July 13 course

[conebasher]

Under the pressure to design a course which satisfies safety concerns and is still fun, the course designers did a great job. I had fun yesterday and the course had some elements that I really liked. The start was pretty good and it was nice having the timer start as soon as you got rolling. I also liked the "wallom" in the east section, let's use that again sometime The slalom by the dip and the slalom just before the stop were both decreasing. The slalom headed north and a few other elements could have been made using less cones without losing their effectiveness and would have made it easier for us to get cones set up before the next car arrived. Nothing bad happened but cars seamed to be unsettled when going through the stop timers, would moving the entire slalom 10' or 15' feet north solve that?

[Jeff]

I didn't notice anyone unstable through the finish. There were quite a few who punted the last cone because they were exiting the slalom a little too hot, but I didn't see anyone have a near-spin.I didn't think either of the slaloms you mentioned were decreasing while driving them. Can you explain how you came to that conclusion?

[Corey]

The chicago box/3-cone slalom by the dip was intentionally more open on the West side - that allowed for earlier entry after the right near the start and let people screw up a bit on the way back without punting the last cone.I don't think the other was intentional. Unfortunately I forgot my measuring wheel at home.

[conebasher]

I didn't notice anyone unstable through the finish. There were quite a few who punted the last cone because they were exiting the slalom a little too hot' date=' but I didn't see anyone have a near-spin.[/quote']Definitely were some cars going through the lights with drivers making steering corrections from sliding around the last cone. An RX-8 was nearly in the gravel under hard braking.

I didn't think either of the slaloms you mentioned were decreasing while driving them. Can you explain how you came to that conclusion?

I used a measuring wheel because when I go through a slalom, it's helpful to know what the spacing is. There was more than 4 feet difference between the first and second set of cones in both slaloms-and they were both hard offsets.

[conebasher]

The chicago box/3-cone slalom by the dip was intentionally more open on the West side - that allowed for earlier entry after the right near the start and let people screw up a bit on the way back without punting the last cone.

I'm confused because the distance between the first and second cone(when headed east) in the Chicago box was 48 feet and the second and third cone was 52 feet, meaning you could accelerate going east but coming back the drivers are more likely to punt the cone.

[Corey]

Are you 100% sure on that? If so, damn. That was the opposite of my intention...

[conebasher]

Are you 100% sure on that? If so' date=' damn. That was the opposite of my intention...[/quote']100% sure. I didn't measure to check anybody's course design, I was just trying to get better times by being more informed. I let my co-drivers know about the decreasing slaloms, too. The slaloms didn't seem to cause any problems for anybody but maybe a measuring wheel and/or tape would make things easier.

[Fast_Toys]

Likes: The wallom was cool and worked well. Some sections with good punish/reward characteristics (maybe too much in that area).Dislikes: Part of the course was very hurky-jerky and didn't flow very well. I found myself thrashing at the steering wheel far too much. Going North to the chute was a bit of a sea of cones and it was a little too tight. The last cone coming back from the north section back south into the chute was too tight as well.Suggestion: Roger J basis every part of his course on circles (bezier curves). That helps to ensure that everything flows together and you do not have decreasing radius or overlapping turns. All you need is a piece of rope or a measuring tape and you lay our the radius of each turn. Lay down your key cones. Those are the only cones that really matter. Next put down the other cones the outline the boundy of the turn in a manner that disguises the race line. Make these wider to prevent cones from going down and too harshly penalizing people that are off the line.

[Corey]

...maybe a measuring wheel and/or tape would make things easier.

Certainly. As mentioned above I just plain forgot mine. I'm still stunned I got the chicago box wrong. Crap.How was the wallom spacing? I paced that one out MANY times trying to make it even. Did anyone notice the subtle tilt in the 2nd wall in the wallom? It was meant to allow easier setup for braking at the end. ;)A quick note: I tried tapes about 6 years ago - complete junk (even with 2 people involved) with the traditional RRX wind. I bought a measuring wheel the following day.

[mzf]

The north section (or atleast the area by the washroom) was intentionally tight. We tested the course many times that morning and that was the only way we found to limit the entry speed onto the north-south area by the tent. As it was, I hit 2nd gear limiter before the last slalom cone.I am predicting a very painful 2nd half of the season course-wise since we now have to do our best to stay below 80km/h ANd keep cars from getting out of shape.

[CDN-SiR-02]

Definitely were some cars going through the lights with drivers making steering corrections from sliding around the last cone. An RX-8 was nearly in the gravel under hard braking.

Strangely enough I got into a situation on my 4th run that engaged my abs, which is unusual. Once it started my stopping distance when up considerably. I *just* stopped before the stop box cone. Maybe 3 feet away.

[SoloSnapshots]

I *just* stopped before the stop box cone. Maybe 3 feet away.

I setup the finish line and stop box. While it may have been on a bump it did provide more stopping room than some past events.

[Fast_Toys]

I can't say I'm really in favour of the 80km/h speed limit rule. I understand the reasoning but that entire section could be a straight going over that speed and be as safe or safer than an arm tiring tight section with many turns around solid objects. If someone did manage to hit something in a straight away without a mechanical failure' date=' please point them out so I know to avoid them on the street.[/quote']I am not sure if this is even open for debate but I agree with Steve. We have always had slaloms in this section. Making them tighter doesn't mean there will be fewer spins. There probably will be more but we are "hoping" that less speed means they will not spin as far. That is counting on the fact that people will lift off the gas if they loose control.Like Steve said, having people going relatively straight past the washroom and tent would probably be the safest strategy if that is what we are going for.Does anyone have any ideas for elements we can put in this section other than slaloms?

[conebasher]

Does anyone have any ideas for elements we can put in this section other than slaloms?

I'm working on some now, I'll post pics when I'm done.

[justkickin]

Definitely were some cars going through the lights with drivers making steering corrections from sliding around the last cone. An RX-8 was nearly in the gravel under hard braking.

Don't think that was me either...for a change. ;)I didn't mind the course. I thought it was a nice balance of what was trying to be achieved. Coming out of the North (or was it East...I always mess that up...just ask Ang) section with the 90+* left and then a sharp right into the chute was the only truly NFM. I think pulling one of the cones in this complex back a few feet would have made it less trying and no less safe as you still had to clear the chute.The wallom was neat and nobody came close to losing it there. Would this sort of thing work in the narrow section as long as the transition wasn't bad (i.e., too fast) and there was lots of slow down room at the other end?Like others, have mentioned, I think if we can straighten things out going passed obstacles then the 80Km/Hr rule may only need to apply some of the time (ie., at the discretion of the designers and safety steward). I thought the HUGE stopping area was great. As Mike mentions, if you got the return right, you could get some speed. The stop area was extremely safe even though cars were parked close to it. I think having the Chicago box the way Corey had planned it would have made the transition a lot better. Oh well, it still wasn't that bad. The left-right after the transition was a little tight.