May 18th Course Feedback

[conebasher]

Guidelines' date=' 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. [/quote']So what you're saying is that it's a bad idea to follow the advice of someone who has dedicated years to course design and has far more experience and understanding of course design than all of us combined?

[Corey]

I can't speak for Kerry but I know WCMA was very concerned about locking course design requirements into rules. They actually went to the trouble of re-writing the ASN rules, replacing words like 'must' and 'can not' with 'should' and 'should not'.Someday we may not have access to the RRX lot - when that happens we don't want to have to re-write rules to suit a smaller lot.We're all adults here, we can abide by guidelines without needing concrete rules. We're getting enough friendly reminders about this that Mike and his crew will likely be conscious of minimum turn radius during the next setup.

[mzf]

I had planned on not posting in this thread because I thought the point had been made, and taken, that we should be more wary of tighter turns. However I'm now told that this means I'm ignoring the issue and sweeping it under the proverbial rug. So here's my official reply and then I'm closing this thread before it goes too far into drama-land.The comments on tight turns have been noted and more of an effort will be made to avoid them when making future courses. Thank you for the feedback. I don't believe it is necessary to have something in the rules mandating that we use RJ's handbook as course design law. I and a number of others took RJ's instructional course when he was in town. I still have the documentation from that, as well as numerous links online to examples of his courses. I believe I have a pretty good handle on what should and should not be done, and with the people that have been coming out and helping with course setup, I believe we've managed to catch and fix most problems before the course becomes final. I appreciate the feedback on this latest course and as I said, this is something we will try to avoid with future courses.Thanks,

[Kerry]

So what you're saying is that it's a bad idea to follow the advice of someone who has dedicated years to course design and has far more experience and understanding of course design than all of us combined?

Things like this are the issue. One person says something, and the other party either doesn't understand what the other was saying or twists it in some weird way.Our communication on this issue is absolutely among the worst I've witnessed - I'm guilty of it too. I believe the best way to debate something is to almost be ready to accept the other position - Jeff is good at that, as shown above.Heads are firmly stuck in the sand in the course design clique.Mark - It has nothing to do with his experience or qualifications. Please re-read my post.

[Kerry]

Thread unlocked. There's no reason to lock this Mike. As Corey said, we're all adults.

[Rhyno]

I guess I am guilty of not understanding this as well. I have been with the club for almost 3 years. I started with an impossible car to make go fast but did my best and improved IMO with experience. I drove the same course as everyone else on Sunday and I thought it to be just fine. You can not use the "Slow car" in my case anymore. And as for driving, well my best time was around 7 seconds slower than FTD. In my book that is pretty good. So how bad could the course have possibly been?????This is my opinion and in no way points a finger or questions anyone else.

[SoloSnapshots]

As far as rules go in my opinion there aren't many. There are a lot of guidelines we try to follow though.2008 ASN rules. Parts of page 1

These regulations are intended to assist in the conduct of national competitions.ASN territories and regions may adopt these regulations for use within their jurisdictions if they choose to do so including the sole responsibility for the administration thereof.These regulations are a guide to further general safety and in no way a guarantee against injury or death to participants, spectators or others. No express or implied warranties of safety or fitness for a particular purpose shall be intended or result from publication of or compliance with these Regulations.These regulations were established by the ASN and are intended to assist in the orderly conduct of SoloSport events and to further participant and spectator safety.

To clarify one thing about the ASN or SCCA course design rules.... both sides are wrong. We run WCMA rules. Have for awhile.

2008 Winnipeg Sports Car Club Autocross ChampionshipSupplemental Regulations1. RULES: These events are held under the 2008 WCMA Solo Rules and General Competition Rules as they apply. Rules are available on-line at www.wcma.ca and www.wscc.mb.ca web site.

WCMA General Competition Regulations - SoloSECTION 2 - SOLO II EVENT REGULATIONSCompetition Regulations.2.1. Course Design2.1.A The following regulations of course design are provided to give organizers proper directions in designing or choosing a course and also to ensure that adequate safety precautions are met.2.1.B Organizers are cautioned that competitors and workers in solo events are not covered by participant accident insurance; appropriate precautions, therefore, must be taken. Furthermore, a solo II event may be open to a total novice in any car that can pass precompetition safety inspection; this should be taken into consideration in designing the course.2.1.C It would be possible to set extremely strict and rigid standards for solo II events with regard to speed and course dimensions. However, we do not want to outlaw sites which cannot accommodate a course of certain stated dimensions or create the impression that so long as some magic speed limit is not exceeded these regulations are adhered to.2.1.D Organizing an event that complies with these regulations calls for the exercise of prudent good judgment and common sense. The protection of life and property shall be the prime factor governing all decisions relating to course design and safety.2.1.E Hazards must not exceed those encountered in legal highway driving.2.1.F The course shall be designed such that maximum speeds on any straight section shall not normally exceed 110km/h for the fastest stock, super stock and street prepared category eligible cars. The fastest portion of the course shall be the most remote from spectators and property. There should be no straight longer than one hundred (100) meters.2.1.G Courses should be open enough to allow good competition between large and small cars but should avoid sustained high speed, extremes in maneuverability and not be memory tests.2.1.H Turns and corners should be marked by course markers. All pylon and course marker locations should be properly marked to facilitate accurate replacement. Corner limits must never be marked by curbs, buildings, poles, trees, soft shoulders, or other hazards likely to cause damage to a car or likely to cause a car to overturn.2.1.I A straight longer than 45 m (150 ft.) should not terminate in an extremely sharp or decreasing radius turn.2.1.J Dips that get a car airborne must not be included.2.1.K The course should be designed so that noise, particularly tire noise, is kept to a minimum. Burnouts are not permitted.2.1.L In a double, mirror image or similar type slalom, the cars on the two separate courses shall at no time run within 15 m (50 ft.) of each other.2.1.M Clubs must not run events that require the competitor to start the event from outside the vehicle, be required to leave the vehicle, reverse direction or garage the vehicle during the run.2.1.N For slaloms, driving skill tests, and similar type events, a standing start is required and a shutdown area at the end of the course in the form of a box such that the competitor must come to a full stop before leaving the course. The recommended size for the stop box is 10 m (33 ft.) long and 4 m (12 ft.) wide, with the stop line being defined by at least 3 (three) pylons. (Where space restrictions prevent meeting the recommended requirement, a minimum size of 6 m (18 ft.) long and 4 m (12 ft.) wide is acceptable. An area of 10 m (30 ft.) beyond the stop box shall remain clear. Where space permits, the recommended distance from the finishing line to the beginning of stop box is 15 m.2.1.O The course boundary shall not normally pass closer than 8 m (25 ft.) from solid objects or curbs.2.1.P It is recommended that course gates be 4.5 m (15 ft.) wide and single file slalom markers be at least 14 m (45 ft.) apart.2.1.Q The organizer shall notify the local police beforehand and on the day of the event. He shall give the police the particulars and schedule of the event. Police will then be able to answer any queries they receive from the general public.2.1.R The course shall be at least .5 km in length.2.1.S The location of all pylons must be marked (boxed) to ensure accurate replacement and scoring. It is recommended that the course be marked with a single centre line or two (2) perimeter chalk lines.2.1.T The course must meet with the general approval of the competitors and WCMA Stewards with regard to WCMA safety standards.2.1.U Any protests concerning the course are to be brought to the attention of the Organizer and the WCMA Stewards in attendance prior to the first run.

[conebasher]

Heads are firmly stuck in the sand in the course design clique.

See? You and I don't disagree on everything Or maybe we do and I'm so dumb that I don't understand' date=' let me re-read your post.

Mark - It has nothing to do with his experience or qualifications. Please re-read my post.

Ok' date=' I re-read it. Are you talking about another nice gentleman from the south or are you talking about Roger Johnson? When you say "bad idea" did you mean something other than "bad idea"? Maybe I need to spend time in Dubai to fully understand what you're saying ;)

Placing our rules in the hands of a gentlemen far to the south' date=' 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. [/quote']Ok, all jokes aside (we're all just kidding around, right?) wouldn't there be less disagreement if we just tried to follow RJ's guide as close as possible? Instead of my opinion vs your opinion, we could always just look at the book and let that be our guide. I'm not talking about putting it in the supp regs that "all courses must follow Roger Johnson's book to the letter, or else" but it at least gives us all a common referance point. Of course if we ever do lose the RRX and some aspects of RJ's book CAN'T be followed, fine, we re-evaluate at that time. But right now, on the lot we are using, we CAN follow all the guidelines and have fun courses for everyone. I'm certain that all my courses during the last half of 2007 were very close to all the guidelines and I heard more positive feedback than ever before. Yes, there was one that was a bit of a sea of cones and another one had a section a wee bit too fast, but I paid attention to all feedback and worked hard to correct mistakes and keep everybody happy. And the course maps with named sections added something cool, too.

[Corey]

Mark, you've been painfully blunt to me as long as you've been complaining about my courses, now it's my turn.

I'm certain that all my courses during the last half of 2007 were very close to all the guidelines and I heard more positive feedback than ever before.

I disagree. While they weren't bad or unsafe, they tended to be very tight elements with zero line selection and large spaces between them that felt like they had line selection. The individual elements were taken from Roger's designs but they were about 30-50% smaller than what Roger would have created. Tight element, drag race, tight element, drag race, etc. It was painful in Hugger. :(There were complaints but I don't think you heard them.-I don't think anyone disagrees that we should follow RJ's guidelines. The guys have been trying and they're getting closer! Get over the mental block of the two tight turns on Sunday - other than those two elements the course was very good. Everyone sees now that they were too tight and will take steps to avoid that situation in the future. We don't need it repeated every few hours until the next event, lets move on.

[MRS Joe]

I feel we all know what was wrong on the last course. If this is the case, we will make a conscious effort to not repeat the same mistakes. How about we all just show up at 7am on sunday morning and work together as friends to build a better course. We don't need to beat this to death. We all are aware that Roger Johnson knows what he was talking about when he was here, but Roger also said that we still will have obsticles due to the nature of our site. We do our best to work around them, no one is perfect, and as the rrx returns for another year, in july we will have even more obsticles yet again.See you guys sunday morning.

[Jeff]

I think everyone HAS moved on from the two tight corners on Sunday. Looks like most agree that we have to try harder to avoid these in course design. End of discussion (until we screw up again ).The problem I have with the direction of this debate - if you can call some people making valid arguments and others just trying to shut them up a 'debate' - is that I can't figure out why people are opposed to fully adopting the course design principles that are widely accepted as the industry standard. Do people complain about Nationals courses? So far Noel, JT, and Art have come back RAVING about them. Why should we not follow the same guidelines under which they were designed? And I'm not stupid, nor is anyone in this discussion - we all realize that our lot presents unique challenges, so instead of just saying, "our lot restricts us blah blah...," just explain exactly what part of our venue precludes us from applying a design principle. That gets us all on the same page.I also don't understand why we see some eyes roll at the mention of R.J. He is THE EXPERT when it comes to this. There is nobody else who has been as diligent in studying, developing, and advocating consistent course design. Why shouldn't he be referenced?Re: 2007 Courses - I definitely think pre-designing was a step in the right direction, and some of the courses were fantastic. We also had a couple that were tight-open-tight-open like Corey mentioned. Feedback on those was made publicly, and I think we learned from them, as we haven't had the problem since.

[Kerry]

I don't understand

You don't. The first part of my post explains it.

Guidelines' date=' yes. Rules, no.[/quote']

[conebasher]

Mark' date=' you've been painfully blunt to me as long as you've been complaining about my courses, now it's my turn.[/quote']True, and I have apologized to you publicly and privately for it because now I know what it's like to create a course with the peanut gallery following you around and critiquing every cone. Again, I apologize.

I disagree. While they weren't bad or unsafe' date=' they tended to be very tight elements with zero line selection and large spaces between them that felt like they had line selection. The individual elements were taken from Roger's designs but they were about 30-50% smaller than what Roger would have created. Tight element, drag race, tight element, drag race, etc. It was painful in Hugger. :(There were complaints but I don't think you heard them.[/quote']I'm not sure what to say about this because you were one of the people I ALWAYS walked over to and asked what you thought after you had run one of my courses. I'm sure that if you thought something was too tight or had no line selection, I would have made note of it. Either way, I guess they weren't as good as I remember because some people have chosen to ignore or pretend I didn't do any last year.

[Art]

I think since.

This kid is pretty wise for his age!! :bowdown:I firmly believe our club will take a big step forward through the Nationals experience this year. I'm also going to continue to advocate that we send next years AutoX director to Houston for their March Skool and event. I think it would be a valuable experience to see where this can go.

[Kerry]

I'm also going to continue to advocate that we send next years AutoX director to Houston for their March Skool and event.

Lost all confidence in me already Art?

[Art]

Lost all confidence in me already Art?

Are you suggesting you won't be director?

[Kerry]

ok ladies and gents. We have some people whom are very passionate with respect to course design, so I'm going to try and correct the issue that I myself have identified, and be very clear with what we need to do to make this work.There is no reason to not use Roger's course design book as a pretty solid guideline for designing our courses. It has worked well in the past, and when done properly, will continue to work well for us in the future. This however is not grounds for any protest if an element does not exactly meet some stipulation in Roger's book. We will use it as a guideline only.I believe, unless I'm mistaken, that everyone who has been involved with course design has been keeping Roger's teachings in mind anyway. Therefore, I do not believe that alone will change much. I propose that we move these discussions off the forum and onto the site the day of the event. The course designers talk about the course as they're setting it up, and a lot of good things result from those discussions. I firmly believe that the quality of courses we've experienced are due to the teamwork on site.I want to start holding post-event course design discussions. I believe if we do it on site, after the drivers meeting we will be able to hammer out any issues immediately, and much more effectively than on this forum. This is a touchy issue with all of the people involved, and we're losing a large part of our communication tools by using this forum.Everyone, please let me know your thoughts and if you believe an on-site discussion will help us iron out these issues.

[Kerry]

Are you suggesting you won't be director?

Ha! No, but I thought you were.

[Fast_Toys]

The problem I have with the direction of this debate - if you can call some people making valid arguments and others just trying to shut them up a 'debate' - is that I can't figure out why people are opposed to fully adopting the course design principles that are widely accepted as the industry standard. Do people complain about Nationals courses? So far Noel' date=' JT, and Art have come back RAVING about them. Why should we not follow the same guidelines under which they were designed? And I'm not stupid, nor is anyone in this discussion - we all realize that our lot presents unique challenges, so instead of just saying, "our lot restricts us blah blah...," just explain exactly what part of our venue precludes us from applying a design principle. That gets us all on the same page.I also don't understand why we see some eyes roll at the mention of R.J. He is THE EXPERT when it comes to this. There is nobody else who has been as diligent in studying, developing, and advocating consistent course design. Why shouldn't he be referenced?Re: 2007 Courses - I definitely think pre-designing was a step in the right direction, and some of the courses were fantastic. We also had a couple that were tight-open-tight-open like Corey mentioned. Feedback on those was made publicly, and I think we learned from them, as we haven't had the problem since.[/quote']Bang on! I couldn't agree more with Jeff. My biggest frustration is that we had years of debate over how courses should be designed. Some of these debates got quite heated. As a result, the WSCC paid a great deal of money for the expert (Roger Johnson) to come up here and teach a course on how it should be done. Roger outlines some of the important principles to course design and we have immediate pushback from many members of the club. I just don't understand that. Why wouldn't we at least attempt to follow his guidelines and if necessary, make some adjustments where his recommendations do not fit our venue?My second frustration is that we designed this forum to help create fun, fair, balanced courses. With the exception of a few people, there is no feedback on courses and very few designs are submitted for review and discussion. Also, when I politely bring up two turns for discussion, it immediately becomes a huge debate where I feel I am defending my position against 10 attackers. I don't mind a logical debate but when it becomes an attack, I really feel like an outsider who's opinion is not valued. I KNOW that other people in the club are scared to make comments for fear they will be attacked to. We need to keep emotions out of these discussions and just look at the facts. If you don't have something constructive and positive to say, keep it to yourself. There is no use for playing "devils advocate" or making snide remarks.

[Fast_Toys]

Kerry posted before I finished mine. I agree with your suggestion and think it will move us in a positve direction.The one big recommendation that I still believe we need to consider is PLANNING and records keeping. Roger swears by it and the majority don't seem to think it will be beneficial. Rogely plainly said "without planning, course design is a crap shoot. You have a 50 % chance of getting it right" . We don't need to plan every last detail (hinder creative process), but we should have a pretty good idea of what we want to achieve before we get to the site. I urge you all to reconsider.

[Jeff]

The one big recommendation that I still believe we need to consider is PLANNING and records keeping. Roger swears by it and the majority don't seem to think it will be beneficial. Rogely plainly said "without planning' date=' course design is a crap shoot. You have a 50 % chance of getting it right" . We don't need to plan every last detail (hinder creative process), but we should have a pretty good idea of what we want to achieve before we get to the site. I urge you all to reconsider.[/quote']I don't think it's that we don't see the value in records keeping, just that nobody wants to take the time to do it. I really think we should be keeping records and planning out our courses as much as possible, but I'm not volunteering to do it.

[Corey]

It sounds like we're making some good progress here. Lets try after event meetings for a while to see if it helps further.I honestly believe everyone here is trying to work towards the club's best interests, right now we all have different definitions of what 'best' is and each one of us is trying to convince the others that our idea of 'best' is truly best.It sounds like it's going to be raining this Sunday, that may not be so much fun for a meeting...

[Fast_Toys]

It sounds like we're making some good progress here. Lets try after event meetings for a while to see if it helps further.I honestly believe everyone here is trying to work towards the club's best interests' date=' right now we all have different definitions of what 'best' is and each one of us is trying to convince the others that our idea of 'best' is truly best.It sounds like it's going to be raining this Sunday, that may not be so much fun for a meeting...[/quote']In Houston, the course designers get together to discuss course design over some drinks and food. That might be a good option instead of standing outside in the rain!

[Kerry]

In Houston' date=' the course designers get together to discuss course design over some drinks and food. That might be a good option instead of standing outside in the rain![/quote']There are groups that already go out and eat wherever. It's a bit of a challenge to get everyone together. I'd much rather keep it on-site.

[Fast_Toys]

Mark' date=' you've been painfully blunt to me as long as you've been complaining about my courses, now it's my turn.I disagree. While they weren't bad or unsafe, they tended to be very tight elements with zero line selection and large spaces between them that felt like they had line selection. The individual elements were taken from Roger's designs but they were about 30-50% smaller than what Roger would have created. Tight element, drag race, tight element, drag race, etc. It was painful in Hugger. :(There were complaints but I don't think you heard them.[/quote']Corey: I am really glad that you had a chance to drive a big car at auto-x. I am sure after your experience, you realized that we do need to make design changes that allow for turns that are not as tight and more balanced designs. Art's car was probably one of the best prepped cars we have ever had and yet it didn't achieve the raw results it should have. Higher classed cars and properly modded cars have higher pax #'s because they are supposed to be able to negotiate the course faster. The course design is supposed to allow amble areas for those type of vehicles to make up raw time on lower classed cars. If that is not happening, we probably have a problem. Some courses had fundamental flaws where speed maintenace was easily achieved for the smaller, less powerful cars to the point that larger, more powerful cars could never catch up despite "drag race sections".

[Corey]

Actually that's not the case. My poor overall results were entirely driver related.I think Noel's success with the Mustang is a testament to that - it's what most would consider a big car and certainly has a bias towards acceleration over handling. Yet he has won PAX overall at many events. He did just as well at SCCA Nationals as he does locally.

Again I disagree. :) I'd say the cars best prepared for their classes have been some of the Stock cars such as Noel's Mustang and JT's TT" data-date=" they">

Higher classed cars and properly modded cars have higher pax #'s because they are supposed to be able to negotiate the course faster.

Are there any local SP cars prepped to the limit of the rules? Jeremy C is closest, he just needs an engine swap and to somehow legally drop 200+ lbs. Is it any surprise that a Stock class car prepped to the limit beats a less-prepped SP car in PAX?We can't discount the driver or the prep-level of our cars in relation to what can be done. While we all like to think we're naturally gifted drivers and have finely-tuned machines, go to a big event and see where you really fit in the pecking order. Steve and I got embarrassed in Milwaukee in an under-prepared car.

[tatawaki]

We need to talk to Kevin and get in the day before instead of this 7am crap (I'm not able to get up that early ). Then we can actually have some discussions without being rushed.I have nothing more than seats, suspension and fat (not even the fattest I can have which is 285's ) tires on my car...

[Fast_Toys]

Actually that's not the case. My poor overall results were entirely driver related.

Lots of people drove Art's car in Winnipeg and nobody was any more successful than you. When Art's car went to Saskatoon it kicked ass because the courses were more open (probably too open from what I have seen). We need a balance somewhere in between.Stock cars are at a huge advantage when it comes to PAX. Everyone knows that. I am referring to RAW times. An SS, SP or MOD car driven by a skilled driver should have faster raw times than most of the stock cars. That does not typically happen on our courses. I am not saying it has to win in PAX which is MUCH more difficult. Our courses are not presently providing the medium upon which modified cars can make up ground in raw times compared to stock cars. I see that as a problem which has improved over the years but still is not quite right. If that was somehow miscommunicated or mistyped what I meant, hopefuly this post sets the record straight.

[Fast_Toys]

Corey: This is a very old argument. My point was taken and we have agreed to open up turns. Let's bury that argument and move forward from here. Thanks

[JT_TT]

Phil, which SP cars would you like to see win? or maybe should i say would you expect to see win?Cause i have a hard time thinking of one that is really ready to do it, with driver in place to pull it off. I'm not trying to shoot down your point here, but stock class is loaded right now. The people are in the right cars, and have started to really prep them. The cars most of the new stock drivers were in last year were not as well prepped comparatively to the class. Corey/Lawrence used to win in their SS miatas. but since i've started with WSCC Stock has always been the best bang for your buck (although still alot of bucks). In the end an SP car is a trailer baby or it won't be winning anything national.Also, our lot is NOT at all ideal for SP cars due to the bumps. They seriously affect braking and acceleration, where Stock cars do not slow from this problem nearly as much, nothing we can do about that here. if we add more straights we'll be getting too fast for the rules, and safety.In the end the ESP/DSP cars we DO have would have to be fully prepped to the nines to theoretically keep up with the AS gaggle. It's really crazy seeing the SP guys run down south. your in for a treat if you go see them. nothing here even comes CLOSE to what SP really means.