Autocross map for 6/12/16

[jenniferreinhardt]

Volunteers' finishing positions:

CC02, 3 of 5
CC03, 2 of 3
CC06, 1 of 5
CC10, 2 of 6
SS04, 3 of 5
SS05, 2 of 3
SS06, 4, 5 and 9 of 13
SS07, 3 of 8
X, 2, 3, 4, and 6 of 8

BRI positions: 23, 36, 7, 16, 31, 88, 37, 45, 89, 32, for an average of 40.4 out of 100 running drivers (not including X).

In short, the setup volunteers finished marginally above average. They have an above average amount of experience (11 of 14 were instructors). I think it's very hard to conclude that their results should be invalidated, especially as that would penalize hard-working volunteers by taking them out of trophy contention for the entire year.

10 people got to drive extra laps around the track?

Thanks for doing the math. It will be something for the Board to chew on. But, this does not change the fact that it is unsportsmanlike, and is not fair to the other Drivers, Even if marginally, it still DOES have an effect on the results. In one of those CC classes for example, 1st and 2nd was extremely close. My family is not autocrossing for a joy ride, but we want to, and try our best to win, and tires/repairs are not cheap. I'm sure others feel the same way.

This is a matter of principle.

[martinreinhardt]

Thanks for all the hard work of making this event happen. Overall it was a fun day, but it was a difficult track to get a perfect lap. I've seen experienced drivers getting lost, killing many of the few cones and missing the course entirely. I do also agree that it’s unfair for people to drive the track before the event. As Mark R. stated, it may be contrary to our agreement with the stadium to run the day before.

The track from the start to the swale-crossing "slingshot", the section from & including the "upper slalom" down to the "horseshoe", was fun. What I didn't care much about was the section between the swale-crossing "sling shot" to "Upper slalom". I'd really appreciate it if we could try to avoid hard braking and acceleration zones over bumpy/bad surfaces.

[Steve Grosekemper]

First a couple of questions.
Why does it require 10 people to do a safety check?
And how many laps each are we talking about?
I know I saw continuous laps Saturday night and I am sure multiple tests so that is a minimum or 6 laps of one complete run session.
Here is what the Zone 8 rules say:
The Autocross Chairperson
or their designate should evaluate the course prior to the start of the
event.
So that is the AX chair or someone else. Note designate not designate(s).

I know the "Team" wants the track to be as perfect as possible for the least amount of down time and greatest amount of laps for the entrants.
That is great, but if we loose a lap each practice session but Everyone has the same number of laps that seems more fair to me.

[cag4]

Just to add another opinion: I really enjoyed the track. Sure, it was harder than usual to master (not that I ever did), but it *really* rewarded looking and thinking ahead of the track. For whatever reason, I never felt "lost" or cone-blind on the course, but was still trying to optimize my lines in the timed runs... especially through the wide-open sections, which is probably as it should be.

Personally, I think the autocross designs recently have made a big positive difference. I can recall in past years hearing comments like, "Oh, its this layout again, with an extra kink." Since we have this amazing stretch of open blacktop (bumpy as it may be), I think we should continue to try new and interesting layouts to take advantage of the real-estate. That said, not every feature of every layout will be a big hit, at least not with every driver/car. As several folks mentioned, the start through the swale crossing was a HOOT! The swale crossing, plus the low RPM pull out of the ditch and up the hill, less so. The run from the u-turn through the slalom across the top was a blast as well. Committing to using every last inch of track out on the last left down the hill was a real risk/reward opportunity... good chance to take out 2-4 cones by running wide, or carry hell-a speed down the hill. I thought the finish was one of the best we've had in a long, long time. Too often we've finished on a turn or with such a short finish straight or with no room to slow after the straight that we haven't had a chance to enjoy the last ounce of adrenaline rush. This one felt just right.

As for pre-running the course being unfair? Sure, I suppose, but I'm not there the night before, or at 4:30 in the morning, so I don't begrudge those that are a couple laps worth of reward for their additional dedication -- I know I appreciate the attention they are paying to safety... that finish was adjusted at least 3 times to make it both fun and safe, and had to be pre-run each time. I guess, like the experimental layouts, IMHO, a few extra pre-runs in moderation, primarily for safety reasons is fine, just like trying new layout features to give us lots of variety is well worth the occasional frustration with features that don't work so well. I suspect that by later this year, or early next, Marcus and Andrew will have come up with a bunch of features that most people like, most of the time -- if we are lucky enough to still have them volunteering to layout our tracks (and still have a parking lot big enough to hold them)!

My $0.02,
Charles

[LUCKY DAVE]

I appreciate all the hard work the track designers and "track throwers" put in to make these interesting layouts. It's refreshing to drive track layouts that are unlike those of the past, sometimes it seemed like the "same old thing" before Andrew and Marcus got involved.
On this particular layout I had no trouble seeing the track right from my first lap. For my (beginning) student it was a different story, he was still getting "lost in the Lost gates" in second practice. This illustrates how much experience plays a part in being able to quickly learn a track, and pointed out to me that we have green beginners as well as serious competitors and everyone must be able to see the track, at least after a couple laps.

The issue of people who put in all the hard work getting to run laps the rest of us don't is a thorny one (and far above my pay grade). On the one hand, it gives them an unfair advantage, but on the other hand.....did they earn it?
I wasn't sweaty with a sore back after the track was thrown, I was at home doing something else, and got to simply show up and have all the fun driving on it. I don't think getting 10 more laps would have made me any faster either.
I guess I feel strongly about it both ways.....

[jenniferreinhardt]

J
As for pre-running the course being unfair? Sure, I suppose, but I'm not there the night before, or at 4:30 in the morning, so I don't begrudge those that are a couple laps worth of reward for their additional dedication -- I know I appreciate the attention they are paying to safety... that finish was adjusted at least 3 times to make it both fun and safe, and had to be pre-run each time. I guess, like the experimental layouts, IMHO, a few extra pre-runs in moderation, primarily for safety reasons is fine,

My $0.02,
Charles

Charles, I was told by one of the ax team members they got 12 laps the night before. And since my posts on this thread today, one of my private messages from a Driver told me he was told 12 laps as well - not a few runs as you suggested. That is a whole AX worth of laps, not a few laps! And what about the other Autocross Volunteers that put in a lot of time, like the Tech, Timing, Logistics and Pre Registration crew? Did they get this benefit? I did pre-reg off and on for 5 years, and it took at least 8 hours each event with all the emails and registrations. I sure as heck didn't get any extra time around the track.

[jenniferreinhardt]

FOR THE RECORD... I don't really want to take away anybody's times. But, if there were a threat of the whole team being penalized in the future, perhaps it will stop.[/color]

[mrondeau]

Volunteers' finishing positions:

CC02, 3 of 5
CC03, 2 of 3
CC06, 1 of 5
CC10, 2 of 6
SS04, 3 of 5
SS05, 2 of 3
SS06, 4, 5 and 9 of 13
SS07, 3 of 8
X, 2, 3, 4, and 6 of 8

BRI positions: 23, 36, 7, 16, 31, 88, 37, 45, 89, 32, for an average of 40.4 out of 100 running drivers (not including X).

In short, the setup volunteers finished marginally above average. They have an above average amount of experience (11 of 14 were instructors). I think it's very hard to conclude that their results should be invalidated, especially as that would penalize hard-working volunteers by taking them out of trophy contention for the entire year.

There are lies, damn lies and then statistics. I'm sure the math is a fun diversion, but doesn't change the fact that extra laps are an advantage. Every extra lap is an opportunity to memorize and adjust to the track. Just because they didn't all win their classes doesn't mean it didn't help. Maybe if I had thrown the track, I could have figured out how to catch Martin.

I don't believe all their points should be thrown out. I do believe the board should put a stop to this as it puts the club at risk. Insurance doesn't cover this, there are no waivers being signed and it could jeopardize our ability to rent the stadium. A volunteer's sense of entitlement is a dangerous thing. That's my $0.02. YMMV

[marcus981]

Thanks to everyone who provided feedback on the course. Sorry I couldn't be there for the actual event this time... I was up at Laguna Seca scouting ideas for our next AX design. I think the Q might actually have a pothole deep enough to simulate the Corkscrew.

Sorry to hear that the swale crossing "slingshot" caused issues for some folks. We had some reservations about it when we drew it up, but we thought the speed would be slow enough to avoid any scraping.

We'll probably also scrap the middle slalom concept. We thought it would be a good exercise for drivers to figure out how to set up for a good turn around the key slalom cone. I suspect that may explain part of the large time deltas within a few classes (for those that didn't figure that part out).

I'm actually not bothered by some people occasionally getting lost on the course, as long as they are only getting lost in safe areas. If nobody got lost, then we're not helping people develop driving vision (looking farther ahead) and course learning. Novices will continue to look one cone ahead on a fully coned course without knowing what's coming next if there wasn't something to force them to break that tendency. Aside from the middle slalom on this particular course, we try to make sure that the next element is always within a reasonable range of forward vision for the driver.

As you can see from the original post in this thread, we typically post the map online Tuesday before the event at http://ax.pcasdr.org, so everyone is welcome to study it for as long as they would like. Hint: you'll get a significant advantage over your competitors if you show up having already memorized the course and visualized your steering inputs to navigate through it.

I'm happy to hear that many people have been receptive to some of the unusual elements we've introduced recently, even if some of them don't work out and need to get axed. I was starting to get bored from driving and setting up fully coned courses, so I assume that other folks may also have been ready for more variety and new challenges.

[marcus981]

Insurance doesn't cover this, there are no waivers being signed and it could jeopardize our ability to rent the stadium.

Waivers ARE being signed, and I believe we made arrangements for insurance to cover the evening-before-setup in addition to the event. Mark Curran can confirm.

[mrondeau]

Insurance doesn't cover this, there are no waivers being signed and it could jeopardize our ability to rent the stadium.

Waivers ARE being signed, and I believe we made arrangements for insurance to cover the evening-before-setup in addition to the event. Mark Curran can confirm.

If that's true, then at least the club's liability is minimized. That still leaves the simple fact that additional laps are a distinct advantage. It's just a matter of playing fair. All drivers should have an equal chance to drive and learn the track. It may not always make a difference in the end. Not all drivers need additional laps to do well and not all drivers who get those additional laps do better. There still needs to be a level playing field or at least as level as we can make it.

Hopefully the board will review this policy, if this is what was previously approved, and do what's fair. If it wasn't previously approved, then perhaps this will stop now.

[marcus981]

Andrew and I are also at an advantage by designing the track, and knowingly including some specific challenges.

Instructors also have an advantage for riding with their students for their 10-14 laps, particularly if they have more advanced students.

Instructors without assigned students also have an advantage if they ride along with other experienced drivers (or vice versa) on as many laps as they want.

My lap times improve more from these advantages compared to me driving extra laps on my own.

So, where do we draw the line for reasonable fairness for our club? I'm not suggesting we don't create a clear policy on setup test laps, but I'm just raising the point that fairness is in the eye of the beholder.

[ttweed]

As you can see from the original post in this thread, we typically post the map online Tuesday before the event at http://ax.pcasdr.org, so everyone is welcome to study it for as long as they would like. Hint: you'll get a significant advantage over your competitors if you show up having already memorized the course and visualized your steering inputs to navigate through it.

As is often the case, the posted map did not duplicate the course that was set up in a number of ways, Marcus. The "slingshot" for instance, turned into "Zorro's mark"-- a "Z" instead of an upside-down "L." The first slalom cone was south of the exit, not north of it, as depicted in the drawing. The were other variations from the map compared to the actual course that made studying it ahead of time (which I did) an exercise in approximation rather than a "visualization" of what we actually drove. This is quite common, in my experience, when translating a concept to the actual conditions of the parking lot. While the drawing is nice to have ahead of time, I don't depend on it to the extent you seem to believe is possible or useful.

I, for one, do appreciate the variety and challenge of open elements you are trying to introduce and have advocated for them in the past. Some designs work better than others. Keep up the good work.

TT

[Robert Joe]

Apart from the Swale and Curved Slalom, I thought the course was really good. I prefer the flow of the more open courses. Yes, some will tend to get 1 or 2 DNF's they may not have got following a sea of cones but that just means they are not looking ahead. I did my first 4 years of AX with PCASDR and when I went to SCCA I initially DNF'd my first couple of runs. Then after a few events, I was OK because I learned to look ahead. That is when I started to become a really good driver.

I see the same thing when some PCASDR folks come up to PCAOCR - they DNF or get lost but in short time, they get the hang of it. When people ask me how they can get faster, I tell to go up to PCAOCR because it is that type of course layout that makes you fast.

It is like a kid coming off training wheels and starting to ride on two wheels. Yes they will be a little wobbly and may even fall over but in no time, they will be riding fast. They won't want to go back to training wheels because that impedes their flow.

For those a little frustrated because you feel a little lost and feel slower, give it a few events and you will like it. Scan ahead for your exits, position your car for the exit, brake early, brake less, turn early, turn less, get the nose of the car pointed to the back side of the cone and gas, gas, gas.

[marcus981]

Thanks Tom,

Since I wasn't at this one, I can't comment on the track adjustments made at the event compared to the Tuesday map.

However, the maps I post before the event have been very accurate for at least 90% of each course's cone positions, so I still think studying the early map is not a waste. The map is designed to-scale in a CAD program with many layers (including a satellite image), so even though the map we post looks like a cartoon, it is actually perfectly to scale. We then use GPS devices to place all of the key cones when setting up. So, the only deviations between the map and the actual course is from last minute adjustments due to newly discovered potholes or from some issue discovered from the test drive. My CAD program has at least 50 pothole positions already identified, so that allows us to design around them and it minimizes the chance for a last-minute-change. Additionally, when we set up the day before, I use GPS data logging to update the printed maps to exactly match the course that we set up. So, for those concerned about studying the map too early, you can always arrive a little early on AX day and pick up a printed map to study.

I also saw a few comments about bumpy conditions due to patches. That is much harder to deal with, since the potholes are already so limiting on setting up a flowing course. It would take significant additional time (which we don't have on those 4:30am setup days) during actual course setup to adjust for those bumpy patches. In a few cases where we tried to make adjustments to avoid a patch that some thought might be dangerous, I think we actually ended up with more complaints about the trade-off we had to make to avoid the patch compared to just leaving the course alone. We'll probably have to live with those patches and consider them just another characteristic of the course in most cases.