PCA SDR

The course map for this Sunday's autocross is now posted on the live results site:

http://ax.pcasdr.org/axindex.php?p=Track_Map&f=ROWBYG&c=CAR#CAR

For those who missed the past two AX's, or for those who may have struggled to find their way through the past two AX courses, we recommend studying the map early to prepare for the event.

The map includes a dotted gray line to clarify the "middle-of-the-road" path through the elements (of course, not a good driving line). However, on the day of the event, we will have a couple of enlarged printed maps taped to tables that include two different driving line strategy examples (blue and red lines). Those examples are meant to spur some thoughts, conversation, and experimentation to help you determine the best line for your car. We'll also have printed handouts of the online map available.

Questions and feedback are welcome.

Excellent track! Lots of fun.Thanks!

Agreed! A most excellent track. Sorry to the corner workers for my two off track adventures and thanks for pointing me back on. Fantastic flow and great lines --just a little getting used to

I thought the flow was good, the layout fun and challenging, but the bumps and braking zones were horrible. In an early car without ABS, most of the braking had to be done where it could be, not where I would have liked. Granted, my car is much stiffer than most, but the bumps really threw my car around and made for some exciting moments. I guess I'd forgotten how bad the parking lot is.

This was definitely not my favorite course.
Super rough for stiff cars like Mark commented; but the gates were the real issue.
In all fairness Marcus said if you had issues with finding gate last time you need study the map.
I barely had time to finish the car let alone study the map and I did not run the last AX.
I looked at the map several times, but did not commit it to memory.

I did stand in pre grid several sessions setting tire pressures and watched car after experienced car come in in their second, not first session being told they missed one or more gates.
This is an indication of a problem to me. One you knew you would have if you name a section "Lost gates".
The first track of this type I thought was good and the second one I ran a Friday night set up lap and thought it was much harder but OK, this one not so much.

I just don't think we should lose "track" of what the mission statement of AX really is.
It is an entry level driving event to teach people driving skills and car control so they can be safer more skilled drivers and move up in the driving ranks.
On a safety note we had two ultra experienced red group drivers almost make contact because one driver lost their way.
This is not the SCCA national tour and we should consider what best serves the majority of the drivers.

Just my opinion and I certainly hope we don't run this kind of course for our post PDS events.

I completely agree Steve!

First off, congratulations to Martin for TTOD and Mark and Kathy's times were great too! I have not been so far off Martin's times in years, and now have learned a valuable lesson to keep better track of my tire pressures.

There were some good elements in the track. But, it also was flawed because SO many people hit cones when we have SO many less cones with our new SCCA gimmick track layouts. Plus, corner working seems much less safe than it used to be with now having to flat out run to pick up cones between cars approaching at high rates of speed.

In addition, Autocross is meant to involve a track that has to be quickly learned. In the spirit of fairness, I think the club should adopt a rule as to how many practice laps the Autocross Track Chair and Set Up Team gets when they are setting up the track in advance. I was told by one AX team member they got 12 laps the night before. And in the morning of the event, I'm sure even more. As Jim Duncan pointed out to me, the track was changed a few times. There is still the general track layout and feel of camber and possible speed and breaking zones, bumps, the black paint lines that make breaking difficult, etc Geez, what we all could have done with 12 extra runs! I heard other people express the same concerns yesterday, and in the past, it has been brought up to the Board. But, it continues to be unchecked and unsportsmanlike in my view. (Yes, I have done my share of volunteering for the club so don't need to volunteer on the team if I don't like it)

Jack Brennan mentioned that SCCA has strict rules on who gets to drive the track ahead of the event and how often. Perhaps he will reiterate the SCCA rule.

At the awards ceremony I pointed out to Andrew, what I felt were the positives and negatives of the track.
The start all the way to the swale was fun, flowing and fast, with it's element of risk and reward...
the curved slalom was horrible, it destroyed all the promise of the start and left a bad taste through the fun mid section and the good finish
You would think with all the night before laps they would have realized this
Anyway, I applaud their efforts in trying something new, but maybe it is time to dial it back a notch

jenniferreinhardt wrote:Jack Brennan mentioned that SCCA has strict rules on who gets to drive the track ahead of the event and how often. Perhaps he will reiterate the SCCA rule.

I would note that SCCA National level events are very different than ours. I wouldn't want to see ours ever move to their format, which is: no practice runs, three timed runs and you're done.

Given that their format is "three timed runs and you're done", it's easy to see how even a single practice run could slant the competition to a driver's advantage. I believe that any driving of the course to check for flow and safety is done by a non-competitor. (The National staff members are mostly composed of accomplished autocrossers, so there's available expertise there.)


I might suggest a modification of that idea that might work a lot better for us -- nobody gets to pre-run the course in the car they will be using for competition, or in a substantially equivalent car. We have enough variety of cars available among autoX team members that you could even state that nobody gets to pre-run the course in a car with the same drivetrain layout. If you're going to be competing in a front-engined car, you have to do any pre-runs in a mid-engined or rear-engined car. That should eliminate a lot of the advantage to getting extra runs. I'm willing to bet that Mark or Marcus could learn a lot about the safety and flow of the track if they did laps in Leigh's car or Jerry's car, but they wouldn't take much away that would apply directly to their own runs in their own cars.

Mark is right, the problems with the surface at the Q have only gotten worse since they did the big patching job. The patches were not tamped down well and most of them stand up by 3/4" or so, which tends to launch a stiffly sprung car upwards when crossing them at speed. It's hard to brake (even with ABS) when the wheels are in the air! Beside that, they seem to crumble gravel all day, making the course even more slippery with marbles as the day goes on, instead of having grip improve on the course. I was a second and a half slower in timed runs than in practice, but that may be because of my tires going away, or not being able to adapt to the problems, although others seemed to be running slower in the afternoon as well. I think the clubs did a better job of patching over the last few years than the stadium did.

There is nothing a course designer can do about it though--there's no "designing around" the patches because they are so extensive now. This course was very difficult to learn and I DNF'd twice in practice from not seeing my way around well enough at speed. Lacking any chalk lines, I think we need to use more extensive barrier cone lines (more than just 3 cones laying on their side) to help people find their way in the open sections. You need some more visual cues about where the course is going as you exit an element. The "Lost Gates" section was an example of the need for this.

After running with SCCA for many years, I was OK with the course once I learned it except for one element--the Z-turn across the swale was too painful for me. Even though it was very slow, my car dipped the front splitter into the asphalt every time I crossed it at speed. The swale is deepest right next to that large storm drain where the turn was placed, and even though the crossing was at an angle, the fact that you were forced to turn right as you crossed meant that one side of the car was lower from weight transfer. I would have preferred a different location for that crossing, at a shallower spot with the car in a level, settled attitude, so as not to be forced to crawl through the section in order to avoid damaging the car. After the swale crossing, the course really broke down, IMHO. The "curved slalom" was a failure. The first cone of the slalom after the swale crossing had no relation to the rest and actually required a left turn as you exited the "Z" section and then a full right turn as you rounded it. Offset slaloms are fine, but having the next slalom cone in a 90-degree different direction, 100 yards up the track from the first one, is beyond "offset." That first "slalom" cone needed a solid barrier around it to point you in the right direction on exit, combined with a curved line of barrier cones forcing you to the left on exiting from the "Z" to lead you to it.

That's my $0.02,
TT

jbrennen wrote:

jenniferreinhardt wrote:Jack Brennan mentioned that SCCA has strict rules on who gets to drive the track ahead of the event and how often. Perhaps he will reiterate the SCCA rule.

I might suggest a modification of that idea that might work a lot better for us -- nobody gets to pre-run the course in the car they will be using for competition, or in a substantially equivalent car. We have enough variety of cars available among autoX team members that you could even state that nobody gets to pre-run the course in a car with the same drivetrain layout. If you're going to be competing in a front-engined car, you have to do any pre-runs in a mid-engined or rear-engined car. That should eliminate a lot of the advantage to getting extra runs. I'm willing to bet that Mark or Marcus could learn a lot about the safety and flow of the track if they did laps in Leigh's car or Jerry's car, but they wouldn't take much away that would apply directly to their own runs in their own cars.

I like it - but really only the Safety Chair and Autocross Chair should be driving the track ahead of time.

I will be writing a letter to the Board about this issue, as well as following up that something is done about it instead of sweeping it under the rug again!

ttweed wrote:
After running with SCCA for many years, I was OK with the course once I learned it except for one element--the Z-turn across the swale was too painful for me. Even though it was very slow, my car dipped the front splitter into the asphalt every time I crossed it at speed. The swale is deepest right next to that large storm drain where the turn was placed, and even though the crossing was at an angle, the fact that you were forced to turn right as you crossed meant that one side of the car was lower from weight transfer. I would have preferred a different location for that crossing, at a shallower spot with the car in a level, settled attitude, so as not to be forced to crawl through the section in order to avoid damaging the car. After the swale crossing, the course really broke down, IMHO. The "curved slalom" was a failure. The first cone of the slalom after the swale crossing had no relation to the rest and actually required a left turn as you exited the "Z" section and then a full right turn as you rounded it. Offset slaloms are fine, but having the next slalom cone in a 90-degree different direction, 100 yards up the track from the first one, is beyond "offset." That first "slalom" cone needed a solid barrier around it to point you in the right direction on exit, combined with a curved line of barrier cones forcing you to the left on exiting from the "Z" to lead you to it.

That's my $0.02,
TT

Tom et al.,

I agree that the curved slalom section did not work. I generally do not drive the course during setup, because I prefer to rely on the opinions of others who don't know the "intent" of the design. Usually, having 6-8 volunteers of varying experience level drive the track is valuable in this way.

The failure of this particular course element brings up a more fundamental question- how much experimentation do the membership want in their tracks? Some previous elements (the split course, the under-the-trolley start on the east lot, the "playground" wide box turns) have been successes, and some have not (curved slalom, lane change exiting into a sweeper). Is the risk of having a dissatisfying element worth the reward of new elements that challenge enjoyably?

All inputs are valued (even the ones with four letter words ). We're here to make autocross the best possible experience for all of our drivers, and your input helps us make better informed decisions across a wide range of car types and experience levels.

Andrew

jbrennen wrote:

jenniferreinhardt wrote:Jack Brennan mentioned that SCCA has strict rules on who gets to drive the track ahead of the event and how often. Perhaps he will reiterate the SCCA rule.

I would note that SCCA National level events are very different than ours. I wouldn't want to see ours ever move to their format, which is: no practice runs, three timed runs and you're done.

Given that their format is "three timed runs and you're done", it's easy to see how even a single practice run could slant the competition to a driver's advantage. I believe that any driving of the course to check for flow and safety is done by a non-competitor. (The National staff members are mostly composed of accomplished autocrossers, so there's available expertise there.)


I might suggest a modification of that idea that might work a lot better for us -- nobody gets to pre-run the course in the car they will be using for competition, or in a substantially equivalent car. We have enough variety of cars available among autoX team members that you could even state that nobody gets to pre-run the course in a car with the same drivetrain layout. If you're going to be competing in a front-engined car, you have to do any pre-runs in a mid-engined or rear-engined car. That should eliminate a lot of the advantage to getting extra runs. I'm willing to bet that Mark or Marcus could learn a lot about the safety and flow of the track if they did laps in Leigh's car or Jerry's car, but they wouldn't take much away that would apply directly to their own runs in their own cars.

Additional passes prior to the start of the event is a definite advantage. I would suggest that only the course designer/AX chair and the safety chair run the course and only to determine flow and safety. That could be done in one or two passes. The current practice is unfair and appears contrary to our agreement with the stadium.

Our members have either forgotten or don't know that we used to set the AX track the day of the event. The course was thrown by two people in the back of the truck while the driver followed the track map and made adjustments on the fly due to the condition of the pavement. The track was then roped by two sets of people while others set up the grid area. It seemed like we did more with less back then. This is not to take away from the current set up process or to malign any of our current volunteers. Just bringing it up for perspective.

The practice of driving the track the evening before the AX started with the PDS. We used to set up the track Saturday evening and drive it to check it out and have a little fun. This was never a problem since we had the lot rented for both days and the AX the next day was a non competitive event.

ScandinavianFlick wrote:We're here to make autocross the best possible experience for all of our drivers, and your input helps us make better informed decisions across a wide range of car types and experience levels.

Just offering my input in that spirit, Andrew, as I'm sure you know. No 4-letter words included or necessary, and overall, I can still say it was a fun day of driving, without any major incidents. It takes a village to put on an autocross event, and I appreciate everyone's efforts in pulling them off. It won't be too long before we're looking back at the "good ol' days" at Qualcomm stadium, so we better enjoy them while we can. Congrats to Martin and Mark for great driving on a tough course to win TTOD and top BRI time, and I think everyone has to recognize what a phenomenal job Kathy and Bill did in running low 1:23s in a 2000 Boxster, not to mention Robert and WT in those pesky Miatas! And I have to give a big shout out to Robert Baizer for developing our electronic app for broadcasting timing and scoring for both TT and AX. I have run a lot of events over the last 18 years with many different organizations, and no one else has such a sophisticated and efficient method of delivering real-time results to participants.

TT

ScandinavianFlick wrote:I agree that the curved slalom section did not work. I generally do not drive the course during setup, because I prefer to rely on the opinions of others who don't know the "intent" of the design. Usually, having 6-8 volunteers of varying experience level drive the track is valuable in this way.
Andrew

The tremendous effort the AX team makes to design a track is truly appreciated! My concern is fairness to all Member AX Drivers.

The fact is that 6 to 8 people, depending on their skill level, probably improved their time by 1 to 3 seconds - by getting those extra 12 laps around the course prior to the start of the competitive event. This is true even if they were driving 7/10ths. How many won their class that day, or lowered someone else's results yesterday, as well as affecting another Driver's results in the year long championship?

To be truly fair, the people who got all those extra runs prior to the AX should have their AX results removed. This problem was addressed by the powers-that-be in the past and was not corrected.

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.