Points 8 Course Design...

[87RX7RACER]

I am curious to know everyone's thoughts about the course design for the last event. Nick and I tried hard to make it challengeing and still flow like an autocross should. I am only asking because I am new to helping out with course design and there were a few complaints.

I would love to hear constructive critizism though instead of complaints so we can make the next event even better.

-Vincent

[nicktcr]

It was too tight. Too many features were crammed into the space they were crammed in.

[rodhx]

It worked once most folks realized that you couldn't just fly through it, but two features in particular were far too tight. The double-coned slalom and the C box...even after all the adjustments to those features during course setup. The "T Box" after the double-coned slalom was okay but there was only one real way through it, so it could have been a much simpler-looking feature.

The non-course design issue was the dust. I was first car on course and it was like driving on ice. The afternoon was much faster. It was essentially a "wet" event with everyone picking up speed as the "dry line" formed.

BTW, thanks to both Vince & Nick for being willing to design a course and therefore put up with the crap that goes with the job. We had zero experienced course designers at this event and would have been in a fix without y'all stepping up.

[spray004]

There were a few areas that seemed too tight if you have a longer wheel base car but that's just my opinion

[TouringBubble]

I really liked a lot of the features, but they were just in too small of a space, as Nick said.

i really liked the slalom, and I didn't think it was too tight. Tighter than we may be used to, but not too tight. I've used a similar setup on virtual courses (slalom to optional wall) and it adds a degree of difficulty when choosing a line. As Rod said, there was really only one "correct" way with this implementation, but it was still nice to have some things changed up.

The places I had trouble:

The really tight box on top of the hill: Was a little snug, but not really too small ... but the line through it was so slow it really bottlenecked the flow of the course.

The "double 'V'" gate near the start of the second half of the course ... This was a little tight, but again the line was the biggest issue. On my last run I figured out to drive it differently and it was much faster. On this specific one, you had to treat it differently than every other feature. On most all features, you plan for the best exit line to keep speed up, but on this you have to plan for the entry a lot more to get through clean. This is actually a welcome change and a great feature, but with how tight the rest of the course was and the dust, it ended up just being another source of frustration.

The hard right and hard left combo just before the finish ... another slow feature that could have been planned a little better. I don't mind dropping speed, but the combination of the loss of speed and the proximity to the worker station on the outside just made me a little uneasy. It's like I wanted to push harder but was worried about the people and the concrete pillar.

This course was a bit slower than we've had in the past, but I don't see that as a huge issue. we can't say it was bad just because we couldn't maintain higher speeds. The flow of the course was disrupted in several places, which was the biggest annoyance I think. I was shifting down to 1st in 2 different places, which was different for me. It was not unwelcome however ... kinda nice to shift at autocross.

There were a lot of complaints, 30 DNFs and tons of cones. I wouldn't worry about the complaints as most were likely just because people can get easily content with how things usually are. This course was different. I know you listened to feedback and you could pick out the constructive feedback from the complaining. You guys will learn from this, which is great. Learning is much faster with mistakes than successes.

you pushed the envelope in many places, and I appreciate that. It was a new experience for many of us. I enjoyed it. And thank you ... THANK YOU for not changing the course after runs had ben made! That should only be done out of necessity and not due to complaints.

[kilgojr]

Nick and I had a good discussion of this at dinner. I think Nick took alot of positive away from this event. I have to say, first and foremost, a big thank you to Nick for stepping up and taking on the designing of courses after only being with us for such a short time.

Vince, I want to thank you for driving out to help us set up. It is member influence like yours that helps keep us going. We have always had a good turnout for setup, but this event we were short-handed because of vacation and other obligations. So kudos to you for coming out at 630 am to set up and then turning around to go to work. I hope you know that it is seen and appreciated.

Everyone is going to complain at some point about every course that is ever designed. You can't make everyone happy, I learned that very early on. You do have to take into consideration the amount of DNF's and cones hit into your course design. There were an overwhelming amount of cones and DNFs. So much so that as I was announcing the afternoon runs, people were consistently running their fastest times of the day with 1 cone hit, simply because they weren't hitting 3 cones, or 4 cones. Sure, its nice to mix it up and have a "technical" course, but there is a time when technical and just not fun at all is a very thin line.

We are not blessed with an extraordinary amount of room to make a course, so we have to make the best of what we have. Thus far with 8 events under our belt, we have had 8 very different courses. That is a welcome change to what we have experienced in the past. It is one of the reasons that autocross is so challenging to me. Its not just about driving quickly in a very tight course, its about not knowing what you are going to be facing when you show up to an event, learning the course simply by walking it, then going all out in 6 runs through the day. That is what makes this sport such a challenge, and so different to many other forms of motor racing.

I think that Nick took a good beating on Sunday about the course, alot of it from himself, but I know that he walked away Sunday night with a good attitude of learning what doesn't work, and what does work in course design.

The course was very tight. That has been established. The flow was not good. Looking back at the course, the idea was good, the implementation was not so good.

1. the first slalom section -- the double cones really hurt that feature, it was tight enough as it was, having it twice as wide, it just wasn't any fun.

2. the optional right and left -- if you are going to have an option, don't make it so obvious which side is better. Basically you had to give it up before the option to go left, and then had to give it up at the end to make the C box. So going right was the only way, because you didn't have to give up anything.

3. the middle section was really nice -- the flow of this section really worked, you had to give up some speed in places to carry momentum in others

4. the V -- I felt good about this feature, the problem was the feature didn't set up well for what was next, because you couldn't see the 1st gate for the "esses" because of the angle of the gate.

5. As for the finish, this is always a compromise between a course designer and the safety team. This time, it was the course designer, the safety team, and mother nature flooding the creek and laying a layer of dust that caused another level of consideration to be involved in the speed and location of the finish.

Once again, I hate that Vince was unable to drive the course. It is always eye-opening to lay out a course that you think will work at speed, versus driving a course at speed and sitting behind the wheel.

I hope everyone is looking forward to the event on the 16th of October. You might want to start getting your memory bank in check. There is going to be a big change and you might need some space to remember the course.

See you all next time.

[87RX7RACER]

Well I had a big long thing typed out but then my session timed out here at work.

In a nutshell, I appreciate the gratitude and the input. Means alot. I had just worked a night shift and had no sleep, but I knew Nick needed my help-so I showed up. This was my first time doing course design and I really wish I could of stayed and drove the event, but I was exhausted. I'm sure I would of agreed with most all of your sentiments had I stayed and drove.

The offset V was mine, and I should of paid more attention to feature exit lines. I moved it in more to tighten it up and I think that's what screwed the positioning up.

The optional wall idea was mine too and it would of worked better if we could of made it a truely optional feature. We tried to, but as Rod pointed out going right was the only viable choice because of slalom positioning(which IMO was too close and tight).

I am newb but I will use these inputs to make the next event better. I'm sure Nick will too. I've a few ideas that I plan on discussing with Nick that I believe will make things alot better for everyone next event.

Look forward to the next event!

-V

[nicktcr]

Thanks for the kind words guys. I got a bit irritated that morning as we were trying to finalize things from some of the comments people were making to me. It isn't that I have a problem with someone expressing an opinion, or certainly not a problem to voice a concern, but the tone in which you do it makes a big difference. I don't take kindly to a poor tone when I've been there since early in the morning, and running around for a couple hours. It's just not cool.

Looking back though I've certainly figured a lot out. I think I would have benefited from having a better design in my head to start with, rather than winging as much as we did.

Looking at the stats, most of the complaints can be justified. Here's what I found:

Seasonal average cone count: 45 from all runs
Points 8 cone count: 169 (about 4x average)

The DNF count is also 2x seasonal average, and way too high period.

The one thing that could perhaps justify some of these horrible stats are the attendance figures. Seasonal average attendance is 157 entries, where this event had 256 entries. Still doesn't account for the figures though.

I guess these kinds of things happen when you have trial by fire...live and learn!

[rodhx]

General comment: One thing that will help anyone who wants to try their hand at course design...download & read the 2011 SCCA Solo rule book. It includes everything you need to know regarding minimum gate size, minimum slalom placement, all the safety requirements, etc. Not sure if folks realize that stuff is in there.

Stringing those requirements into a course...that's the artsy part

[Cholewa]

I think there was a lot of clean course that was left untouched and a lot of dirty course that was piled up with features.

I know we can't control the rain and the dust, but it maybe would have been a good idea to avoid as much of the dirt as possible.

[claym]

Just came in this morning from a LOONG trip to UAE and Italy. But really sorry I could not be at event. Vincent and Nick have really stepped and helped the club with one of the most vital parts of an autocross- course design. Even when you have great ideas, trying to make them work at the variables of an event site can be most challenging. I have been designing courses since the beginning of time itself (the Big Cone theory), and I am still learning the fine points. Jim Sheehy taught me the number one rule- set up the course and then make it 50% more open, since cars at speed cover a LOT of pavement quickly! And don't try to put too many features in. It is better to have a shorter course that is smooth and flowing (with entry and exit lines for features that reward looking ahead and giving up time going in for a better exit coming out). My idea of a great course avoids having to shift down to 1st gear anywhere, features wide enough for a Vette, and having features clearly marked so that they are easy to find, especially for novices. And the novice part is a key issue. The future of growth of the Solo program is based on novices. If the first course you design gets them so frustrated that they DNF every run or do not have fun, they will not come back (and will warn their friends not to try it). However, a novice that can at least show an improvement curve (even with an initial DNF run or 2) and start dropping their times, then they WILL come back (and bring fresh blood with them). And a few frustrating courses will get regular members to look to other regions for their Solo fix or not prioritize their schedules for every event.

So to summerize this babbling, THANK YOU for all the work you do (and all the other volunteers at each event). Your hard work will ensure growth in the club. Learn from the seasoned drivers and from each complaint and turn them into a better experience next time. And someday, the PERFECT autocross course will be designed!

PS- read on www.sccaforums.com about the course design complaints at Nationals this year. And those courses are by seasoned designers! And believe me, I still get complaints about my course designs for others (and even myself). You really never know how good or bad the course is till you drive it and make the most of it!

Clay

I am heading to Hong Kong for a few weeks, but hope to be back for the next event to assist if possible

[Cholewa]

I am heading to Hong Kong for a few weeks, but hope to be back for the next event to assist if possible

You wanna bring me back some food?

[claym]

Yeah, but I expect a BIG tip (no Volvo trades)...

[Erv]

if it helps any you guys did have a ton of novices.