May 18th Course Feedback

[Fast_Toys]

Hi Everyone,I enjoyed the course today and had a lot of fun but there are a few minor problems we need to address for course design:1. 60 feet of space, a turn and cones BEFORE the start timer.I thought we all agreed last year that we wouldn't do this anymore? Having substantial space before the start with turns and cones gives certain cars an advantage/disadvantage before the official timer even begins. It doesn't seem right or fair that you can hit a cone or go off-course before the timer even starts. Roger suggested little to no space between staging and the start timer to be the fairest. Whatever happens after the start timer is fair game (turns, straights whatever).2. Overlapping radius & tight turns & slalomsFrom the rule book:Minimum Dimensions:"Minimum gate width should be no less than four point six (4.6) meters wide as measuredbetween the pylon bases. Minimum distance between cones in a linear slalom should befourteen (14) meters as measured between the pylon bases. Minimum turn radius should beno less than ten (10) meters and the radius of one turn should not overlap the next turn."We have had a number of courses with tight overlapping radius and turns that are under the minimum 10 meters. Also, slalom gates are quite frequently 45 feet which is the bare minimum and extremely tight. I've tried to explain to a few people what an overlapping radius is. This means the radius the 2nd turn overlaps the radius of the first. This can only happen when you have two tight turns very close to each other with little to no setup room between the turns. Not only is this a NFM (no fun manuever), it offers little to no room to choose your own line and means if you ever so slightly screw up the first part of the turn, you cannot correct for the 2nd. Since we are talking about a turning radius we mean the arc that represents the 180 degree line you would take to negotiate a turn. That arc cannot be tighter than 10 meters and a second turn's radius cannot overlap the first. If you have a turn that goes beyong 180 degrees, it effectively becomes 2 turns. 3. Marking optional directions and Y points:Yesterday when walking the course I couldn't easily tell which way to go. Can we please mark the split points with chalk and the optional slaloms with chalk to? Just a line at the split or beginning of the slalom with the words "Optional direction" would work great.Thanks and great job to everyone that setup the course and all their hard work. I am going to try and come out for the next course setup to help out.

[Corey]

For reference, data from my logger:At the decreasing radius turn at the East end, the GPS calculated min radius was 9.5m at .98 lateral G and 34.7 km/hr. Admitedly I pinched that one a little tight as I apexed the exit earlier than I was trying to.At the sharp left in the North end, min radius was 13.3m at 1.16G and 42.2 km/hr.I'd like to see the tighter turns opened up as well. Other than those two spots and a fairly tight first slalom, I thought the course was pretty good for a rush job that morning. It was a very good call to move that one cone by the trailer after the first 3 runs with 1 big slide and one spin!I don't understand what you mean by this:

If you have a turn that goes beyong 180 degrees, it effectively becomes 2 turns.

If you don't change direction or straighten the wheel, it's one turn no matter how many loops you do.

[Rhyno]

If I remember correctly, the idea of an odd start to timing start was to eliminate "Drag race" starts. With the start setups we have had this year if you drop the clutch at 5 grand you WILL hit a cone. I would say mission accomplished.Do I have this correct folks?

[Fast_Toys]

For reference, data from my logger:At the decreasing radius turn at the East end, the GPS calculated min radius was 9.5m at .98 lateral G and 34.7 km/hr. Admitedly I pinched that one a little tight as I apexed the exit earlier than I was trying to.

I haven't looked at my data yet but I am pretty sure it was less than 10.0 m as well. The event before had one turn that was quite a bit less than 10.0m

I don't understand what you mean by this:If you don't change direction or straighten the wheel, it's one turn no matter how many loops you do.

Yes you are right. I wasn't sure what verbage to use. If you have a decreasing radius turn that is fine as long as no part of the turn has a radius less than 10.0mThe problem arises when you have a tight turn (small radius) that immediately goes into another sharp turn in another direction. That causes the radii to overlap. I agree that the turns should not be so tight. Allowing a wide choice of lines seems to be more in line with what they do at SCCA events down south and what Roger taught us. We have a few courses right near the end of last year that were bang on and had a ton of comments about finding line selection and trying various lines etc. I'd like to see us move back towards that direction.I want to EMPHASIZE that I still very much enjoyed the course and in general it was very good. These are just a few little things we need to keep in mind when designing future courses.

[Fast_Toys]

If I remember correctly' date=' the idea of an odd start to timing start was to eliminate "Drag race" starts. With the start setups we have had this year if you drop the clutch at 5 grand you WILL hit a cone. I would say mission accomplished.Do I have this correct folks?[/quote']No. A drag race start is when you have a straight area between the staging light and the start timer. This allows some cars to be going a lot faster when they cross the timing lights (ie an advatage). In the same sense, when we put a course element before the timing lights, it is also creating a an advantage to some cars that can manuever around that first element faster (ie. some cars are crossing the timing light going faster than others - similiar to a drag race start).The idea is to have the staging and timing lights so close together than no car has any significant advantage when it crosses the line (ie. not going any faster than other vehicles).

[Rhyno]

The idea is to have the staging and timing lights so close together than no car has any significant advantage when it crosses the line (ie. not going any faster than other vehicles).Hey Phil,I think no matter what you do with the start by twisting before the lights or after the lights each type of car and driver could potentially get a jump at the start.For me I was into second gear and flat out before the first gate. In my car no matter who were to be driving at that one point the car was at 100%.I believe I understand your point and it is interesting. Can we get a radar type gun and pick a point maybe 60 feet past the start and check car speeds?I know you are much more informed about this stuff but I think that what we will find is that cars will have the track space to even out and will be close in speed and time.What do you think?

[Fast_Toys]

Hey Phil' date='I think no matter what you do with the start by twisting before the lights or after the lights each type of car and driver could potentially get a jump at the start.For me I was into second gear and flat out before the first gate. In my car no matter who were to be driving at that one point the car was at 100%.I believe I understand your point and it is interesting. Can we get a radar type gun and pick a point maybe 60 feet past the start and check car speeds?I know you are much more informed about this stuff but I think that what we will find is that cars will have the track space to even out and will be close in speed and time.What do you think?[/quote']Royce,All is fair after the timing lights as long as the course is balanced (that's a whole other discussion) I am just talking about advantage/disadvantage BEFORE you cross the start timer. Nobody should be going faster crossing the timing lights than anyone else. Once you cross the start lights, you can put a turn, slalom, straight or anything else.

[conebasher]

The idea is to have the staging and timing lights so close together than no car has any significant advantage when it crosses the line (ie. not going any faster than other vehicles).

Hey Phil' date='I think no matter what you do with the start by twisting before the lights or after the lights each type of car and driver could potentially get a jump at the start.For me I was into second gear and flat out before the first gate. In my car no matter who were to be driving at that one point the car was at 100%.I believe I understand your point and it is interesting. Can we get a radar type gun and pick a point maybe 60 feet past the start and check car speeds?I know you are much more informed about this stuff but I think that what we will find is that cars will have the track space to even out and will be close in speed and time.What do you think?[/quote']Royce, I think you are missing something here. If you place a turn or a cone and have a big gap between the staging cones(where you pull up and wait to run) and the timing lights (which starts the timer), it creates problems. Some cars will be able to cross the timing lights moving much quicker than others and therefore have a big advantage, but if the timing lights are placed less than 10 feet from the staging cones, all cars will be moving at more or less the same speed. Also, it seems a little ummm..silly to put a cone where it is likely to get knocked down and 2 seconds added before the timer even starts. You want a sharp turn right after the staging cones to eliminate "drag race" starts? Fine, leave the turn there but move the timing lights to within a few feet of where the cars sit and wait for the green light.

[Kerry]

Allowing a wide choice of lines seems to be more in line with what they do at SCCA events down south and what Roger taught us. We have a few courses right near the end of last year that were bang on and had a ton of comments about finding line selection and trying various lines etc. I'd like to see us move back towards that direction.

I just want to point out this one thing' date=' because you've mentioned it more than once about sections that did [i']indeed have plenty of line selection. I made a point of explaining to a couple of the WSCC school students that I had, how the course designers were purposely placing cones in sections to make it seem like the line is obvious, but in fact the right line is not obvious at all. The one section you are pointing out as too tight is a perfect example of that. And as Corey points out, it was indeed brutal when he took the wrong line, ending up with a brutal 9.5m turn at 35k.The left hander at the north was the same, dive in and try to make it a 90 degree turn, and your times are going to suffer.There was a lot of room to take a wide line and make those turns easy peasy. If you chose the brutal line, woops, you messed up. The fast line was going wide and making that entry into the slalom an easy turn. I do feel sorry for Jeremy though, I have no idea how he makes that car fast. If I see one course made again with huge spaces in-between and tight elements into the next section, I am going to go ballistic if anyone tries to tell me that, that provides line selection. It doesn't.

[Fast_Toys]

indeed have plenty of line selection. The left hander at the north was the same, dive in and try to make it a 90 degree turn, and your times are going to suffer.There was a lot of room to take a wide line and make those turns easy peasy. If you chose the brutal line, woops, you messed up. The fast line was going wide and making that entry into the slalom an easy turn. I do feel sorry for Jeremy though, I have no idea how he makes that car fast.

I would have to respectfully disagree with you on those two elements. You basically were forced to make a pretty tight initial turn (not brutal but tight) to set you up for the next element. If you didn't make that first tight turn, you would be so far off the line for the next element that you would need to make an EXTREMELY tight turn to get back on the racing line or take out some cones.I agree that if you blew the first turn by going too wide, the recover turn would be brutal. However, my point is that you shouldn't be forced into making the really tight turn in the first place to avoid a tighter turn in the 2nd element based on your first mistake. All turns MUST have a radius greater than 30 feet (per the rules). That's the MINIMUM, not the recommendation. I believe Roger recomends 40-45 feet minimum (from memory) so that no turns are painful. My opinion is that there should be a "reasonable" buffer between the fastest line and the holy cow I screwed up line (cones down or DNF). If the difference between the two is only a few feet, you probably made the element too tight/painful. There should be a bit of a progression built in there.Just for the record, I would post my concerns just as much if things were too open, too fast, too straight etc. I am hoping for balanced courses based on what Roger taught us that are similiar to what are used at the Nationals. I really hope the people that have actually been to the Nationals can post their thoughts and suggestions. I have spoken to many of them but first hand accounts are always better.

If I see one course made again with huge spaces in-between and tight elements into the next section, I am going to go ballistic if anyone tries to tell me that, that provides line selection. It doesn't.

Agreed. Line selection is about possible entry points into a turn and the ability to continue your line through the entire turn. Large spaces between elements are meaningless if the turn itself doesn't allow sufficient room to choose your line.Bed time.

[Kerry]

I would have to respectfully disagree with you on those two elements. You basically were forced to make a pretty tight initial turn (not brutal but tight) to set you up for the next element. If you didn't make that first tight turn' date=' you would be so far off the line for the next element that you would need to make an EXTREMELY tight turn to get back on the racing line or take out some cones.I agree that if you blew the first turn by going too wide, the recover turn would be brutal. However, my point is that you shouldn't be forced into making the really tight turn in the first place to avoid a tighter turn in the 2nd element based on your first mistake.[/quote']Hmmm? I'm not sure I can picture where you're saying the entry into the two sweepers that I'm talking about were tight. Have a look at the video that Corey posted of our runs, after that first slalom into the right hand sweeper, him and I are going very wide so we can end up with an easy entry into the slalom. It was very difficult to get right. But there definitely wasn't a tight entry turn, we could have gone wider. You're saying that the right turn immediately after the last cone in the first slalom was tight?

[JT_TT]

English warning...I have been slowly typing this one for the last 1.5 hours when ever my computer is loading, grammatic errors are expected and encouraged from here on outOk i will admit i took a fairly tight line in the east hairpin and the north hairpin, it may have been quick it may have been slow, who knows, but my times were alright for the day. I did this because i needed to shift from 2nd to first anyways. If i'm in first i might as well turn as tight as the car can, and then be hard on the accelerator in a straight line. Damn can that thing turn tight compared to my TT. Who knows, maybe i was just having too much fun with it. watching people walk the course i think the majority of them were doing it somewhat incorrectly and getting too close in at points where they should be wide. There is no rule (suggestion) against this, i believe it was encouraged.I will have to say that the course was not at all unreasonable from what I've seen and encountered at SCCA events in detroit, peru, milwaukee, and even topeka. and they are WAY wider then Grand Forks, but every body knows that and we don't believe in their courses.I do think the course designers did their do-diligence by opening up the back end on the tight turns so you could go as wide or as tight as you wanted. we had talked about this at the previous events saying that if we pushed back the wall of cones at the back of the element the line would be the same as before for most of the cars, but if you wanted (or messed up), you could go wider. My interpretation of the "rules" are that you just have to be ABLE to do a xxft radius, not that it should be the absolute minimum ever done by any car ever from this day forth so help you God. This was achieved was it not?Don't get me started on the start Phil, it was very well executed this weekend. In the RX-8 i was able to do a good powered launch, but still had to be mindful of my surroundings. I feel it was very fair to equalize between the cars that can do a 1.5 60ft (they would not have been able to do a full out launch) and the cars that do a 2.2 60ft (like the RX-8). I have yet to participate in a national or divisional event that has a straight from the point where they let the cars start, and the point the timer starts. the only time was the nationals test and tune, and that was because it was the pro-solo course and that's how they do it for those events, there was however a sharp offset that was alot more intense then what we had on sunday (there was an option to just go straight if your car couldn't make the corner). feel free to go find 5 RJ courses that do this, last year when we talked about adding these elements to the starts i went and took the latest 5 from RJ's website, and they all had a turn or element before the timing boxes. At nationals it was the same deal, take off, turn, lights, slalom (On both RJ's course and the other girls course)I think we need to make sure we're looking at RJ's work as great suggestions for an ideal site following them as best we can and attempting to use them as guidelines for how we mentally approach them. sadly they are not rules, or else 95% or more courses would not be allowed and some sites would never be able to be used.Maybe i'm just defending it because i loved the course, It was amazingly fun if you got it right, or even close to right. but if you got late you were screwed...IE my 3rd run where I DNF'd getting loose in the slalom after playing catch-up and being to aggressive. In the past i have also complained about really tight corners, but i really didn't see them as all that harsh yesterday, we've had ALOT worse and we've improved i feel.

2.3 COURSE DESIGN RULESA. All corners shall be negotiable without reversing by any carclassified by make/model in these Rules.B. The course shall be at least 15 feet wide' date=' and single-file slalommarkers shall be at least 45 feet apart. Any series of coursemarkers which are generally in a line and have the effect of aslalom are considered to be a slalom. Additional course markersassociated with the slalom markers to form gates, “boxes”, etc.,do not cancel this limit.C. A Solo event, other than a gimmick event in which time is not theonly consideration, shall be a test of driving skill, not memory.D. The course shall be well marked with pylons or other “markers”.The base of each marker shall be outlined to permit accuratereplacement if displaced.E. Cars should leave a gate/turn headed generally in the directionof the next gate/turn.[/quote']

[Fast_Toys]

Kerry:See attached picture showing the turn. I may not have taken the same line as you but no matter your line, it was a decreasing radius turn. You had to at some point in your turn prep for the first slalom gate make a decreasing radius turn to set yourself up. Whether that happened further back or close to the slalom gate was a matter of choice.My GPS data shows the point where I turned in to set myself up for the first slalom gate to be 24-26 feet. That's too tight. Even if I went wider on the initial part of the turn, I still would have had to turn back sharply at some point because the first one was set back further west than the last cone of the sweeping turn. That was the problem. I don't see how anyone could have not made a sharp turn at some point in their set up that avoided breaking ther 30 foot radius rule because of the slalom cone placement.The next turn going left back towards the start wasn't as tight (didn't break the rule) but it was still down in the 30-32 foot range. If you didn't turn tightly there, you would not be heading on the right line towards the S turn and you would have a very sharp turn before entry into that elemement.Considering the course probably had 30 turns and we have problems with 2, the designers did a good job. I just want to point out that these tight turns are problematic, breaking the rules on some occassions and are NFM's for the larger cars.

[Fast_Toys]

I will have to say that the course was not at all unreasonable from what I've seen and encountered at SCCA events in detroit' date=' peru, milwaukee, and even topeka. and they are WAY wider then Grand Forks, but every body knows that and we don't believe in their courses.[/quote']I agree our courses have been very good. This is the course designer feedback forum. I am just bringing to light two turns out of many that I believe were problematic. I have looked at many SCCA national event maps (and even copied portions for our own course set up) and I have yet to see turns that break the rules of even come close to 30 foot radius.

I do think the course designers did their do-diligence by opening up the back end on the tight turns so you could go as wide or as tight as you wanted. we had talked about this at the previous events saying that if we pushed back the wall of cones at the back of the element the line would be the same as before for most of the cars, but if you wanted (or messed up), you could go wider.

10000000 % agreed. I brought it up last time and it was fixed and there was no problem with a tight back wall this time. That is how this forum is supposed to work. Mission accomplished

My interpretation of the "rules" are that you just have to be ABLE to do a xxft radius, not that it should be the absolute minimum ever done by any car ever from this day forth so help you God. This was achieved was it not?

No. The rules say minimum 10 m radius on any turns and radius of turns should not overlap. My interpretation would be a course design cannot break those rules. It may be grounds for a protest.

Don't get me started on the start Phil, it was very well executed this weekend.

If you read my post I am not talking about having a big straight away any where. I am not sure why people keep falling back to that. I am saying, have very little to no space between staging lights and the start timer. This the the FAIREST arrangement and gives no cars an advantage.Give me one good reason why we should have cones and turns before the start other than to give some cars an advantage? Your own defense is that cars should be equalized. What could possibly be more equal than no space between staging and start timer (no movement before timer = no advantage). Being able to hit cones and going off course before the start also seems 100 % silly to me. I haven't hit these cones but other people have.The course is supposed to contain elements that balance it after the start (while you are being timed) not biased before the start. The way starts are set up right now, they are biased towards some cars.Roger J. specifically addressed this during our course design after the school and completely scrapped that usual club method for the starts saying it made no sense. Hopefully you recall this. Some people protested about "drag race starts" and Roger said "if you want a turn, put it after the start. It makes no sense to put turns before the start". On some courses, we have had more than 1 turn before the start! I am saying the same thing. Lets make the starts 100 % fair.In regard to turns being present on some SCCA nationals before the start:I have an email from roger in regard to this exact issue as well. He said his preference it to have little to no space between staging and start timers and no turns. He will occassionally put a turn before the start but when he does that it will be 90 degrees so there is very little difference in the speed between vehicles. They will stage the cars 90 degrees from start lights and the distance to start lights will be very short. This is done when it makes the subsequent course design easier. In his course design handbook, he recommends a tight turn immediately after the start to avoid "drag starts".Take a look at all the course maps on the Houson SCCA site (home of Roger J) you will see clear examples of these these principles in practicehttp://www.houscca.com/solo/courses.aspYou are going to find that every start is either straight from staging to timer or a 90 degree turn in a short distance from staging to timer. There are no 40 degree turns, double turns etc ever before the start.I'm out of breath. I've made my point. No sense is arguing any more.

[Kerry]

It may be grounds for a protest.

Hey now' date=' you're going to have to clarify this because one of us is way off base here. I think JT posted the official, recognizable course design rules, I don't think there are more than that. Roger's [i']rules are not official rules from what I understand, therefore not grounds for any reasonable protest.

[Fast_Toys]

rules are not official rules from what I understand, therefore not grounds for any reasonable protest.

You said it yourself, we follow SCCA rules for car classing only. We follow ASN Canadian sports cars club rules for everything else including course design standards. The rules I posted at the beginning of the thread are right out of the ASN Canadian rule book.ASN 2007 Rules:3.3.7.Minimum DimensionsMinimum gate width should be no less than four point six (4.6) meters wide as measuredbetween the pylon bases. Minimum distance between cones in a linear slalom should befourteen (14) meters as measured between the pylon bases. Minimum turn radius should beno less than ten (10) meters and the radius of one turn should not overlap the next turn.Notes:4.6 m = 15.1 feet10 m = 32.8 feet14 m = 45.9 feetWith that being said, a protest could be made if a course design did not follow the rules correct?

[JT_TT]

Take a look at all the course maps on the Houson SCCA site (home of Roger J) you will see clear examples of these these principles in practicehttp://www.houscca.com/solo/courses.aspYou are going to find that every start is either straight from staging to timer or a 90 degree turn in a short distance from staging to timer. There are no 40 degree turns' date=' double turns etc ever before the start.[/quote']3rd one on his listhowever, yes that's the only one i found from my random sampling.we could have easily swapped the first two sets of cones around. so the offset was the timer and you had to make it over for the next one, which was just a regular cone. maybe we should do that this next time, that would satisfy both our likes correct?As to the decreasing radius corner, would that not be similar to the "Showcase Corner" in the aforementioned course map? I think it would be pretty hard to do that as a constant radius with the brake zone from the slalom and the setup into the next.Just threw your gps graph into CAD and assuming that the left side of you graph is in feet i found that you used 3 different steering inputs to make that corner. the first having a radius of 49.5 feet, the second being 42.1 feet, and the final tight one was 31.7 feet.

[Fast_Toys]

we could have easily swapped the first two sets of cones around. so the offset was the timer and you had to make it over for the next one, which was just a regular cone. maybe we should do that this next time, that would satisfy both our likes correct?

Put anything you want AFTER the start and I will be satisfied. After the start, it is all about balancing the course but everyone should cross the lights on an even playing field.

As to the decreasing radius corner, would that not be similar to the "Showcase Corner" in the aforementioned course map? I think it would be pretty hard to do that as a constant radius with the brake zone from the slalom and the setup into the next.

That is a decreasing radius corner as well (which is fine) but given the size of their lot, I am sure it wasn't even close to a 30 foot radius as the minimum.

Just threw your gps graph into CAD and assuming that the left side of you graph is in feet i found that you used 3 different steering inputs to make that corner. the first having a radius of 49.5 feet, the second being 42.1 feet, and the final tight one was 31.7 feet.

If you want to play with the actual data, go download the actual sofware here. The JPG is just a visual aid to the data that is actually shown in the software. I think my line was pretty smooth but I am sure there were minor steering corrections. However, you can see that near the end of the turn heading towards the first slalom gate, I did have to turn in quite a bit. No matter how you started your turn, you still would have needed to turn in a sharp amount to make that first slalom gate.http://www.driftbox.com/dlsoftware.htmlI can send you the raw files to play with.

[Corey]

As per JT's signature: Arguing for the sake of arguing... Are hairpin turns banned then? They allow for a sub 1-foot turning radius. A clear advantage to unicycles!

[Fast_Toys]

As per JT's signature: Arguing for the sake of arguing... Are hairpin turns banned then? They allow for a sub 1-foot turning radius. A clear advantage to unicycles!

Arguing for the sake of arguing.... they would not be in the spirit of the rules if the race line required a turn of less than 10m. If the race line is 10m or greater, then I don't see why they wouldn't.Unicycles would not be allowed per the rules because they do not have 4 wheels :PHowever, as I am sure you have noted, you will not see many SCCA national courses with hairpins! We haven't had hairpins in quite some time (not sad to see them go).

[Kerry]

they would not be in the spirit of the rules if the race line required a turn of less than 10m. If the race line is 10m or greater' date=' then I don't see why they wouldn't.[/quote']Phil, this is what I've been trying to explain. The race line wasn't too steep. If you didn't take the right line, woops, you screwed up - and you must suffer the consequences. We want to make courses that we can learn from and make us better divers right? Or do we want to dumb it down to the point that it's not challenging at all, and doesn't punish you when you screw up?

[Fast_Toys]

race line wasn't too steep. If you didn't take the right line, woops, you screwed up - and you must suffer the consequences. We want to make courses that we can learn from and make us better divers right? Or do we want to dumb it down to the point that it's not challenging at all, and doesn't punish you when you screw up?

Let me put this another way. Why are some people arguing for courses with turns that are quite tight, may not meet the ASN rules and definitely do not meet the recommendations from the course design guru (Roger J.)?If we add 10-15 feet extra to the tight turns, there is no chance of a protest and the recommendations have been followed. The turns will not be as painful (eliminate NFM's), less cones will be hit and less DNF's.Are you saying that 10-15 extra feet in a turn are going to dumb things down and not reward the skilled drivers and punish the less skilled ones?Fast drivers are still going to fine the quickest line regardless of the couse. We just need to ensure no manuevers are too painful, break the rules or not in the spirit of fair competition.

[Jeff]

I think Corey's hairpin tangent is actually pretty close to the key to the whole rules discussion.If there were a gate 20ft short of the pivot cone, and a wall 15ft. after it that forced you into a But if cone placement allows for a 30+ft radius throughout the turn, like there was on the weekend, then I don't see a problem with it. If you started with the above layout and removed the back wall, you'd then have plent of room for three turns (left out of the chute, right for 180*, left into the chute) of whatever radius you wanted. You wouldn't be getting anywhere near the back of that pivot cone, but that doesn't matter. The east end sweeper was basically built around the same principle. The SHORTEST line would have required

[Jeff]

...that said, and official rules aside, I agree with Phil's last comment that there's really no point to pushing the boundaries of tightness. We could open up sharp corners and have just as much fun, or more, without losing anything. I just wanted to clarify what makes a corner illegal, as I interpret the rules.

[Fast_Toys]

...that said' date=' and official rules aside, I agree with Phil's last comment that there's really no point to pushing the boundaries of tightness. We could open up sharp corners and have just as much fun, or more, without losing anything. I just wanted to clarify what makes a corner illegal, as I interpret the rules.[/quote']Jeff: I am glad you can see my side of the argument. In your example, the corner would be legal but not in the spirit of the rules. The spirit of the rules say we need to create courses that are balanced and ensure fair and fun competition. If we purposely design courses that favor some types of vehicles, we are not doing that. I could easily design courses that a particular vehicle would win every time if driven by the right driver. It wouldn't break a single rule but would not be in the "spirit of the rules".Making the race line tighter than 30 feet is not in the spirit of the rules and is really finding a way around a rule that was not written in a lock tight fashion. We all know the spirit of the rule is to not make courses too tight to allow for fair competition between large and small cars. If we go down that slipperly slope, it will open up a hole can of worms with other rules that leave a lot of room for interpretation. Technically many things may not be illegal but would not be in the spirit of the rules. We've re-written some local WSCC rules to address a few of these that we have found over the years.With that being said, are we all in agreement about making turns less tight or does someone have some good reasons why we shouldn't?

[Corey]

I can think of a bunch of SCCA-style course elements where you could draw a sub-10m radius if you took an inside line, so that can't be the intention of the rule.I agree that a typical racing line should always try to exceed that minimum radius. If nothing else it's good practice for those going to SCCA Nationals and it's a little more fun for the rookies.

[conebasher]

The heated debate over how sharp is too sharp and what constitutes a drag start just won't die. It appears to me that whenever Roger Johnson agrees with somebody, they act likes it's Gospel, but when he disagrees, he's only a "guideline". This is how religious wars get started. Can't we just decide to use RJ's guide for everything and if there's a grey area, we just e-mail him for clarification? That way, (hopefully)we won't be arguing with each other all the time and can get back to the business of having a great time.

[Fast_Toys]

Ok. Including myself, I count 3 people so far that agree that we should not purposely set the RACE LINE to include corners with a radius close to or under the minimum distance per ASN rules (10 m). Does anyone else agree/disagree?As Mark eluded too, I'd kind of like to agree on a set of rules/boundries/guidelines and then stick to them to avoid arguments. Whether people want to admit it or not, our club is very competitive (in a good way) and that has resulted in a much higher than average group of very skilled drivers. Many people have even gone as far as basing a large portion of their new vehicle decision on how well it would do at auto-x ;)I really don't enjoy bringing these things up again and again but I know most people will never say anything for the fear of being ostracized. Things have changed very much in a positive fashion in the past few years and I am happy we can have a rational discussion without things getting ugly

[Kerry]

I'd kind of like to agree on a set of rules/boundries/guidelines and then stick to them to avoid arguments.

Guidelines, yes. Rules, no. There's a reason there isn't much in either set of official rules (CAC/SCCA) in regards to course design.Placing our rules in the hands of a gentlemen far to the south, no matter how nice, or smart he is - is a bad idea. I don't think the guidelines are the source of the problem right now, anyway.

[Fast_Toys]

I don't think the guidelines are the source of the problem right now' date=' anyway. [/quote']So what is the source of the problem?