# Got directions?



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

Not quite to scale...but close

This is a thrice transposed copy of the coursemap for the NCC autocross on 9/21. Any comments?


----------



## JT - '02 330i (Dec 29, 2001)

Pros:
- Long course

Cons:
- Complex, easy to get lost.
- As cars get lost easily, course workers need to worry about being run over.
- Looks unsafe for multiple cars to be out at once.
- As it's a one car course, it's going to reduce the number of cars that can run.
- Novice entrants, probably won't want to come back again.
- Experienced entrants, won't want the course designer to design again.

Why not just use a shorter course where you can have it be safe, and have multiple cars out there. Each driver could then get more runs out of the course?

Now this course was fun, without nasty overlaps like below. (And yes our region lines the sides of the course with chalk to prevent folks from getting lost.)


----------



## Plaz (Dec 19, 2001)

[email protected] said:


> *
> This is a thrice transposed copy of the coursemap for the NCC autocross on 9/21. Any comments? *


That would leave me more confused than a baby in a topless bar.


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

_Originally posted by JT - '02 330i
Pros:
- Long course_
- con...we only got three runs after expecting 4.

_Cons:
- Complex, easy to get lost._
Lots of people did...which whittles away at the competition 

_- As cars get lost easily, course workers need to worry about being run over._
This is true. What I didn't show on the map are the four/five light poles that run along the center of the course, seperatinv the left and right sides which is where the bulk of course workers stand.

_- Looks unsafe for multiple cars to be out at once._
They did run two cars at once. The second car was launched when the first car made it to the end of the slalom in the upper left. When it looked like the first car driver was confused, they would hold the start.

_- As it's a one car course, it's going to reduce the number of cars that can run._
The BMW events aren't usually all that big to begin with (compared with SCCA anyway) at no more than 120 cars. Still, like I said, we only got 3 runs instead of 4. We also got started *very* late.

_- Novice entrants, probably won't want to come back again._
We'll see...I heard that Hunter's novice Z06 buddy had some trouble. I think that you're right for the most part. However, there were a lot of old timers that were saying that they've never seen something that complex before. Hearing that could go a long away for a novice...and if the novice stayed on course he might think that he can master anything.

_- Experienced entrants, won't want the course designer to design again._
That may not be such a bad thing :eeps:



> *Why not just use a shorter course where you can have it be safe, and have multiple cars out there. Each driver could then get more runs out of the course?
> 
> Now this course was fun, without nasty overlaps like below. (And yes our region lines the sides of the course with chalk to prevent folks from getting lost.) *


The courses at this lot usually are a lot shorter, although I'm not sure that they're any safer. This lot has a horrible surface, but the upside is that it keeps speeds down (=safer? :dunno: ) A typical average time for a course here is about 55 seconds. Yesterday's on course runs probably averaged ~81 seconds.

The contract the SCCA has with FedEx Field forbids them from chalking the course. They are currently renegotiating for next year and are putting a lot of effort into being allowed to chalk them next year. That won't help any at Rosecroft though.


----------



## JT - '02 330i (Dec 29, 2001)

Hopefully they're considering flour.

Many of the regions that have anti chalk sites, have been able to use baking flour and then use leaf blowers at the end to blow the flour away.


----------



## Nick325xiT 5spd (Dec 24, 2001)

I fell into the confused driver category.  Unfortunately, I think I missed the same damned gate three times and no one could tell me until my last run.


----------



## nate (Dec 24, 2001)

That course is absolutely terrible. How anyone could actually find their way around is shocking

This is was the last auto-x that I went to. It was a fantasic course. Cool at night

http://www.houscca.com/solo2/courses/aug02.gif


----------



## JST (Dec 19, 2001)

nate328Ci said:


> *That course is absolutely terrible. How anyone could actually find their way around is shocking
> 
> This is was the last auto-x that I went to. It was a fantasic course. Cool at night
> 
> http://www.houscca.com/solo2/courses/aug02.gif *


As I posted elsewhere, once you "found" the course, it really wasn't too hard. And the course is easier to understand than it looks--it's a rough figure eight, into a loop, a left turn into a slalom, another left turn into a true figure eight, into a hard right and then a hard left into the stop box.

IMHO, our course yesterday was too complicated--but the one that you posted is too simple. You wouldn't even need to walk that course.


----------



## nate (Dec 24, 2001)

JST said:


> *
> 
> IMHO, our course yesterday was too complicated--but the one that you posted is too simple. You wouldn't even need to walk that course. *


The course that I posted was very fast, as opposed to that rediculous map above. I don't even know if I would even drive on that. I like fast courses, and you do need to walk these courses. Just because you don't have to really worry about getting lost, doesn't mean you don't need to know the course. And, when you have cars out until 1am, a simple course helps...

Here are some other examples...

http://www.houscca.com/solo2/course_maps.html


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

nate328Ci said:


> *
> 
> The course that I posted was very fast, as opposed to that rediculous map above. I don't even know if I would even drive on that. I like fast courses, and you do need to walk these courses. Just because you don't have to really worry about getting lost, doesn't mean you don't need to know the course. And, when you have cars out until 1am, a simple course helps...
> 
> ...


Sunday's SCCA event was the antithesis of Saturday's BMW event. It wasn't all that long and not real fast, but very simple and straightforward. I think that all of the off courses were people that just skipped gates as opposed to getting lost. They were running 20 second intervals and things were going so smoothly, they could have given us all an extra run and still been on time.

The additional thought and work that a driver needs for a course like that doesn't bother me. In fact, I kind of like it. It adds an additional component to the mix that affects everyone equally. I hate showing up to find a course that looks like it's been designed specifically for Miatas or cars with gobs of horsepower that are short on traction. That course we ran on Saturday was at the extreme end of the scale, but I'm glad we ran it. FWIW, from what I've heard, the FTD was something like a 73, set by an E28 (the club usually doesn't post results for nearly a week). For comparison. JST turned mid/low 80.xxx and I did a best of somewhere in 83.xxx.


----------



## CD-55 (Dec 19, 2001)

Not fair Clyde!

On your map you added a "pointer cone" that was not really there. If it had been there, I *may* have stayed on course during my second run. 

Also you omitted to include some of the other cones that were around the course. These extra cones, added to the sensory overload.


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

CD-55 said:


> *Not fair Clyde!
> 
> On your map you added a "pointer cone" that was not really there. If it had been there, I *may* have stayed on course during my second run.
> 
> Also you omitted to include some of the other cones that were around the course. These extra cones, added to the sensory overload. *


Hence "thrice transposed." First the drawing that was on the table, second the copy I did in my book (which had scribbles based on what was actually on the course) and the third quick drawing for the image up there (which involved some judgement calls of what my scribbles actually meant :dunno: )

The only pointer cone on that map that I can't be completely sure of is the second slalom cone just before going through the box for the second time. I remember the first one in that slalom because of people making omments about using it as a cue to staying to its right after going through the box for the first time. The at the top on the right hand side (after the right hand turn over the fresh asphalt patch) I distinctly recall. Same as the pointer to the first slalom cone one the left side of the map. Which one do you not remember?

I did skip the additional pointer cones becuase I didn't copy them to begin with (and some weren't on the course when I made my copy) becuase I didn't see the need at the time.


----------



## CD-55 (Dec 19, 2001)

[email protected] said:


> *
> The only pointer cone on that map that I can't be completely sure of is the second slalom cone just before going through the box for the second time. *


yep, that is the one!

If the pointer cone had really been there I doubt would have gone to the left side of it!

Fortunatly my sharp co-piolt Nick picked up on the error and helped me correct by 3rd run.


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

CD-55 said:


> *
> 
> yep, that is the one!
> 
> ...


I can buy it. Typical NCC...put a pointer on the first slalom cone and none on the rest.


----------



## CD-55 (Dec 19, 2001)

[email protected] said:


> *
> 
> I can buy it. Typical NCC...put a pointer on the first slalom cone and none on the rest.  *


Do 2 single cones even deserve to be called a "slalom"?:flipoff:


----------



## JST (Dec 19, 2001)

CD-55 said:


> *
> 
> Do 2 single cones even deserve to be called a "slalom"?:flipoff: *


No. I actually overheard the course designer talking about this, and he kept referring to it as less a slalom than just a pivot cone, as the second cone was essentially superfluous.

In fairness, though, if you set up a slalom, and the direction through the slalom is not optional, all you need is one pointer at the first cone in the slalom. Since it's a slalom, you know you have to go around the next cone the other way.


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

JST said:


> No. I actually overheard the course designer talking about this, and he kept referring to it as less a slalom than just a pivot cone, as the second cone was *essentially superfluous*.


In CD's case, apparently not :eeps:

*



In fairness, though, if you set up a slalom, and the direction through the slalom is not optional, all you need is one pointer at the first cone in the slalom. Since it's a slalom, you know you have to go around the next cone the other way.

Click to expand...

*Um, pretend I didn't say anything


----------



## CD-55 (Dec 19, 2001)

JST said:


> *In fairness, though, if you set up a slalom, and the direction through the slalom is not optional, all you need is one pointer at the first cone in the slalom. Since it's a slalom, you know you have to go around the next cone the other way. *


Agree.

My issue was with noticing the second cone. I guess with looking ahead there was so many other cones in my mind (at least 12), I just lost track of that one. I think if it had a pointer cone, it would have not slipped my attention.


----------



## Pinecone (Apr 3, 2002)

CD-55 said:


> *Not fair Clyde!
> 
> On your map you added a "pointer cone" that was not really there. If it had been there, I *may* have stayed on course during my second run.
> 
> Also you omitted to include some of the other cones that were around the course. These extra cones, added to the sensory overload. *


I don't think so, the ones he shows, I remember. There were also some two ro three cones ponter arrays that were there to help that are not in the drawing posted.

I missed the gate at the end of the cross lot almost straight just going to fast. Then got lost on the second half because I was torqued at missing the first gate. The next two runs were basically OK, except I overcooked it at the same stupid gate and missed it.

I like some longer more involved courses occasionally. It stretches you mind. I also found it to be more confusing in the drawing than when I walked the course. I found that the walk showed it to be much more obvious than teh drawing makes it out to be. But it was not an easy course by any means.


----------



## Nick325xiT 5spd (Dec 24, 2001)

I believe that I missed the first gate out of the box in all three of my runs.... Ah well.
My second run was REALLY bad, although my third run was pretty good aside from that one gate.


----------

