Course Design Survey

[nickrd10bk]

Inquiring minds want to know, what elements YOU like to see in a course design.
Obviously, sites can only accommodate so many elements at once.

I know what I like, but I want to know what YOU like.

For example, when I had the Camaro, my car had an advantage on course designs that provided dig opportunities.
Miata drivers might prefer courses with several slaloms, as a Miata has great response, as well as the physical size of the car being smaller makes them squeeze into the cones much better. Also, they may also have an advantage in tight elements due to the compact size as well.

I just want to see what the people want, so I can keep it in mind as I draw future course designs up.

[rodhx]

Not so much what I like but what I don’t like. Don’t like slow tight sections that aren’t necessitated by site configuration. No point making a course “longer” if it’s miserable. And more of a safety thing but bears reinforcement, there should never be a fast kink before the finish to “slow it down”. It doesn’t slow anyone down, it causes loss of control and damaged stuff (grass, timing lights, cars)

Overall you course design guys have been doing a great job with the challenge that is the Proving Ground.

[nickrd10bk]

Not so much what I like but what I don’t like. Don’t like slow tight sections that aren’t necessitated by site configuration. No point making a course “longer” if it’s miserable. And more of a safety thing but bears reinforcement, there should never be a fast kink before the finish to “slow it down”. It doesn’t slow anyone down, it causes loss of control and damaged stuff (grass, timing lights, cars)

Overall you course design guys have been doing a great job with the challenge that is the Proving Ground.

I think you could say you enjoy a safe course, as do I. I think everyone SHOULD enjoy a safe course, as it mitigates risks to the workers, drivers, and the site.

I am in total agreement about "fast kinks" to slow vehicle speed down being a liability. At that point it is safer to just have a slightly higher speed going straight than trying to make steering inputs with that speed, and potentially braking as well. At least if it's just straight, car control is easier to manage.

In regards to deliberate slow sections, they can feel quite painful at times, but they can offer a challenge that wouldn't be had otherwise, at times. I think if they are well thought out, they can be interesting enough worth having in course design, even deliberately. Recently, I visited the Chattanooga Region (as you know they have a small site) and I didn't have much expectation of the course at the time I registered for the event. However, they did a very good job with their site, and used the slower speeds to use elements we wouldn't normally see at higher speeds. This offered a different perspective on some of my driving, and allowed me to see things to improve upon that I normally couldn't see. It made me have to put my thinking cap on, for sure. Also, another benefit of their event was using first gear in my car exclusively, and learning how to be smooth with higher torque amounts.

With all things in life, I think there has to be balance.

[rodhx]

I don’t disagree but it doesn’t mean I enjoy it. You asked what we like after all

and the stupid emoticons no longer work on this forum so the smiley won’t show after that first line.

[nickrd10bk]

That's completely fair.
Your parameters on your original statement are also agreeable in most cases, I believe.

[Vfastcaddy]

The trick, of course, is also to be fair to the various classes & car types. That requires a mix of element types. This is more important than ever now that we have so many index classes that mix car types.

[nickrd10bk]

The trick, of course, is also to be fair to the various classes & car types. That requires a mix of element types. This is more important than ever now that we have so many index classes that mix car types.

I can see having a consideration to the different cars on the course, and trying to balance the course design promotes the quality, fairness, and fun of the course.

When I consider other types of car, it is strictly anecdote at this point. Is there a resource people use for considering the dynamic of various cars when designing course?

[Vfastcaddy]

I can see having a consideration to the different cars on the course, and trying to balance the course design promotes the quality, fairness, and fun of the course.

When I consider other types of car, it is strictly anecdote at this point. Is there a resource people use for considering the dynamic of various cars when designing course?

Not that I know of. Just some guidelines based upon the following considerations:
1) slow corners, or corners which require hard braking (which necessarily lead to digs) are an advantage to cars that accelerate hardest from low speed, like cars with big displacement engines or turbo cars tuned/designed to spool quick and deliver high low-end torque. Most of the gain is in the first second or two after the corner. (The acceleration zone need not be long.)
2) courses that have little speed change are an advantage to slow-accelerating cars because it eliminates the normal advantage to fast-accelerating cars.

High average speed courses are not an advantage to any type of car, other than the initial acceleration zone to get to the high speed, except

3) a course that contains an element(s) where some cars will exceed their top speed in 2nd gear and be forced to either ride the redline or shift to third favors cars with longer gear ratios, which are usually the more powerful (but often heavier) cars,
4) until the speed element is so fast that all cars (at least all cars within any one class) must shift to third and then it tends to equal out

5) thread-the-needle elements (which can be legally created to not violate the 15' gate width rule) are advantageous to narrow cars and penalize wide cars, sometimes significantly
6) slaloms and other transitional elements (any time the steering wheel must be turned very fast, especially 2 times in a row) favor nimble, short-wheelbase and light cars. The higher preparation classes that can change springs get a big advantage over Street in transitional elements because of their significant improvement in transitional capabilities. For example, the more transitional elements in a course the more Street Touring is advantaged over Street.
7) Pinched corners (common at regionals, not very common at national events) often create situations where cars need to approach with a manufactured chicane in a very short distance in order to increase the angle on the apex cone and thus carry good speed through the corner. This creates a transitional element that is not drawn on the course map. Such corners confer an advantage to the more nimble cars.
8) Long sweepers give a slight advantage to cars with wide track, low CG or highest lateral grip due to reduced weight transfer which allows the tires to work better
9) In general, the shorter the acceleration zone before the start lights the more it favors hard-launching, fast-accelerating cars. This is why courses at Nationals each year always contain a corner between the staging point and the lights so that all cars in all classes are crossing the light at a speed determined more by their cornering capability (which are more similar) than by their accelerating capability (which vary widely.) Short starts highly favor classes with high power-to-weight ratios, giving them an instant lead.

[nickrd10bk]

Not that I know of. Just some guidelines based upon the following considerations:
1) slow corners, or corners which require hard braking (which necessarily lead to digs) are an advantage to cars that accelerate hardest from low speed, like cars with big displacement engines or turbo cars tuned/designed to spool quick and deliver high low-end torque. Most of the gain is in the first second or two after the corner. (The acceleration zone need not be long.)
2) courses that have little speed change are an advantage to slow-accelerating cars because it eliminates the normal advantage to fast-accelerating cars.

High average speed courses are not an advantage to any type of car, other than the initial acceleration zone to get to the high speed, except

3) a course that contains an element(s) where some cars will exceed their top speed in 2nd gear and be forced to either ride the redline or shift to third favors cars with longer gear ratios, which are usually the more powerful (but often heavier) cars,
4) until the speed element is so fast that all cars (at least all cars within any one class) must shift to third and then it tends to equal out

5) thread-the-needle elements (which can be legally created to not violate the 15' gate width rule) are advantageous to narrow cars and penalize wide cars, sometimes significantly
6) slaloms and other transitional elements (any time the steering wheel must be turned very fast, especially 2 times in a row) favor nimble, short-wheelbase and light cars. The higher preparation classes that can change springs get a big advantage over Street in transitional elements because of their significant improvement in transitional capabilities. For example, the more transitional elements in a course the more Street Touring is advantaged over Street.
7) Pinched corners (common at regionals, not very common at national events) often create situations where cars need to approach with a manufactured chicane in a very short distance in order to increase the angle on the apex cone and thus carry good speed through the corner. This creates a transitional element that is not drawn on the course map. Such corners confer an advantage to the more nimble cars.
8) Long sweepers give a slight advantage to cars with wide track, low CG or highest lateral grip due to reduced weight transfer which allows the tires to work better
9) In general, the shorter the acceleration zone before the start lights the more it favors hard-launching, fast-accelerating cars. This is why courses at Nationals each year always contain a corner between the staging point and the lights so that all cars in all classes are crossing the light at a speed determined more by their cornering capability (which are more similar) than by their accelerating capability (which vary widely.) Short starts highly favor classes with high power-to-weight ratios, giving them an instant lead.

Thanks for the writeup, Ed. I've tried to keep most of this in mind as I've designed a few courses for our site since I read this, and I will say the site often brings challenges to the balance of a course, but, I did the best I could.

[zpower86]

Inquiring minds want to know, what elements YOU like to see in a course design.
Obviously, sites can only accommodate so many elements at once.

I know what I like, but I want to know what YOU like.

For example, when I had the Camaro, my car had an advantage on course designs that provided dig opportunities.
Miata drivers might prefer courses with several slaloms, as a Miata has great response, as well as the physical size of the car being smaller makes them squeeze into the cones much better. Also, they may also have an advantage in tight elements due to the compact size as well.

I just want to see what the people want, so I can keep it in mind as I draw future course designs up.

First, most race track autocrosses (which are on real race tracks) have a tremendous amount of lane width. The PG is basically the width of a medium-sized kart track -- pretty small. This makes creating features in the middle of the lane extremely tricky and likely more dangerous.

With this in mind, for courses at the PG, I think the safest and most enjoyable way to run it is with minimal cones as absolutely possible. Essentially two things: 1) simply wall off paths to direct cars where to go, and 2) at maximum, put a cone at the entrance, apex, and exit of each corner, but have half of the cone on the grass.

Once you're out into the wider area, then you have the opportunity for a features, and likely slalom is best from what I've seen.

[nickrd10bk]

First, most race track autocrosses (which are on real race tracks) have a tremendous amount of lane width. The PG is basically the width of a medium-sized kart track -- pretty small. This makes creating features in the middle of the lane extremely tricky and likely more dangerous.

With this in mind, for courses at the PG, I think the safest and most enjoyable way to run it is with minimal cones as absolutely possible. Essentially two things: 1) simply wall off paths to direct cars where to go, and 2) at maximum, put a cone at the entrance, apex, and exit of each corner, but have half of the cone on the grass.

Once you're out into the wider area, then you have the opportunity for a features, and likely slalom is best from what I've seen.

There are a few wider spots available, and I'm trying to make good use of them. But, overrall, I agree, that most of it is simply too narrow to really play with most elements safely. I'm trying to design some courses that utilize the open paved section a bit more so we can get some variety of elements, as well as provide a bit longer course.

[Vfastcaddy]

If we could locate the grid in the lower lot, then you have something.

[nickrd10bk]

If we could locate the grid in the lower lot, then you have something.

We are working on that as well.