 5-6 cone depending on how you look at it uneven spacing offset slalom before the first 180.

Since we are sharing, here are the rough key cone maps from Event 1 and the school.

[RBrown]

Yes, I'm using something from my monthly Road & Tach column to try to start a new forum topic. Can we use this thread to discuss course designs? What people like and don't like, what's fun and what's a pain, what's safe/unsafe, etc etc...

Anything's fair game -- just remember course designers are volunteers, so try not to call anybody a nincompoop.:) Especially me, I'm thin-skinned.<snip>

I liked the course. I didn't have my jetting right and I actually got to flat foot it a couple of times in the BP car which is unusual for a relatively tight course on asphalt. Generally I run a data acquisition system but I was too cold and lazy to set it up the beacons but it would have been interesting to this discussion to see the percent throttle, time cornering versus time in straights, etc.

Generally, though, I'm sure the course seemed more open in a Miata that in did in a Corvette, particularly the final slalom. Corvettes like two cone courses, one at each end of the course about a quarter mile apart.

-- Rick

[jim.gandy]

Outstanding discussion! In just 24 hours, too. You guys/gals are great. Keep the ideas coming...

Like I said in the opening post, I ducked after I threw the opening comments out. You can see why -- some people took exception. And that's okay! The more ideas, the better.

I absolutely don't want this thread to be focused on anything I said, but I hope it's okay if I respond. I said Round 1's course had more Wide Open Throttle (WOT) than I commonly see at Stead. I think several postings tend to back that up, especially Pat Housel's and Rick Brown's. (Rick's comment about data acquisition showing percent throttle is great food for thought; that data would be an interesting part of the altitude-effects debate that Dean says to take elsewhere.)

Several postings seem to imply that reducing WOT time means using a narrow, twisty, shift-back-to-first course. NOT SO! Some reflection will, I hope, convince just about everyone that it's possible to design extended strings of elements that can be fast but which force you to constantly modulate the throttle -- no matter what kind of car you're in (except maybe for poor Kevin Sheridan's race-tired Sprite).

That's my position and I'm sticking to it... for now... ;-)

[Dean]

Several postings seem to imply that reducing WOT time means using a narrow, twisty, shift-back-to-first course. NOT SO! Some reflection will, I hope, convince just about everyone that it's possible to design extended strings of elements that can be fast but which force you to constantly modulate the throttle -- no matter what kind of car you're in (except maybe for poor Kevin Sheridan's race-tired Sprite).

That's my position and I'm sticking to it... for now... ;-)Jim, it is the physics of minimum time over a given course that is against you. Go as fast as you can as early as you can and as far as you can, brake, turn, repeat is how you make fast lap times on every track in the world. You can slow average speed by tightening the elements, but there are only 2 ways to reduce WOT.

A nearly continuous set of transitional turns with basically non-existent straights and/or limiting the amount of lateral freedom in the course, AKA narrow, likely walled courses. And niether of those is "fun". Any course with straights of any length and/or lateral freedom (Openness) and drivers will try and straighten any sections they can to use WOT.

I realize autocross is a bit different than road courses in that there are occasionally corners where it is faster to take the slower shortest path rather than the wide in wide out approach. Pivot cones are an OK example of that, but even then, WOT in to 100% braking to 100% turning to WOT is the sequence of choice through them. Trying to maintain partial throttle through them just wastes time.

[dsmith]

My preferences for a course are: one that is flowing, that rewards smoothness above all else, and presents options for different lines. I like slaloms a lot, if I were course dictator I would decree every one should have at least two true, tradional slaloms. The only course element that I absolutely hate is the tight 180 that requires 1st gear to dig out of. And I enjoy the variations we get over the course of a season - never knowing just what the course will be event to event.

During the whole of the season I think each type of car (quick low horsepower, high horsepower, NA, FI) eventually gets at least one event where the courses favor that car, so it balances out. And of course, there's absolutely no chance of making everyone happy every weekend.

Having said all the above, just some nit-picking: I'd like to see some other use of the far end of the site instead of our traditional sweeper. No suggestions about that, just something different.

I'm sometimes concerned over the safety of our finishes: I don't think the usual couple of sharp turns just before the lights lends itself to car control and I worry about the timeslip person and cars (and carts) waiting on the grid. We might have to shorten our courses up a bit to provide for safe shut down zones after the lights.

Maybe it's my geezerdom but some of our courses turn into a sea of cones from the driver's seat; maybe we could work on using fewer cones and more pointers?

And a real left field suggestion: how about using orange cones for driver's left side and blue cones for driver's right side? (Opposite on Sunday.) Hey, it works great on my solo video game, I never get lost.

[sperry]

Blue cones!?! What will they think of next!?

[RBrown]

Outstanding discussion! In just 24 hours, too. You guys/gals are great. Keep the ideas coming...

Like I said in the opening post, I ducked after I threw the opening comments out. You can see why -- some people took exception. And that's okay! The more ideas, the better.

I absolutely don't want this thread to be focused on anything I said, but I hope it's okay if I respond. I said Round 1's course had more Wide Open Throttle (WOT) than I commonly see at Stead. I think several postings tend to back that up, especially Pat Housel's and Rick Brown's. (Rick's comment about data acquisition showing percent throttle is great food for thought; that data would be an interesting part of the altitude-effects debate that Dean says to take elsewhere.)

Several postings seem to imply that reducing WOT time means using a narrow, twisty, shift-back-to-first course. NOT SO! Some reflection will, I hope, convince just about everyone that it's possible to design extended strings of elements that can be fast but which force you to constantly modulate the throttle -- no matter what kind of car you're in (except maybe for poor Kevin Sheridan's race-tired Sprite).

That's my position and I'm sticking to it... for now... ;-)


I can see where you can design sweepers or transitions that force a cornering speed lower than what could be taken at full throttle. Modulating the throttle then maintains the maximum cornering speed possible and basically puts back in the energy scrubbed off by the cornering. So in the example of a sweeper a Miata and a BP Corvette <g> each pull the G's the suspension and tires are capable of and it doesn't matter that one has 400 more hp than the other. On the other hand, slowing speed down with slaloms or transitions creates a second order effect where the wider car effectively sees a narrower course and has to generate more G's to get through the same elements at the same speed. For example, in a slalom, a narrower car doesn't have to pull as many G's as a wider car to achieve the same speed since it doesn't have to turn as much to clear the ducks. Maybe the fairest courses have combinations of many different elements to try to even out the strengths and weaknesses of different kinds of cars.

Fun discussion!



--- Rick

[Skyhorse]

Since we are sharing, here are the rough key cone maps from Event 1 and the school.
Dean I got just as lost on your map as I did on the actual course but then again I never did get my orienteering merit badge in boy scouts and why is that darn helicopter always on course

[Dean]

Dean I got just as lost on your map as I did on the actual course but then again I never did get my orienteering merit badge in boy scouts and why is that darn helicopter always on courseSorry, they are mostly Key Cones only maps which means they are missing almost all of the directional cues. It is a design tool that lets you layout a base course and then go through it and add the minimal amount of cones to to make the path clear(er). :)

The Friday before the event, we laid those cones out in an area and then it was easy to ask helpers to put a wall here, pointers there, etc. as you work on the next base section. Ok, it didn't quite work like that, but it sort of did.

Stead is really nice as a course designer as it has these great 25' squares you can mostly see in the aerial view, so it is easy to move the course from paper to tarmac.

Helicopter is where all the wind came from.

[65stang]

I agree with a lot that has been said and disagree with a lot as well. Here is my 2 pennies for what its worth. I agree with MikeK I like courses that are wider as well. WOT also works for me but I have a 65 mustang so I'm on the more power side. As for the wideness of the course, I have no power assist anything-steering, brakes, etc- so when it comes to those really tight corners i have to do a lot hand movement. If the track was wider it could open up more lines and be a little easier to manuever the bigger cars through. Don't get me wrong I like the tight corners too but when thats all that track is, its not too fun for me. And those are my pennies.

[jim.gandy]

Anybody care to elaborate on what they find objectionable about elements that require a downshift to first?

[sperry]

Anybody care to elaborate on what they find objectionable about elements that require a downshift to first?
Well, besides the fact that Subaru transmission won't go into first unless you're stopped completely (unless you know how to double clutch and/or have switched gear oil to something with some bite for the synchros)... and ignoring the wear and tear on the drivetrain components from the downshift and an additional "launch" back up to speed...

1st gear corners tend to be "artificially" slow by just binding the driver down and forcing them around one narrow line. It interrupts any flow, and it's not fun because how much G-force are you generating at 10 mph anyway? I'd much rather have a long medium-speed, hi-G maneuver than two fast, low-G maneuvers (i.e. straights) interrupted with one very tight one. They both take the same total time, but one's much more fun.

[Dean]

1st gear downshifts are hard on transmissions, disrupt course flow and just plain suck.

Rather than asking what is objectionable, what redeeming qualities can you think of for a 1st downshift?

They are also at minimum frowned upon by every course design "reference" I've ever seen. Perhaps Debbie and Mark can chime in, but I don't recall a single 1st downshift at a pro, tour or at nationals. If they were an acceptable design element, you would think national level designers would incorporate them.

If you have never read it, I believe the current version of the course design bible is Here! (http://www.houscca.com/solo/courses/coursedesign.zip)

[65stang]

Since I can do 45-50 in first gear not much shifting for me, but when i do have to shift to first, yeah it generally sucks.

[Cody]

+1 for no downshifting to 1st and no drag style launches please. I think we do a good job at avoiding the latter and I appreciate it. :)

[jim.gandy]

Guys, the reason I asked the question about elements that require a downshift to first gear is that I'm hoping to gain a better understanding of WHY you don't like the downshifts. Just repeating that you don't like them ("they suck") isn't very illuminating.

Saying that first gear corners are narrow isn't specific enough. Clearly, a course can be very wide and still be slow in terms of speed. A 50-foot slalom (Dean's much-hated finishing element at Event #1) is, let's face it, at least 50 feet wide at every point, no matter how you look at it.

"It's tough on my transmission" is an interesting comment. Anybody out there brave enough to do a riff on it?

Saying first-gear elements "disrupt the flow" also seems to be lacking something. Does an upshift disrupt flow? Of course not. Would it be fair to say that the only reason a downshift would disrupt flow is if the driver can't do it smoothly? C'mon, let's have some discussion.

[MikeK]

I basically destroyed a transmission on my old WRX teaching myself to rev match and double clutch at the same to get that thing into 1st while it was moving for slow autox corners. My STi has the same issue, although I am quite proficient at it now so it isn't a problem for me anymore.

A lot of cars just won't go into 1st when they are moving using normal shifting techniques.

[Dean]

1st gear on most cars is not engineered for continuous use or downshifts into. It's only purpose is to go from a dead stop to 2nd gear+ and normal road speeds, 25MPH+

The Synchros are engineered for that relative differential, not the opposite. Many cars will not or do not like to down shift above 10MPH.

A downshift to first is almost immediately followed by an upshift to second most likely within a very tight element requiring significant steering input thus requiring many synchronized or simultaneous hand and feet inputs thus making it very disruptive to flow, driver attention and overall smoothness.

Most drivers/cars can transition from 2-3 and 3-2 far more smoothly than 2-1 or for that matter 1-2, thus disrupting smoothness and flow.

National course designers agree they should not be used.

Jim, I am still waiting for you or anyone else to pose any positive justification for them. Lacking any positive justification, even the less than illuminating negative of "They Suck" wins out.

[Cody]

Well alright then. Asking why people don't like 1st gear downshifts is like asking why some people wouldn't like speed bumps integrated to the course. They're hard on the car (most cars) which makes you grit your teeth and wince. Most of us tall people can't heel/toe given the physical constraints the steering wheel puts on our legs. I thought one of the spirit-of-the-sport aspects of autocross was that anybody can get out there and race. Having to come to a full stop or risk damaging the car is not my idea of racing. Obviously some vehicles don't batt an eyelash at downshifting to 1st, but Subaru isn't making those vehicles, that's for sure.

[sperry]

Plus, in many cars with decent power, shifting 1-2 and getting back on it is damn near the equivalent of a 1st gear drag launch in terms of wear and tear on the transmission, clutch, tires, etc, which is specifically why we avoid drag launches in the 1st place, no?

[82AS]

Shifting from 1st to 2nd and back in several spots on the course not only is hard on the trans but the clutch, drive line, rearend, and engine. The vets don't like the shifting either. More then one clutch and trans has been replaced along with several drive line parts. The course flows much better if we try not to cause a lot of shifting, and let the driver try to negotiate the course to the best of their ability.

[jim.gandy]

Seems like Subaru drivers have their computers programmed to jump on this thread...

I appreciate that Subaru gearboxes might be lacking the robustness required, especially considering the awesome power you guys are getting. But other cars have weaknesses, too. Should course design be influenced by a particular marque's special needs? (I.e., should we ban any turn that lasts longer than four seconds, because we seem to have destroyed three GM V-8 engines in the last four events?)

Dean, I had a VW Rabbit that was a cinch to go 2-1, but God help you if you needed to go 2-3 in a corner -- that center slot was far too vague, and the whole shift linkage seemed to be made of bungee cords. I never did and never will ask that course designers keep things like that in mind.

All three courses so far this year have been "start in first, shift to second and leave it there," at least for me in a five-speed w/moderate rear gearing. I can't vouch for what's happening in six-speed cars, but I'd expect some people were having to row back and forth between second and third. Or perhaps they should have been but maybe were reluctant to.

My opinion, stated as abrasively as I can in hopes of drawing more people into this discussion: "start in first, shift to second and leave it there" is for pussies. Shifting is a part of driving. Shifting should be part of Solo.

Further, Reno Region is spoiled by Stead, in that "leave it in second" courses are easy to design because we have so much room.

Properly executed, an at-speed downshift from 2nd to 1st is not disruptive of flow nor is it hard on the car. It's less hard on the car than a typical launch -- this past Sunday (event 3) was a drag-strip launch for my Miata.

By the way, in all my competition driving, the ONLY time I've ever used a heel-toe downshift was in a formula car (no synchros).

And another by-the-way: Hawthorne (I'm the course designer this year) has a down-to-first element, the pivot cone(s) at the far south end, and I never hear anyone complain about it. Are Subaru drivers just leaving it in second there?

Now I'll duck. Loose the hounds of hell on me if you must, but let's hear from a wider range of backgrounds!

[sperry]

Quickly:

Without heel-toe/double clutching it is quite literally impossible to shift 2-1 in some Subarus without coming to a complete stop. The gearbox was just not designed for it. At Hawthorne, I did in fact leave it in 2nd for the pivot cone back before I was proficient in double clutch downshifting.

We shouldn't have corners that are known to destroy motors. That's just courtesy to the competitors. We don't put jumps in the course, do we? (Okay, there was that time at Squaw, but I don't think that was what anyone wanted.)

2-3/3-2 shifts are not as hard on the car as 1-2/2-1 shifts.

Bottom line is: the vast majority of people dislike having to use 1st gear and everyone else is impartial. There's not a single person that says "g-damn I love shifting into 1st gear at speed!" Why shouldn't the ultimate goal of course design be "safety first, then fun above all else". Give me one good reason why a 2-1 downshift element is "good" for the course.

[Dean]

No reason to duck.

I again refer you to the course design bible created by National level course designers.

LV loves the crappy pavement and pivot cone at Hawthorne. My course and at least one other Reno Hawthorne course as I recall did not use it but it was added on day 2 by LV.

Many Subaru drivers have changed transmission fluid to permit better 1st downshifts, but that does not entirely negate the wear.

In fact, Subarus love 1st gear whether launches or downshifts where they can use all 4 wheels to apply the added torque and lowly RWD and FWD cars are left behind unable to apply WOT. :) that does not make them good, fun or a reason to include them in a course.

I got to do basically WOT drag 4 wheel drift launches both days this past weekend. Wheee!!!

[MikeK]

Are Subaru drivers just leaving it in second there?

Heel-toe + double clutch for me

[jim.gandy]

Thanks, guys, for not tearing me a new one, and like I said, let's see if we can get a wider range of drivers to contribute to this thread.

[Kevin M]

Seems like Subaru drivers have their computers programmed to jump on this thread...
People smart enough to use the internet gravitate to Subarus. :D

I appreciate that Subaru gearboxes might be lacking the robustness required, especially considering the awesome power you guys are getting. But other cars have weaknesses, too.
Power has nothing to do with it. My car makes something like 145 bhp (at sea level of course) and uses essentially the same gearbox as a WRX. I can only get it into first when above a crawl by using the wrong gear oil, rev-matching, and sometimes doubleclutching too. It's just because first gear is short and, as Dean, Scott and everyone else has said, it's not designed to go into first at 5500 rpm.

Should course design be influenced by a particular marque's special needs? (I.e., should we ban any turn that lasts longer than four seconds, because we seem to have destroyed three GM V-8 engines in the last four events?)
It's not just Subarus, we're just the only ones getting vocal about gearbox wear in this thread. Besides, it's not just hard on the car- it's extremely difficult to do and isn't really a reflection of driver skill.

Dean, I had a VW Rabbit that was a cinch to go 2-1, but God help you if you needed to go 2-3 in a corner -- that center slot was far too vague, and the whole shift linkage seemed to be made of bungee cords. I never did and never will ask that course designers keep things like that in mind.
It's never good for anybody to require any upshift in a corner. More importantly, I doubt your Rabbit did more than 45 or 50 in 2nd, so it would be rather difficult to design good courses that kept everyone below those speeds.

All three courses so far this year have been "start in first, shift to second and leave it there," at least for me in a five-speed w/moderate rear gearing.
You say this like it's a bad thing.

I can't vouch for what's happening in six-speed cars, but I'd expect some people were having to row back and forth between second and third. Or perhaps they should have been but maybe were reluctant to.
Numerous drivers were using/should have used 3rd gear, including me. And every one of us wants that more than we want an extra 1-2 shift in the course.

My opinion, stated as abrasively as I can in hopes of drawing more people into this discussion: "start in first, shift to second and leave it there" is for pussies. Shifting is a part of driving. Shifting should be part of Solo.
Okay, so you believe that 1st gear downshifts help sort great drivers from the rest. Few of us agree. As Dean has repeatedly asked, what is good or enjoyable to any degree about using 1st gear in a car that goes 30mph or less with it topped out? Why are 2-3/3-2 shifts evil while 1-2/2-1 shifts should be part of the autocross catechism?

Further, Reno Region is spoiled by Stead, in that "leave it in second" courses are easy to design because we have so much room.
Again with saying it like it's bad. We're lucky to have what we usually refer to as "the best site on the West Coast" and we should utilize it as best we can. That means if we can do National-style courses, we should do so often, if not always.

Properly executed, an at-speed downshift from 2nd to 1st is not disruptive of flow nor is it hard on the car.
Yes it is, and yes it is. You've heard enough from Subaru drivers, so I'm going to dig out my Miata hat and put it on here. I HATED hairpins in that car, because I was physically incapable of positioning my foot for proper heel-toe. You may or may not have noted it, but I averaged a major spin every 4-5 runs in my Miata. Probably 80-90% of them came from not being able to rev-match downshifts. I had to either completely break a turn down into brake/clutch in/turn/clutch out segments with zero ability to trailbrake, or cross my fingers that the rears wouldn't fully lockup when I re-engaged the clutch. A single hairpin turn cost me between 5-10 PAX positions on average because of this. I know, you don't care about PAX. The other 100 or so of us who run regularly do, to some degree.

It's less hard on the car than a typical launch -- this past Sunday (event 3) was a drag-strip launch for my Miata.
Not necessarily Jim. I'll grant that halfshafts and clutch see slightly less strain when launching from 5mph than from 0mph, but your clutch, your differential, your axles, your ring and pinion in the diff, your tires- all see much larger stresses coming out of a first gear corner than they would coming out of a 2nd gear corner.

By the way, in all my competition driving, the ONLY time I've ever used a heel-toe downshift was in a formula car (no synchros).
Then every time you've driven a car that had synchros, you were going slower than you could have been and causing more wear than you needed to.

And another by-the-way: Hawthorne (I'm the course designer this year) has a down-to-first element, the pivot cone(s) at the far south end, and I never hear anyone complain about it. Are Subaru drivers just leaving it in second there?
As posted, some are. But while we complain about it sucking, we don't complain about it being placed because it's literally the only element that can be used at that specific part of the tarmac.

Now I'll duck. Loose the hounds of hell on me if you must, but let's hear from a wider range of backgrounds!

As a Subaru driver, I vote Nay on hairpins. As a Miata driver, I voted Nay on hairpins. As an autocrosser who enjoys the act of autocrossing, I vote Nay on hairpins. As a course designer, I vote Nay on hairpins. Should I ever become dedicated enough to attend Divisional/NT/Nationals events, I would vote Nay on hairpins. As all of the above, I ask- who would think they are a good thing, and why specifically? Why, Jim, are you so insistent that we're all a bunch of pussies who can't drive because we don't like going slow, making things excruciatingly difficult, and/or accelerating wear and tear on our cars even over what we already subject them to?

[Kevin M]

Thanks, guys, for not tearing me a new one, and like I said, let's see if we can get a wider range of drivers to contribute to this thread.

Please note that my above new one-tearing should be applied to your position in this debate, and not you as one of God's children. ;)

[S2kreno]

My opinion, stated as abrasively as I can in hopes of drawing more people into this discussion: "start in first, shift to second and leave it there" is for pussies. Shifting is a part of driving. Shifting should be part of Solo.

Who said anything about leaving it in second?! My S2k never had a prob with first, and it did provide a challenge -- not the shifting part, just driving it in first because hitting the gas too hard could get squirrely -- but if the course is challenging enough on other fronts we shouldn't have to jeopardize people's cars to make it tough to drive. Shifting is part of driving and I don't think anyone has a problem with shifting per se, like a 2-3 and 3-2 transition. So our courses should be faster to allow more shifting without hurting the cars, and if we want to make the 'vettes do a 2-3 then we get to go, oops, I mean, HAVE to go even faster. Darn.:rolleyes:

[dknv]

In my 6-speed, I stayed in 2nd on the Sat. course (though I was approaching the top of 2nd gear after the slalom - but I was liking my 9k redline then).

On the Sunday course, I had my fastest time by taking a downshift to 1st and right back to second (in the 2nd of the 2 180's before the short slalom). I was bogging out of that section because my car was pushing through the first 180 turn, and I couldn't find a clean momentum line through it. Maybe my 90+ run tires need to be replaced.

[JimU]

I do not think that designing a course with elements that force cars into 1st gear is desirable. If for no other reason it reduces the fun factor and does not necessarily add to the challenge or driveablity of the course. But with that said, without knowing how each car runs some elements will cause some cars to need 1st gear, that life. This is no different than some courses will be between gears for some cars and some cars will never get out of 1st gear. This is nothing that is necessarily planned for it just turns out that way because of the variety of cars we have. As for pivot cones or hairpins I have not seen them used by our club other than at Hawthorne or Lovelock were there is little option unless we include a little rallycross with the autocross and I think everyone excepts that.

As for elements that I find undesirable would be as follows:

When the course or a pointer cone forces you to the ackward side of the course. There are more natural ways to slow a car.

50ft saloom are ok but should not be more than 4 or 5 cones max in length. Any more and they no longer serve there purpose. The rules allow for them to be as narrow as 45ft.

Courses that are narrow and dont allow for multiple line through them. The rule book say a course must be a minimum of 15ft wide. I have seen some courses were they neck down a section to less than 8ft and I have seen cars knock down the cones on both sides at the same time.

As for elements I find desirable would be as follows:

First and foremost a course needs to flow well

I prefer wider courses that give drivers a choice of lines through the course. I feel this make a course mor fun and challenging. Narrow courses are like connecting the dots.

Speed, everyone likes fast courses, which is the item we have to be most careful of, but if we take the above items into account when designing a course we can carry more speed safely.

Thats good for now, Im sure I could think of more goods and bads, but we will leave that for another day.

[Skyhorse]

My car is easy for me to heel and toe (it helps to have feet that resemble Popsicle sticks) and goes into first fairly easily. Also since I swapped out the 4:11 for a 3:70 rear end it can almost do 25 in first. I could have swapped out the transmission and clutch during our lunch break on Sunday with one of the 3 or 4 spares I have in the back yard or run to pick and pull and got one for 75 bucks let’s see you Subaru boys and girls do that. So it’s not wear and tear or cost of equipment for me
First gear maneuvers just are no fun

["A" Stocker]

WHY,WHY, WHY, Would you ever need a turn that tight in an Auto-X??????

[MPREZIV]

...I could have swapped out the transmission and clutch during our lunch break on Sunday with one of the 3 or 4 spares I have in the back yard or run to pick and pull and got one for 75 bucks let’s see you Subaru boys and girls do that...

The swap, no problem! Buying the parts that cheap... not likely! :D



I'm completely in on the "anti-first gear element" side of the debate. My car hates it, I hate it, I can't heel-toe in my car, (size 13-14 in most shoes) and it's just so slowing that it loses the Fun Factor for me. Nothing new to say, just adding my two pennies.

[Kevin M]

The swap, no problem! Buying the parts that cheap... not likely! :D



I'm completely in on the "anti-first gear element" side of the debate. My car hates it, I hate it, I can't heel-toe in my car, (size 13-14 in most shoes) and it's just so slowing that it loses the Fun Factor for me. Nothing new to say, just adding my two pennies.

Not to mention that your car feels natural pulling out of a corner as slow as 15mph in 2nd gear. ;)

[MPREZIV]

Yeah, that helps... !

[65stang]

It seems like everyone hit the mark on input. I agree my car doesn't like downshifts to first either, though it goes in (not easily sometimes) If I don't rev match before shifting/letting the clutch out then I speed lock and end up doin 360's, which is not good for the car, fun...ok somewhat fun, and if its a fast track it can be dangerous. Its hard for me to compare 1st gear racing to a subaru though because my 1st gear goes a long way (as do vets, right?) but having ridden in a few subarus I do know that first gear is pretty much worthless on the track.

[AlexR]

I've always loved a hair pin. I don't really like down shifting into first because (for me) its difficult to Double clutch and Rev over match (i've found going 500 rpms over helps subuars find first) but mostly it feels like its Bad on my car which i find to be greatly distracting during a run.

IF the course can be made so that it flows well .. (coming out of a hair pin) i think using first is fine. I love hair pins , but i Rally cross and in one of those you are E-brake sliding and you have extra time (due to lower traction of the dirt) to rev match + double clutch your way into first. I've tried doing that on pavement but it doesn't work out well at all .

On the first course i went 2-3 3-2 twice i think , R#2 i did it once. 2-3 / 3-2 feels like its less harmful to my car.

[jim.gandy]

Let's see if we can get some more mileage out of this thread...

Sunday's course at Hawthorne must have been a shock to all but the really old geezers among the Reno contingent (like me). Who would have believed a course laid out on a postage stamp could actually be challenging and fun? Us old-timers remember that those kinds of courses are what Solo used to be all about, back in the day.

I'll say it again -- Stead has spoiled us, and it's also skewed our course designs and our vehicle mix towards open/faster/more powerful. A few of us think that's not necessarily a good thing.

A related thought about that course... Yes, TTOD of 21 seconds or so is a pretty short course, only partially compensated for by getting more runs. One solution at Hawthorne would have been to do a "second lap" of the portion on the main area (in front of the tank). That would have added another 10-12 seconds to the run time.

With the room we have at Stead, we could do TWO of those "Sunday at Hawthorne '08" courses simultaneously. How would this sound: on a Saturday we set up two small courses, and add the best time from each course to determine the winners. Then on Sunday, we do a more traditional, open-type Stead course. We have enough spare timing equipment to be able to do it.

Come to think about it, if we did two small courses, it might be possible to rent a water truck and wet down one of the courses... :rolleyes:

Comments?

[solonut]

we did 2 courses like that 6+ years back....John Riggs Jr did the courses...it was set up like a pro-solo....it was fun....make the courses mirror image....now we just need to borrow a set of drag start light:)

[Kevin M]

Jim, I agree that the sunday course was challenging and fun- but was dominated by faster cars. :p Of the top 20 PAX finishers that day, only myself, Dave Hironaka and Don Smith drove anything without forced induction and/or 8 cylinders (not counting Jay Williams' kart). To say that the long courses at Stead and Hawthorne are skewing us towards high horsepower cars would be erroneous based on Sunday's results.

I do like the idea of multiple and/or "mirrored" courses on a day at Stead. Hopefully somebody will be able to give one a try this year.

[S2kreno]

Come to think about it, if we did two small courses, it might be possible to rent a water truck and wet down one of the courses... :rolleyes:

As long as no one uses street tires on the wet and race tires on the dry :p

[Skyhorse]

I liked the short course on Sunday because (a) it had dried out for my run and (b) I had less time to make mistakes

[Kevin M]

I was so disappointed that I had so much less course to collect cones on that I abandoned my pursuit of further cone-bashing glory. :(

[Mark Sipe]

I don't object to a 1st gear turn, 3 or more or having to stay in 1st and rev the living beeswax out of it because there's no room for an upshift before needing to be back down into 1st again is ridiculous

REASON 1: It's extremely hard on the drivetrain and a moderately inexpensive sport gets expensive fast when you have to replace clutches and transmissions, maybe a reciprocating engine if you mis-shift. We replaced Debbie's clutch and then trans several months back and mine has to be swapped soon (it will be trans #3 in 3 years). Most cars aren't really designed for 1st gear downshifting and it is hard on it even with 3 cone synchros. Just because it goes in easy doesn't mean there's not long term damage taking place.

REASON 2: Coupled with the 5k elevation it causes even more of a disadvantage for small displacement and/or low torque vehicles. When you have multiple 1st gear elements it becomes a matter of only drag racing from one element to the next and not braking too late at each one. That's not an autox in my book. That may be "challenging" for a novice, but it's only tedious and frustrating for an experienced competitor. Moreso when you're seathing over reason #1 in the process. If I have to take it easy to avoid damage then why am I here in the first place?

REASON 3: Per the drag racing comment, they interupt course flow. The main reason for this occurence is (in PC terms) course design inexperience, both in setup and seat time. Misjudging or not comprehending speed vs distance; not comprehending entrance/exit angles vs distance between turns; making the entrance lane and/or exit lane too narrow to mistakenly create a challenge; trying to make a jagged, highly angular, zigzagging 50 second course on a 35 second pad; or just plain not having been exposed to much of a repertoire in element design (in non-PC terms; copycat inbreeding); or in the worst case scenario purposely favoring certain types of vehicles, are all potentially to blame at one time or another.

I could probably come up with #4 and #5 if I wanted to spend more time on the subject.

[Mark Sipe]

now you have me going, here's a video of me at a Reno-Stead event last year

if this doesn't make the point home then I give up, thankfully they're not always like this, there have been worse though:

the corner-corner script for the fastest time in my car went like this:

launch 1st gear, hold 1st gear on rev limiter to corner
accelerate 1st from corner, 2nd gear, immediate 1st gear downshift at next turn
accelerate 1st from corner, 2nd gear, immediate 1st gear downshift at next turn
accelerate 1st from corner, 2nd gear to intermediate turn
modulation thru turn, short 2nd gear WOT, then 1st gear downshift at next turn
accelerate 1st from corner, hold 1st gear to corner
accelerate 1st from corner, hold 1st gear to corner
accelerate 1st from corner, 2nd gear to intermediate turn
modulation thru turn, short 2nd gear WOT,1st gear downshift at next turn
accelerate 1st from corner, hold 1st gear to corner
accelerate 1st from corner, 2nd gear to intermediate turn,
slight modulation in corner, 2nd gear WOT across finish

YouTube- TeamRX8's STU-RX8 dialing in for 2007 season

.

[daveds50]

Sunday's course at Hawthorne must have been a shock to all but the really old geezers among the Reno contingent (like me). Who would have believed a course laid out on a postage stamp could actually be challenging and fun?

when laying it out, i thought to myself... "well, this is going to suck monkey balls"... but after running it, it did turn out to be quite fun for what it was.


A related thought about that course... Yes, TTOD of 21 seconds or so is a pretty short course, only partially compensated for by getting more runs. One solution at Hawthorne would have been to do a "second lap" of the portion on the main area (in front of the tank). That would have added another 10-12 seconds to the run time.


my original intentions, were to double back through the first part... however, the 1734950 airplane tie downs prevented that. we could not find a way to smoothly connect back to the first part without having to run over a few tie downs.

if you noticed, the skinny part of the course was due to those tie downs. some of the cones were right on top of some of them. i usually always set up really wide courses, but this was an exception beyond my control.

we also wanted to do a U turn and use a little bit of the return part at the end... however, your bus did not want us to, and oiled down the whole return. :o

as an afterthought, i should have moved the back wall after the finish about 20 feet back... but we did not think of that, as the finish lights were intended to be after the 180 degree corner. ooops ! i noticed this when the karts were going straight through the wall, and returning through the same place they exited. ( legal ) and i found myself doing it once too.

so, short it was... but, better than calling the event, or having any incidents happen on the long course. this year, it was a matter of "safety first and foremost", and all went very well.

Jim, I agree that the sunday course was challenging and fun- but was dominated by faster cars. :p Of the top 20 PAX finishers that day, only myself, Dave Hironaka and Don Smith drove anything without forced induction and/or 8 cylinders (not counting Jay Williams' kart). To say that the long courses at Stead and Hawthorne are skewing us towards high horsepower cars would be erroneous based on Sunday's results.

any time you have a sharp corner into a longish straight, it does favor vehicles with power, or power and AWD.

unfortunately, again due to the tie downs, i coulddnt get away from that one corner into the straight on sunday.

let me tell you... my car with a neck snapping 1600 cc's of fury with 116 WHP, diddnt like both courses that weekend... luckily the driver does not care, and has fun on any course, and had an absolute blast !

but at 4200 ft elevation, i did at times feel like i was driving a Yugo. maybe 100 HP at 4200 ft ? no complaints though... gotta deal with it.

anyway Kevin, dont put too much faith into sundays PAX results. obviously the 1st heat was at a disadvantage. i was in the 2nd heat, and my tires right after a hard run at the end, were barely noticeably warm... according to the pyrometer, 21 degrees above ambient temp. in the 3rd heat after it got warm and sunny, i put my hand on Rasmuses tires, and they were very toasty. he runs the same brand tires as i do, and his was right about where they work best. 3rd group was loving life at that point.

you guys complaining about a little downshifting ? try my car... your lug nuts have more torque than my engine does... :D i shift like i am rowing a boat. :D

ok, admittedly, i have been on courses that are painful to run... nice flowing courses are always what the majority of people like best. ( except the high power point and shooters that dont drive very well ) point and shoot courses can get old in a hurry... i dont even like them in my kart, and it does point and shoot very well. but courses that you can get a rhythm going on, are always fun.

anyway, sister-in-law lives in Reno... next visit may be timed to when you guys have an event. that is after we visit a Flagstaff, AZ. event... ( 7000 ft elevation... *gasp* )

see ya,

dave

[dknv]

anyway, sister-in-law lives in Reno... next visit may be timed to when you guys have an event. ..Like, this weekend? :)

Dave, you did a really good job with that course, given short-to-no-notice to put it together (I assume).

With the wet pavement in the first run group, I took my first run with traction control on, just to see how it felt. My learning: still faster to have it turned off.

[dknv]

This discussion reminded me: on Sunday's course, there was room at the start line, to back up and line up straight for the start lights. At one time, I thought I there was a rule about not doing that; but cannot remember what that was.

Having another cone on that right side wall would have prevented this. Although, maybe it was intentionally left open there for that purpose?

[MikeK]

How would this sound: on a Saturday we set up two small courses, and add the best time from each course to determine the winners. Then on Sunday, we do a more traditional, open-type Stead course. We have enough spare timing equipment to be able to do it.

The license for the timing software does not allow this. To avoid possible legal problems we would have to buy a second license, which I believe is around $4-500.

Also, the software we use to keep track of the season standings won't handle 2 separate sets of results counting as 1 round. The best we can do right now is to count each separate course as a separate event.

[dsmith]

Dave you did a great job adjusting to the elements and the conditions in Hawthorne, and came up with a very fun course. No complaints from me.

You're always welcome here at Reno, stop by and have fun with us anytime!

[daveds50]

This discussion reminded me: on Sunday's course, there was room at the start line, to back up and line up straight for the start lights. At one time, I thought I there was a rule about not doing that; but cannot remember what that was.

Having another cone on that right side wall would have prevented this. Although, maybe it was intentionally left open there for that purpose?

when we threw cones out for the start, i was thinking like it should be kinda like saturdays start. i did not set the timing lights, or the stage line. but the stage line did get moved up to where it was, therefore allowing a straight line up with adjusting.

i've actually seen it done at Nationals, so that would imply to me that it would be legal to do. some people did do it on sunday. is at an advantage ? yes. is it illegal ? i dont think so.

i thought about doing it, but the whole day wasnt important enough to me to worry about it. i just did a real sharp turn and got almost straight... but then, my car does not have the power to spin tires a lot, even on a non-straight launch. :o

dave

[as197f12518]

i've actually seen it done at Nationals, so that would imply to me that it would be legal to do. some people did do it on sunday. is at an advantage ? yes. is it illegal ? i dont think so.

And it cost some people dearly too.....
I was annoucing during the 3rd run group (when it seemed to happen the most) and I saw at least 3 people end up +1 before they even got the green flag. Was it worth two seconds to be able to line up like that? I doubt it:p:p:p

[jim.gandy]

Just reminding people that this thread is available...

I heard a lot of positive comments about the Jay Williams/John Burns-designed courses this past weekend at Stead. Anybody care to put their thoughts in writing, so we can all mull them over?

[Braydog]

Just reminding people that this thread is available...

I heard a lot of positive comments about the Jay Williams/John Burns-designed courses this past weekend at Stead. Anybody care to put their thoughts in writing, so we can all mull them over?


I have discussed this with a couple people already, but I really disliked the switchback turns near station 6 on Sunday (right after the start). I know this has been discussed in other threads, but I am really afraid of messing up my synchros, with that, I take a huge time hit by not downshifting to first. I know I am not the only one that feels this way, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

On a positive note, Saturday's entire course, and the Walls on both days were an absolute blast.

[MikeK]

I found this course to be one of the most interesting I have driven in a long time, especially Sunday's version. The open start on Sunday felt fantastic to drive. The course had both slow and fast sections, but most parts were nice and wide so that there were a variety of different lines to try. I think it is good to give people the opportunity to take the wrong lines, then they will learn more when they see how faster people drive the course. I also thought the 3 offset walls were a nice variation on an ordinary slalom.

Another factor was that the course was fairly simple. Autocross should be about testing driver skill behind the wheel, the ability to choose a line through a course, etc etc. Autocross should not be about testing people's memory.

Another more subtle element is the time it took to run the course. 40+ seconds instead of 50+ seconds (combined with the lower turnout) meant that everyone got lots of runs, but the run groups weren't ridiculously long, there was time for fun runs on saturday, and we were finished and packed up in reasonable time on sunday. I would prefer to have more runs on a shorter course than fewer runs on a longer course for 2 reasons. One is that the more runs the more chances to get it right, secondly the shorter it is the easier it is to memorise in the short time available in the morning or at lunch. Also during summer, those long afternoon run groups in the heat are a killer.

The only bad things I can say about the course was that the two 180 turns forced a downshift to 1st, which I think is completely unneccesary. A shorter course with fewer, wider turns is a better idea than wedging first gear turns in just to fill the space.

Overall though, 2 fun courses.

[dknv]

Is it my imagination, or was this course one where the higher horsepower cars were able to stay wot for a proportionately longer period of time (than our typical Stead course)? Because, on Sunday I was thinking the Miller/Yeo corvette sounded like it was WOT the entire way after the left turn, leading into the back sweeper, and on through the walls.

My preference is to not have to downshift to 1st at all; but when there is an element where it is too slow not to, I'd rather it was later in the course as opposed to near the start. With the format we use where we reverse the direction on the 2nd day, this couldn't be avoided this weekend.

[Dean]

I would say the exact opposite. This weekend's courses kept the car in transition almost constant eliminating much of the WOT time. I would be surprised if any car with more than 150HP was at WOT through the walls. There were also few segments where a "point and shoot" approach worked well.

My foot hit the floor in spots, but it was impossible to keep it there for more than a fraction of a second to maybe a couple seconds at most the later mostly being the launch on Sunday.

[Kevin M]

Driving a ~120 hp car on Saturday, I was WOT for about 75% of the course. Sunday in Kevin's wagon in the morning, it was maybe 50%, but in the afternoon on the Hoosiers it was back close to 75%, almost as much as I managed in my own car. If my car had R compounds, it would have been 100% WOT except for a couple braking zones.

I did very much enjoy the car, but like Mike, Kris and Debbie I didn't care for the switchbacks. It's not that I think they have no business in autocross but they are certainly not any fun, and you can challenge drivers without requiring 10 mph elements.

[Braydog]

My main point with the 1st gear issue is this; Autocross is supposed to be a fairly cheap sport. Granted there will be extreme accelerated wear, but in comparison to other motorsports, its very cheap.

A new transmission is not cheap.

If I had 10's of thousands of dollars to throw around on a whim every time I blow up my car, I wouldnt be complaining, but like most middle class people, that ain't the case.

[Braydog]

Another suggestion, if you are going to have tandem 180 degree turns like that at the start, dont make the start so launchable, and possible make that entire portion of the course carrying the turns extremely narrow.

This would force extreme precision at low speeds, raising the fun factor. Instead of just going 10mph, now we have to go 10mph and surgically cut a line through narrow cones. (or just run the damn things over in my case) :D

[MattR]

Narrow courses are for bobsleads, not cars.

[Braydog]

Of course, and given my limited experience in this sport, I do not expect my suggestions to be weighed heavily, if even at all. Just trying to find an alternative, or justification of using that brutal first gear :p

[dsmith]

I "checked out" tha club's VHS copy of Dick Turner's Autocross Secrets (or something like that) and watched it last night. The tape was made in the mid eighties and it was an eye opener as to what type of courses seemed to be the norm back then.

There were shots of a local autocross in some parking lot and the course couldn't have been more than 12' wide at the most - looked closer to 10", they used the really tall traffic cones, not the medium sized ones we have now, and no marking flour lines to frame the course. It was tight and narrow, no way could you slide a large car around without picking up lots of cones.

Course design has come a long way in 20 years!

[Mark Sipe]

Of course, and given my limited experience in this sport, I do not expect my suggestions to be weighed heavily, if even at all. Just trying to find an alternative, or justification of using that brutal first gear :p

calling you out for the redundant statement given your previous reply :)

[Braydog]

that was rude of me, see edit reason.

[jim.gandy]

I saw lots of smiles and heard lots of positive comments at the June 28-29 events. The adrenalin was palpable.

Only for perspective, not as criticism, let me say that these courses were probably the most open and fast I've ever experienced at Stead. I think it might be difficult to design courses that were more open and faster and not fall clearly outside the intent of the course design guidelines in the national rule book -- just my opinion.

Pat and Lexie (event chairs) showed us what is possible at Stead, in terms of courses with high "yipeee" content. It's worth noting that Pat drives a Miata :).

I know lots of jeans were creamed, and that's a good thing. I almost got the impression that if every Stead event had those kinds of courses, attendance would go through the roof.

Let's hear some comments.

[Cody]

Damn, of all the weekends to miss! :(

[Mark Sipe]

I've been running regional, divisional, and national level autocrosses for almost 15 years and without exception if you have a high speed regional course it will generally get a lot of cheers regardless of if it's mostly in a straight line and with little real autox content or skill level involved.

While the SCCA Solo2 rules allow some leeway WRT course speed, the fact that I was exceeding 65 mph (2nd gear limiter) twice on the front section and in excess of 75 mph (3rd gear) on the back section in a B-Stock Mazda RX-8 weighing 2850 lbs and probably only making 160 RWHP at Stead's 5020 ft elevation while running on completely smoked Hoosier A6 tires should be suitable cause for concern. This would be doubley true in light of the region's past association with being on the risk management radar screen.

I can recall the 2004 Fort Worth National Tour event where I was hitting 70 mph on an open course section in a Super-Stock Chevrolet C5 Z06 having a major uproar within the national-level autox community about unsafe speeds following the event. This resulted in a subsequent SEB re-write of that section, which I happened to be a participating member in, and is what exists in the rulebook today. The fact that Jeff Glorioso ran out of class/run group should not negate the fact that he obliterated the field with a 61.x run time in a SS C5 Z06, as compared to my 65.2 run time.

Someone at the event asked me if I liked the Sunday course, referring to my previous comments on this forum regarding courses that are too slow i.e multiple 1st gear corners, and my own honest answer is "no". For me, the course did not present much of a driving challenge in the overall autox sense. It was simply a matter of "how fast can your car go" and "how late can your car whoa".

Too straight and too fast is even worse than too curvy and too slow if the former violates the basic safety tenants of the rulebook and leaves a lot of "suitable" course area unused. I make this statement with no disrespect or purposeful malice for this, or any other, course designer. The hard, cold truth is that when it comes to both course design and course safety there is no place for personal feelings. If our goal is to excel as an SCCA Solo2 region then it's an area where we can only afford to allow objective, honest assessment.

Somehow this region is going to need to get it's arms around the course design issue. I see so much potential here. The Reno Region has the enthusiasm, the participation, and the site. Yet the question remains, "How does the Reno Region take it to that next level?" I don't claim to have the answer for the region, but this is certain:

If it's going to change, then change will be required. A status quo attitude will only provide a status quo result.

For myself to become involved, the course design process can't take place at 10:00 AM on Friday. I can't justify missing a whole day of work to lay out a regional level autox course. On a site like Stead it shouldn't take more than several hours to layout, mark, and chalk a course with some conceptual layout work done in advance. Most regions do it in the early morning on the actual event day.

All IMHO,

MS

[MPREZIV]

It seems, in my opinion, that you just simply don't enjoy auto-crossing in our region at all Mark.


Why do you still do it then?

[MattR]

We have had a variety of courses this season.

[jim.gandy]

It seems, in my opinion, that you just simply don't enjoy auto-crossing in our region at all Mark.


Why do you still do it then?


to Mark: Thanks for your thoughtful input. I guess it's only natural that some responses might contain a touch of hostility, but I still am sorry to see it.

to Cory: Mark raised serious issues that can't be ignored. Zinging him won't make the issues go away.

to All: Before you dive into these issues, you should have an understanding of the relevant, MANDATORY provisions of the national Solo rule book. Here are some brief excerpts that I hope will show you the problem we face as we consider courses like we had on June 28-29.

from Section 1.2.1, which gives a general definition of a Solo event: "... a Solo event is a non-speed driving skill contest ..." and "These events are run on short courses that emphasize car handling and agility rather than speed or power."

and from Section 2.1, titled "Common Sense and Solo Courses": "Generally, maximum speeds in the mid 50's to low 60's are contemplated for Stock and Street Prepared vehicles, and, WITH LIMITED EXCEPTIONS AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 2.2, MUST BE OBSERVED, since these are speeds with which the average driver is familiar from everyday driving." The all-caps are as presented in the rulebook.

I've re-read section 2.2, looking for the exceptions they're talking about, and, trust me, there are no specific exceptions. The closest thing to a rule allowing faster speeds is in Section 2.2.A, where it says, "Speeds on straight stretches should not normally exceed the low 60's (mph) for the fastest Stock and Street Prepared category cars." Notice the word "normally." Can YOU tell us what that means? I encourage everyone to research Section 2.2 and the rest of the Solo rules for themselves.

[MPREZIV]

...to Cory: Mark raised serious issues that can't be ignored. Zinging him won't make the issues go away...It was not a "zing," it was an honest question. I suppose in the Course Design Thread, it's a bit off topic, but I felt that it was at hand, and thought I'd ask simply out of curiosity...

[sperry]

If our goal is to excel as an SCCA Solo2 region then it's an area where we can only afford to allow objective, honest assessment.

Somehow this region is going to need to get it's arms around the course design issue. I see so much potential here. The Reno Region has the enthusiasm, the participation, and the site. Yet the question remains, "How does the Reno Region take it to that next level?" I don't claim to have the answer for the region, but this is certain:

If it's going to change, then change will be required. A status quo attitude will only provide a status quo result.

For myself to become involved, the course design process can't take place at 10:00 AM on Friday. I can't justify missing a whole day of work to lay out a regional level autox course. On a site like Stead it shouldn't take more than several hours to layout, mark, and chalk a course with some conceptual layout work done in advance. Most regions do it in the early morning on the actual event day.

Herein lies the crux of the issues in Reno.

First, is our goal to excel as a Solo Region? A lot of the time trials folks might disagree with that. Second, define "excel"... are we excelling if we produce national champs? or if we're all just having fun? What's our goal when those two conflict?

As far as "enthusiasm, the participation, and the site", one out of three ain't bad? We certainly have a great site. But enthusiasm and participation is greatly lacking. There are maybe 10 people that run each and every event, from setup to tear down, from timing and scoring to results posting, from newsletters to running the club business behind the scenes. So, out of the usual 100 or so people at any given autocross weekend, 90 people are doing nothing more than the minimal required work. For a 100% volunteer run organization, that's not a lot of participation.

Which leads to the next thing we're missing... enthusiasm. Sure, there's plenty of enthusiasm for the racing... but I see less and less of it from those 10 people that are doing all the work. SCCA used to be a ton of fun for me, to the point where I wanted to do what I could to help out. Now, SCCA is a perpetual mix of fixing website bugs, message board moderation, arguing over street tires/PAX/HAP, and T&S for trials events. I haven't driven my car in over a year, and don't even get out to the autocrosses (so I'm one less person out there helping). My enthusiasm is greatly lacking these days, and I'm not the only one.

I agree that a change is required to break the status quo, but I disagree that a status quo attitude will result in a status quo result. A status quo attitude is going to result in no one running the club, and 90 people showing up to race at an empty airport.

I too can't afford to take a Friday off to setup an event... hell, I can barely afford to take a Saturday off to work a trials event. But I do it because if I don't, this club is dead. And I know I'm not the only one like that. In fact, I may be the least critically needed of the 10 people that are all doing the job these days no longer out of love of the sport, but simply because there are no other people stepping up.

To be frank, if setting up a measly regional event isn't worth your time when the club is in desperate need of help, and if the way things are done aren't to your liking, then I have to echo Cory's sentiment... why bother running with Reno SCCA? I appreciate criticism with regards to safety, because safety is paramount, but you're also very critical about the way Reno Region runs things outside of safety, but in nearly the same breath you tell us you're not interested in helping fix the things you see wrong. There's nothing that says course setup must be done on a Friday... that's up to the event chair. Chair an event and you can setup whenever you see fit, and you can help give one of those few people that are there sun-up to sun-down every race weekend a much needed weekend off.

I'm really concerned about what's going to happen in the near future in this Region. Best I can tell, nearly every board member and chief worker is burned out, and I can't think of a single person waiting in the wings to step up and take over. I know I'm not running for reelection come the end of this season... I just can't dedicate the time to a sport that I don't really participate in much anymore. What happens next January when half the board is up for reelection and everyone feels the way I do?

[Joeyy]

On the topic of course design...

What is the best way to slow down the course at Derby Field but still keep it fun for all. I was getting to the top of third gear in the ESP wagon that was not fully preped for the class. If CYA over course design is what going to be discussed, bring up that event. The idea of running the kart down that runway is going to send me to the church for a blessing on myself and kart before the event.

[dsmith]

A good question. We should remember that Solo is not about proving you've got the guts for speed - we have track events if that's what you need - but about car control, line and technique.

[Mark Sipe]

I simply have my own viewpoints based on a wide variety of experiences and insights. Referring to these viewpoints as continuous criticisms reveals more about the person making such a claim than it does about myself. I have no desire to harp on anyone or be drug into some defensive insecurity contest on a routine basis. That's why I've been choosing to spend hundreds of dollars per trip in gas, food, and hotel expenses to tow over and run in California instead.

I only choose to respond now as the same reason before; because I care enough to. Sometimes this means dealing with issues we're not very comfortable being honest about. It's not necessarily a bad thing to get it all out on the table, including whatever opinions and feelings you have about me. If that's how you feel I can both accept and appreciate the honesty of it.

While I haven't been as involved in the RR SCCA activities much other than running a few events and meetings, I have served in a wide variety of SCCA positions beyond the regional level. These include being a divisional Solo2 steward for several years, an SEB member for several years, an SEB advisory committee member for several years, a monthly column contributor to North American Pylon for several years, numerous chief positions at regional/divisional/national level events, etc. etc., and not least of which also includes being a course designer.

Along the course of time (no pun intended) I've learned to bear my share of differing viewpoints without taking it personal, especially as a course designer. I do understand what it means to be a volunteer. I do understand what it means to be burned out. I do understand concerns for future leadership. I do understand that people often have to agree to disagree.

For those who challenge my viewpoint, what is your own viewpoint based on? How many other regions, divisions, and non-SCCA clubs have you autocrossed with? Asking these questions moved me to reflect on my own past history of running with various groups. It spurred me to throw together the quick list below, which is still short a variety of local marque clubs chapters for BMW, Porsche, Corvette, etc. car clubs:

Alabama Region SCCA
Tennessee Valley Region SCCA
Twickenham Auto Club, Huntsville, Al
Wiregrass Region SCCA
Blue Ridge Region SCCA
Old Dominion Region, SCCA
Tarheel Sports Car Club
South Carolina Region SCCA
Buccaneer Region SCCA
Central Florida Region SCCA
Dixie Region SCCA
Ecurie Vitesse Sports Car Club
Equipe Rapide Sports Car Club, Florida
Florida Region SCCA
Martin Sports Car Club
Atlanta Region SCCA
Middle Georgia Region SCCA
Mississippi Region SCCA
Chattanooga Region SCCA
Eastern Tennessee Region - SCCA
Mid-South Region SCCA
Tennessee Region SCCA
Blue Ridge Region SCCA
Old Dominion Region, SCCA
Tidewater Sports Car Club
Kansas City Region SCCA
Kansas Region SCCA
CENLA Region SCCA
Delta Region SCCA
St. Louis Region SCCA
Equipe Rapide Sports Car Club, Dallas/Ft. Worth
Houston Region SCCA
Lone Star BMW CCA, Dallas/Fort Worth
Lone Star Region SCCA
Texas A&M Sports Car Club
Texas Region SCCA
Autocrossers Incorporated
Finger Lakes Region SCCA
Cincinnati Region SCCA
Steel Cities Region SCCA
Susquehanna Region SCCA
Washington D.C Region SCCA
Chicago Region SCCA
Columbus Sports Car Club
Fort Wayne Region SCCA
Indianapolis Region SCCA
South Bend Region SCCA
Detroit Region SCCA
American Auto-X Series
California Sports Car Club
Fresno Chapter SCCA
Sacramento Chapter SCCA
San Diego Region SCCA
San Francisco Region - SCCA
Rocky Mountains SCCA
Las Vegas Region SCCA
Reno Region SCCA
Utah Region SCCA
Northwest Region SCCA

I don't claim to be an expert, but nobody can say that I haven't been around and seen a few things. Many of these groups have their own unique ways of putting on events. There were a few times when I ran over 60 autox event days within a single year. I no longer have that much energy or freedom. As such, I'm not in a postion to assist the local situation any more in the future than in the past two years. That's just the way it is and it doesn't negate my viewpoint in the least.

[sperry]

Mark, a long list of references does not make your opinion more or less valid. In general, I tend to agree with your criticism anyway, that's not the issue. Additionally, I'm certainly not taking the criticism personally, I know full well our region is having all sorts of growing pains as I've seen us go from an incredibly friendly and fun region to a bickering over the rules like every other club region in just five years.

The thing that bothers me is that there doesn't seem to be any middle ground in our membership. Either you're an enthusiastic novice that can't get enough of the sport purely for the fun of it, or you're an old pro that's seen so much that it's easy to nitpik or complain about anything that you've seen done better elsewhere. Either way, neither group has both the experience and the dedication to step up and try to make the club better.

Mark, your advice would be a boon to the club. But for the most part we get course criticism without any tips or suggestions for improving. You made a very clear point that tight courses are "bad", followed immediately after an open course with criticism that it was even worse. Can you blame people for being confused and interested in getting you to put on an event that straddles the line between the two?

But more to the earlier point about the regions goals... if the serious competitors that have the experience ro help us fix our problems and help us grow aren't interested in leadership positions, does that answer the question of goals for us? Why aren't we just concerning ourselves with putting on the most fun events we can and stop worrying about stuff like street tires and high altitude and class overdogs?

[Cody]

I imagine that, since the beginning of the sport, compromise between slow and fast courses has always been key when it comes to course design. It's good to hear that the majority doesn't like overly slow tight courses that require 1st gear downshifts, due to both concern for the mechanical components of their equipment and, for many, their effect on the "fun factor". At the same time, it's also good to know that some don't appreciate an overly open/fast course as it increases the risks involved and perhaps is not as "fun" for them and their equipment. I think it's fair to say that both perspectives are completely valid and fortunately, compromise is possible.

I'll qualify my opinion by mentioning that this is only my 3rd year, I've never autoX'd with any other region, and I don't participate beyond helping out with setup or break down whenever I can (Not Fridays). And I wasn't even there last weekend, but I've been to Hawthorn and Lovelock, so I've seen the top of 3rd in an ESP wagon too...

But, I'd just like to say that I feel like we get a nice mix of courses that span the spectrum of what I imagine is within everyone's interest and I've never felt like my car or myself were exceedingly in harm’s way. So I'd like to thank everyone that has designed courses and chaired events for doing such a great job. While I may not know much about the inner workings or the politics of the club or have much experience to speak from, I can recognize a good thing when I see it. And we have a very good thing going, that's for sure. One of the first things that dawned on me when I started racing is that it is a privilege and not a right. I'm glad that I'm gettin' while the gettin's good. Thanks to everyone that contributes and please, keep up the good work.

[Joeyy]

I'll qualify my opinion by mentioning that this is only my 3rd year, I've never autoX'd with any other region, and I don't participate beyond helping out with setup or break down whenever I can (Not Fridays). And I wasn't even there last weekend, but I've been to Hawthorn and Lovelock, so I've seen the top of 3rd in an ESP wagon too...

...but little yellow wagons only saw third on the runway.;)

[Cody]

...but little yellow wagons only saw third on the runway.;)

I thought karting was supposed to be teaching you humility. :monkey








:P

[Joeyy]

[quote=Cody;2261]I thought karting was supposed to be teaching you humility. :monkey

I'm allowed to get spunky twice a week.:D

[scarabracer]

I am a long time RR member. I have been running with this group for almost 17 years now. It is interesting to me to read all in the same thread complaints about courses that are to slow, to tight, have to much shifting and to little shifting. Perhaps some of you should stop looking for the perfect compromise event and consider that over the corse of the year we have achived exactly what it is that you seek. Also if a national level corse is what you desire, download one off the net and chair an event. O, one more thing>>>>>>>> somone design me a corse that I can win pax on!;)

[jim.gandy]

This is a perfectly good thread that's been quiet for too long, so here goes...

Reno Region needs some "natural course enhancement" -- our Solo courses are getting shorter and shorter! Since Round 8 on June 28, the only courses that have been longer than 35 seconds for the top non-karts have been two-lappers.

IMO: short courses that also provide the high speeds we all like have to be pretty simple. That is, in course design lingo, they don't have very many "elements." I think we're getting close to having just half the number of elements that a typical Topeka National Championship course has.

Before you respond by saying, "Six runs on a 30-second course is still three full minutes of seat time, so don't complain," remember this course design axiom: Course length has little or nothing to do with the number of runs. It's the "overlap," the time between releasing cars from the start line, that determines the number of runs. Minimum overlap to allow for resetting cones is 15-20 seconds, and a properly-designed 50-second course can allow minimum overlaps. So what's better, six runs on a 30-second course or six runs on a 50-second course? I know, it's not a simple question because it's harder to design a 50-second course without pinching down the speeds we all love. Two-lappers provide the longer-course experience with higher speeds, but at the expense of very long overlaps, which means three runs is usually all you get.

We've got a great site at Stead, with lots of room -- even after losing about 150 feet off the east end (maybe we'll get some of that back after the fire season ends, if it ever does). I'm hoping the days of 50-second courses with six runs haven't disappeared.

[Kevin M]

It's more like 250 feet according to the aerial photo on Google.

[S2kreno]

From the "slow learner" viewpoint, I prefer less complicated courses that allow you to concentrate on driving rather than avoiding getting lost. And a course with "fun stuff" and maybe one challenging element so I can direct my efforts toward mastering one tricky thing at a time. And 6 runs are better than 3 for the same reasons; you get more cracks at it and more learning opportunity.

But maybe that doesn't offer enough challenge for the top people? On the other hand, the top people are the ones who have the skills to design courses, so I would think the designs would be biased towards the inclusion of tricky elements....never mind, it's all good.

[nmhansen]

I was actually complaining about the short courses this weekend as well, but that's really for personal reasons. I feel like I do better on longer courses (percentage wise) compared to my targets. I'd love to see the return of 50 second courses, and I hope we can get them back somehow.

[S2kreno]

Maybe we can move grid outside the fence and find more room that way.

[Mark Sipe]

I didn't run Saturday's course, but here's my review from Sunday. I tried to lay out both the good and bad using both constructive criticism and praise so it doesn't come across like I'm always bashing the efforts of volunteers. In the end it's only my opinion; nothing more and nothing less:

PROS
With an exception of a spot or two the course flowed very well. For the most part the speeds for all the significant corners weren't too low or too high. The course was rather cleverly laid out in that what I thought was the preferred line required the driver to setup in advance rather than driving cone to cone. If you drove to the cone and then tried to turn you were already way too late. Having run in the afternoon and walking the course during the lunch break, based on the clean vs dirty course area it appeared that many people were running cone to cone. Interestingly enough, the only run where I drove the course like I walked it was my first run.:unamused: I didn't realize until after the event that I was trying to hard on all the subsequent runs and allowed myself to lapse into driving to the cones instead. This resulted in a 1/2 second slower times on run #s 2 - 6 even though I had a huge slide/bobble threading the needle through the chicago box/slalom exit on the fastest first run. :rolleyes:

CONS
There was too much dead time between the significant corners that ended up being nothing more than planting the throttle in long sweepers and just being along for the ride. There wasn't too much finesse or precision required except at a few key points. This made it more of a mini-road race engine course rather than a handling autox course. There wasn't any reason not to have a short medium speed slalom or some reasonable offsets through several of these long stretchs to equalize the engine vs handling perspective. As an example, the chicago box/slalom exit and subsequent next gate ended up being course flow disruptions due to the entry speed relative to their cone spacing and also being perpendicular to or beyond the actual course direction. This wouldn't have been as severe of a disruption had the speed from the first turnaround to the chicago box/slalom been limited prior by a handling element somewhere in the middle rather than just being a long, wide open increasing radius sweeper all the way between the two points. By controlling the speed prior to these points they could have been opened up some for better flow rather than using them to control speed at a point when the disparity was so extreme. Same thing for the far turnaround leading to the finish section - there could have easily been a handling element added to the middle area.

Overall I'd give Sunday's course a B grade. The lack of complexity made 6 runs mostly a moot point for the more experienced drivers, but overall it was a reasonable course that I didn't experience any heartburn over and went home feeling reasonably satisifed with.

ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS
With regard to the recent comment about course times, the reality is there is only so much actual course space available at Stead. It may seem big, but there are factors that detract from it's size. Once you lay out the safety boundaries not only for the airport perimeter and worker station requirements, but also for the areas taken up by two grids and the timing bus, there's only so much you can do to have a well flowing course of reasonable speed. However, reverting back to a tight, severe, overly winding gymkana course just to get longer runs times is the worst possible thing that can be done. Let's not go back there again, please.;)

Adding some elements in the long open stretches to control speeds like I formerly suggested would add to the course time length as well as present a better driving challenge. Being more conscious of the minimum safety distances, combined with a creative effort to maximize the course path relative to the required spacing, would also help. Looping back through some part of the course is a valid method to extending run times without sacrificing driving quality if it's done properly WRT to safety - we don't need cars meeting up anywhere or excessively extending the run time between sending cars on course. You may also want to consider reassessing the benefit vs cost of the present event procedures. Here are a couple of things to look at:

Having two grids saves time on the driver/worker changeover, but the reality is that this also eats up a good chunk of available course real estate. Having morning & afternoon sessions with a lunch break inbetween results in there only being two changeovers on a given event day. Is having better and longer courses worth having a 30 - 60 minute longer event day as a result from the added worker/driver changeover time? I think it's worthy of consideration.

Allowing a knowledgeable driver to pre-run the course would provide for appropriate adjustments to be made before it's too late. This could prevent placing people in the difficult and delicate position of making a decision between whether to live with what you have or change it mid-stream. Let's face it, is there really an advantage to pre-running a course for a 5 or 6 run event? I personally don't think so, but even if you disagree there are some additional options to consider. There may be some drivers who for whatever reason don't care about running for the local championship series that may be willing to perform pre-runs. Another idea could be to increase the number of throw-away events, which may allow some drivers the option of being pre-runners without sacrificing their regional championship effort. Again, just some ideas to consider for the future.

These just popped into my head while sitting here typing this up. If the rest of you are willing to open up your mind to the creative possibilities I'm sure there are many other good ideas out there that we can possibly tap into. :disco:

edit: lol, looks like I'm late to the grid area idea ... I admit to not reading all the posts prior to mine

[Mark Sipe]

I didn't run Saturday's course, but here's my review from Sunday. I tried to lay out both the good and bad using both constructive criticism and praise so it doesn't come across like I'm always bashing the efforts of volunteers. In the end it's only my opinion; nothing more and nothing less:

PROS
With an exception of a spot or two the course flowed very well. For the most part the speeds for all the significant corners weren't too low or too high. The course was rather cleverly laid out in that what I thought was the preferred line required the driver to setup in advance rather than driving cone to cone. If you drove to the cone and then tried to turn you were already way too late. Having run in the afternoon and walking the course during the lunch break, based on the clean vs dirty course area it appeared that many people were running cone to cone. Interestingly enough, the only run where I drove the course like I walked it was my first run.:unamused: I didn't realize until after the event that I was trying to hard on all the subsequent runs and allowed myself to lapse into driving to the cones instead. This resulted in a 1/2 second slower times on run #s 2 - 6 even though I had a huge slide/bobble threading the needle through the chicago box/slalom exit on the fastest first run. :rolleyes:

CONS
There was too much dead time between the significant corners that ended up being nothing more than planting the throttle in long sweepers and just being along for the ride. There wasn't too much finesse or precision required except at a few key points. This made it more of a mini-road race engine course rather than a handling autox course. There wasn't any reason not to have a short medium speed slalom or some reasonable offsets through several of these long stretchs to equalize the engine vs handling perspective. As an example, the chicago box/slalom exit and subsequent next gate ended up being course flow disruptions due to the entry speed relative to their cone spacing and also being perpendicular to or beyond to the actual course direction. This wouldn't have been as severe of a disruption had the speed from the first turnaround to the chicago box/slalom been limited prior by a handling element somewhere in the middle rather than just being a long, wide open increasing radius sweeper all the way between the two points. Same thing for the far turnaround leading to the finish section - there could have easily been a handling element added to the middle area.

Overall I'd give Sunday's course a B grade. The lack of complexity made 6 runs mostly a moot point for the more experienced drivers, but overall it was a reasonable course that I didn't experience any heartburn over and went home feeling reasonably satisifed with.

ADDITONAL THOUGHTS
With regard to the recent comment about course times, the reality is there is only so much actual course space available at Stead. It may seem big, but there are factors that detract from it's size. Once you lay out the safety boundaries not only for the airport perimeter and worker station requirements, but also for the areas taken up by two grids and the timing bus, there's only so much you can do to have a well flowing course of reasonable speed. However, reverting back to a tight, severe, overly windy course just to get longer runs times is the worst possible thing that can be done. Let's not go back there again, please.;)

Adding some elements in the long open stretches to control speeds like I formerly suggested would add to the course time length as well as present a better driving challenge. Being more conscious of the minimum safety distances, combined with a creative effort to maximize the course path relative to the required spacing, would also help. Looping back through some part of the course is a valid method to extending run times without sacrificing driving quality if it's done properly. You may also want to consider reassessing the benefit vs cost of the present event procedures. Here are a couple of things to look at:

Having two grids saves time on the driver/worker changeover, but the reality is that this also eats up a good chunk of available course real estate. Having morning & afternoon sessions with a lunch break inbetween results in there only being two changeovers on a given event day. Is having better and longer courses worth having a 30 - 60 minute longer event day as a result from the added worker/driver changeover time? I think it's worthy of consideration.

Allowing a knowledgeable driver to pre-run the course would provide for appropriate adjustments to be made before it's too late. This culd prevent placing people in the difficult and delicate position of making a decision between whether to live with what you have or change it mid-stream. Let's face it, is there really an advantage to pre-running a course for a 5 or 6 run event? I personally don't think so, but even if you disagree there are some additional options to consider. There may be some drivers who for whatever reason don't care about running for the local championship series that may be willing to perform pre-runs. Another option would be to increase the number of throw-away events, which may allow some drivers the option of being pre-runners without sacrificing their regional championship effort. Again, just some ideas to consider for the future.

These just popped into my head while sitting here typing this up. If the rest of you are willing to open up your mind to the creative possibilities I'm sure there are many other good ideas out there that we can possibly tap into. :disco:

[MPREZIV]

Good points Mark! And it was good to see you out with us this weekend as well!

[jim.gandy]

Having two grids saves time on the driver/worker changeover, but the reality is that this also eats up a good chunk of available course real estate. Having morning & afternoon sessions with a lunch break inbetween results in there only being two changeovers on a given event day. Is having better and longer courses worth having a 30 - 60 minute longer event day as a result from the added worker/driver changeover time? I think it's worthy of consideration.

Mark, can you restate this idea? I admit I'm not understanding what you're saying. Thanks.

[Mark Sipe]

Sorry, my idea was to have only one grid rather than two and swap out between heats. I hadn't really considered having the entire grid outside the fence as proposed prior to my response, which may have some merit if the logistics of managing event cars on/off the course vs general traffic in/out of the site could be worked out. This may even allow the bus to be located outside the fence as well which would completely maximize the available course setup area. Or we could at least get the bus over near the fence rather than out in the middle of the lot.

The general idea is that we're using up a good amount of potential competition surface area for two grid areas and the timing bus. Thinking outside the box, is this absolutely necessary?

[MattR]

We've set up grid along the fence outside in the paddock before. It works. This may become a more viable option going forward as the airport has decided to pave the entire "gravel/dirt" area across from where registration sits.

[S2kreno]

Is the location of the bus dependent on where we put the start / finish? Don't the lines run from the timing lights to the bus?

[MikeK]

Or we could at least get the bus over near the fence rather than out in the middle of the lot.

There would be no easy way to get both to and from the grid without running over the timing cables if we did this.

If we want the grid outside the main area, and the bus at the fence, we need a second gate; one can be for going from the grid to the start line, the other can be for getting from the finish line back to the grid.

[dsmith]

Yeah, I can remember setting up the grid outside the fence; I think the only issue we had was lack of paddock area (which might be solved by the new paved aread) and allowing for the 75' fire access path back to the hangars. But, we had fewer entrants then, and I wonder if we could park 30-40 cars along the fence and out of the way now.

[S2kreno]

I'm sure we can find a way. Our limitations are nothing compared to what other clubs put up with, just happy we're not in a parking lot with poles and crap.

[dknv]

There would be no easy way to get both to and from the grid without running over the timing cables if we did this.
Is wireless a possibility at all? Even for one set (start, or, finish)?

And Matt, what is the timing of the airport paving that area?

[solonut]

they are paving it right now to be done before the air races....I might try it for our oct event....I also have another idea in the works for a course.....Pat

[Mark Sipe]

Many SCCA events routinely rig up polestands for the cable to be raised up high enough for a car to pass underneath. There are other ways to handle the cables in this situation too. This is not really much of an obstacle to overcome.

The paved area on the other side of where the trailers paddock has been mostly empty and unused at any event I've attended. It could easily serve as paddock area for people who routinely paddock by the fence. I was thinking cars could form a single heat grid in the area from the gate down to the grandstands, but this is just in my head. I hadn't really ever thought about it while at the site. I wasn't aware of the 75 ft wide fire lane requirement either.

[JimU]

We have run events in the past that have had grid outside the fence. Im am not sure what the issues were at the time, but for some reason it has only been done a few times. As far as paddock area goes there is plenty of parking behind the grandstands as well as the area currently being paved.

We used to run a single grid and moved cars in and out between each group. We went to two grids for time saving reason. This is not to say that we couldnt go back.

I agree that an event chair could try any of these ideas or any other that they can think of to improve the track area and mix up the tracks designed. I do not believe there is anything in our supps that keep us from these ideas. It does take a bit more thought to get a good course, two grids and the bus in our reduced area.

I hope someone trys something new, thats one of the things that keeps this sport exciting.

[Dean]

I was thinking about gridding outside the fence, but agree we probably need a second gate. Perhaps we should discuss it with Skip. Putting a gate in down by the bleachers would probably be best. Anybody in the chain link fence business have a spare gate? We would also need to cut an asphalt curb out and put down some new asphalt.

Depending on costs, Solo might be able to fund this.

Putting the bus outside is probably unnecessary as there has to be safety room between start and finish and the fence and the bus should bit somewhere in there.

[jim.gandy]

Two thoughts...

Regarding how much space we "lost" at Stead... looking at one of the original site maps produced by John Evans way back when, the eastern course limit (where you could actually run cars at speed, not just grid them) was 325 feet from the gate. The original "single yellow line" (death to cross it) was 110 feet farther. Our new course limit is 175 feet from the gate. Is the (temporary, we hope) loss of 150 feet of course area that big a deal?

Regarding gridding outside the gate... I think I'm the event chair who tried that, maybe four years ago. As I recall, it was doable, but traffic was hectic in and out of the gate, and the "fire lane" area was quite busy with cars and pedestrians, leading to some hold-your-breath moments when airport traffic went through. These days, especially with the new paving, the airport traffic possibly could be re-routed to the back side of the paddock. Also, I think I recall that the fenceline between the gate and the grandstands was marginal for holding a large run group. According to Evans' map, it's about 250 feet, or enough for 20-25 cars angle parked. Of course, I guess one run group could "bleed" over to the other side of the gate, if needed. Or, if the airport traffic/fire lane was re-routed, all kinds of grid locations become possible.

[jim.gandy]

Okay, we've got one weekend's worth of Solos at Reno-Fernley Raceway under our belt. The possibility exists to do more of these events in the future -- track management sees the long-term benefit of such an association with Reno Region.

Before we go any further, everyone should understand that we still regard Stead Airport as our Solo "home base." Stead is a primo site, no question. But, since it's an active airport, there are times when we can't use it. August and September every year, our Stead site is off-limits for Reno Air Races set-up and teardown. And, if our area has a bad wildfire season, our Stead autocross site would likely be used to base water bombers.

And here's more background about Reno-Fernley Raceway as a Solo site: there is no way our Solo program can afford to rent the facility at the going rate. It takes special circumstances for our Solo program to get on the track. For example, if another group rents the lower track (the "Horsepower Course") and that group can live with allowing us ingress/egress to and from the upper course, we may be able to cut a deal with R-FR management, since somebody else is "paying the freight." Or (and this is how our Aug. 16-17 date came about), if a scheduled renter cancels out and leaves R-FR with an empty weekend, they offer us good terms to at least generate some income, and they can use the lower course for test & tune sessions.

Okay, now you know we're NOT preparing to move our Solo program to Reno-Fernley Raceway permanently. That said, what did you think about the courses on Aug. 16-17? Obviously, it takes a lot of care to lay out safe Solo courses on a race track. It's substantially different from using airport taxiways, like at Lovelock and Hawthorne. I'd like to hear your comments on our first efforts.

Dean Benz has pointed out that "The Peanut" is not the only area of the upper road course we might use for Solo. He notes that we could station the timing bus near (or even on top of) the berms that separate adjacent parts of the race track, then string our timing cables to put start and finish on opposite sides of the berm. Some very long courses would then be possible. The point here is that any future R-FR Solo events don't have to look exactly like the ones we just did.

Anyway, the region needs your comments and ideas. If you were there on Aug. 16-17, you earned, by your sweat ;), the right to be heard. If you weren't there, you missed a fun, if hot, weekend.

[Dean]

One thing to keep in mind with Solo on a road course is the spread out nature of the course and thus the need for more course workers. To cover the short course this past weekend, we wanted 7 worker stations!!!!

Taking advantage of the natural twists and turns of the technical sections would probably be easiest and the middle straight offers lots of width and a bit of a kink. Paddocking on Sunset is nice because it is level and wide. Making a course on that long straight would be similar to the issues using the Lovelock & Hawthorne runway/taxiways. Slalom anyone? :)

The obvious options for berm Jumping are are from turns 9c-13 and 14-17 for anyone looking at a course map. From 9c-13 is the most interesting to me using the middle portion of the upper course. To cover that length with workers though, we would likely have to drop to 3 or even 2 run groups as we do at Lovelock.

[S2kreno]

It's always fun to try new places and experience new configurations. My only objection to Fernley (besides having to get up at a rather uncivilized hour!) is that the consequences of going off course are much greater there. I accept that when I do a track day (and I'm pretty careful) but autocross is for me a chance to explore the limits of my car (and myself) with minimal risk. I didn't feel that was possible last weekend (and was reminded of that a few times, those who were there know what I mean). I suppose that for most people who have dedicated racing cars and expect to beat them up it's less of an issue. This is just the perspective of a regular person who drives her regular car just for fun and doesn't want to destroy it. I'd like to see more at Fernley as long as the designers don't put squirelly elements at narrow spots or near bushes and rocks and um, other obstacles....

[as197f12518]

As I mentioned on in another thread, I enjoyed the technical challenge of the courses at RFR. I too enjoy new venues.

Jim mentioned his concern for building a safe course at RFR and Gina expressed concerns about elements with regard to bushes, rocks, etc. While I'm acutely aware that her co driver came toward the bus, invading my comfort level as a safety steward and as the guy who was at the back of the bus holding the mic, I'm not sure what other areas she had a concern about since I did not see what else happened. RFR is a roadrace track with groomed runoff areas. I'd much rather see a car off course here than at Lovelock or Hawthorne. I've heard many war stories about lights and signs being hit at both venues. I've seen a signbox get hit at Lovelock, I'd not want to hit that thing in my kart. And if a car can get to them, a kart likely can too. What this tells me is the course needs to A: slowed down to the point where a sliding car cannot get there, or B: changed in such a manor that when passing objects of concern, a car is moving parallel to the object and any loss of control will take the vehicle away from the object in question.

Personally, I see the same set of issues faced when using RFR vs. the airports (Lovelock & Hawthorne). And I think we need to continue to address them accordingly, meaning that the same standards and concerns for speed, safety and runoff applied at RFR need to be applied to Lovelock and Hawthorne. We had a rather long discussion recently at the last meeting about course design. The only other issue RFR brought was the elevation change, which I enjoyed tremendously. Anyone who enjoyed that would love the San Diego tour at Qualcomm. Talk about uphill and back down, yeehah.

Jim is right on one thing for sure, it takes serious consideration when working with narrow areas, minimal runoff area, and elevation change to keep speeds in check and keep it safe. Some of you know that Matt asked me to reset the course for Sunday. I recruited Kelly, John Burns and Bob Weisickle. Between the 4 of us it took about two hours to reset the start, finish and tweak the middle to keep it safe and fun. Much of this time was burned with tweaking, talking, ride it on the bikes, drive it with the golf cart, tweak again until we were happy. Bob was a safety steward for years, I am one, and Kelly has had the classroom time, she merely needs to work as co-safety steward to get her license, and John has raced for years and I trust his opinion on course design and safety. We were packing a lot of knowledge and experience that evening. And we needed it, because each of us caught things at various times the others had missed.

We had major concerns about keeping cars under control on the downhill sections and also forcing you to slow down at the finish without making the finish too mean. Hindsight tells me that we should have opened up the element on the uphill section slightly. I was actually having to brake and drop a gear in the middle of that area. I was pleased with how the start, finish and the rest of it worked though. In all I enjoyed RFR and look forward to going once a year in August.

One final thought, having that utility kart was absolute bliss, consider it a must have for next year even if it means renting it...

[jim.gandy]

Don't be bashful -- everyone wants to hear your opinions about the courses Reno Region used for Rounds 18&19, Oct. 4-5 at Stead.

Here's the relevant background. The Saturday course was an almost perfect copy, full size, of the West course at the 2006 SCCA National Solo Championships at Heartland Park Topeka. How did it come about? Try going to Mapquest.com, asking for Heartland Park, and then requesting a satellite image. You'll find an aerial photo of the paved paddock, with the chalk lines and tire marks of the 2006 Nationals clearly visible! Tinker with the scale, print it out, and you'll have a course diagram that you can overlay onto a map of our Stead site. You'll see that either the West or the East course will fit our site very nicely. Now, get a copy of the issue of Sports Car magazine that carries the results of the 2006 Nationals. You'll find charts of both courses with all cone locations clearly marked. A piece of graph paper, a little patience, and viola, you've got a Stead map with the National course on it. That's what Patrick Housel did for our Oct. 4th event. The fact that the pavement at Stead is laid in 25-foot squares makes the process even easier. The only obvious change Pat made was to angle the final, seven-cone slalom toward the runway by a few degrees, taking advantage of extra room to provide for more safety for cone-chasers.

I hope just about everyone will agree that this course was significantly different from our usual Stead courses. And I also hope most people will agree that this course was fun and challenging.

Opinion: I think it would be fair to say this course was something of a throwback. Courses across the nation are probably evolving to faster, more open designs. But it's also worthwhile to remember that courses like these are what the Solo car classification system was designed for, and courses like these are where PAX comes from.

So, what did you think?

[solonut]

Yup Jim mentioned it to me, and being one who liks to have fun:twisted::banana::disco:I thought, what the heck....the hard part was to chose which course to use as thet both fit.....so what you saw was what you got....the other one was very slalom intensive.......maybe next tear:twisted:....Pat