Course Design Poll

[Anonymous]

Personally I don't like a lot of FAST courses. Especially at SPC. I have run at SPC a ton of times, and I think I have only liked 2 courses EVER. In my opinion all the rest have serious flaws.

Brooksville is a little harder to mess up, but I think that flow and ease of reading the course can be improved on a lot of courses.

I think that everyone could benefit if we made course design a more public topic. Never has any chairman came to this forum and asked for help or advice. It seems like it is always a select few people behind closed doors designing courses and that bothers me. Only one person has ever posted a course design here and asked for comments or feedback. That was me, around Nov. 2007.

What I am suggesting is not a design by committee. It's not about "I like slaloms" or "I hate Chicago boxes". It more like, post your course, people can make comments like "This section would flow better if..." or "This section would be easier to read if...." and you would have specific evidence from the handbook to back these claims up.

If this is too public. Then even having a small private committee where different people could be invited into the process if they are interested in possibly designing a course in the future. Maybe have a private forum where say 5 or 6 people could be involved in the process.

In my experience, it has been 1 course designer and 1 safety steward designing courses, and I don't think this method benefits the club.

Please vote on the poll and add your own ideas.
Thanks.

PS I am not interested nor qualified to teach a class in course design. Everything you need to know is in the course design handbook. I think the problem is applying those concepts to real life.

[Agent]

Kenny and myself were thinking about doing a 2 lap course on Saturday and a regular autocross on Sunday for our event in March.

Since the first day would be 2 laps, we could overlap them a little bit and that would give us more like 2.5 laps. We could have a little faster of a course, and still pull off a good long run.

On Sunday, we could have a regular 5-6 run event with a little more focus on a little bit faster speeds (keeping it in reason and safely) for some of the guys who like to go faster. (like me, and I'm sure I'm not the only one)

Maybe we could all collaborate on this a little bit, I have no problem with people throwing ideas out. The best course has a little bit of everything.

[Jamie]

Personally I don't like a lot of FAST courses.

I hear you saying that over and over, but I've yet to see you take on the challenge. Have a shot at it using whatever method you feel most effective, and tell us what you thought you did that made it better than other courses. It can't be just a paper exercise, though -- courses always look different in real life than they do on the map. We'll need to run it.

[impalanut]

While I have my own ideas about how a course should be set up I think there are some common threads to every course. First is the safety aspect, which everyone should agree on and for which there are solid guidelines. Second, is that autocross is an event for precision driving and handling rather than a pure speed event. That is not to say that speed shouldn't be a factor. I like the idea of having the course chairman design the course because there should be a variety of ideas and approaches. Course design by group or public input would likely lead to all courses being the same, or close to it since the same small group of people seem to be the most vocal on the forum, and the same small group of people seem to show up for the occasional planning meeting. Just go down to Ft Myers to see this in action. If you go to forums for other groups including the SCCA you will see similar discussions and arguments about course design, and probably a lot more whining than we have. While I am not professing to be the expert, I am happy to give any input asked for, but I won't be so presumptuous as to force my opinion unless I see an unsafe area. If there was enough interest, we might be able to get some kind of class with people who have designed courses at a national level.

[Anonymous]

Personally I don't like a lot of FAST courses.

I hear you saying that over and over, but I've yet to see you take on the challenge. Have a shot at it using whatever method you feel most effective, and tell us what you thought you did that made it better than other courses. It can't be just a paper exercise, though -- courses always look different in real life than they do on the map. We'll need to run it.

I designed a course for the Nov 2006 NASA-X event. Pretty sure everyone liked it.
Looking at it 2 years later, there are plenty of things I would improve upon though.
http://www.tamparacing.com/photopost/da" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... ourse1.jpg

[Anonymous]

While I have my own ideas about how a course should be set up I think there are some common threads to every course. First is the safety aspect, which everyone should agree on and for which there are solid guidelines. Second, is that autocross is an event for precision driving and handling rather than a pure speed event. That is not to say that speed shouldn't be a factor. I like the idea of having the course chairman design the course because there should be a variety of ideas and approaches. Course design by group or public input would likely lead to all courses being the same, or close to it since the same small group of people seem to be the most vocal on the forum, and the same small group of people seem to show up for the occasional planning meeting. Just go down to Ft Myers to see this in action. If you go to forums for other groups including the SCCA you will see similar discussions and arguments about course design, and probably a lot more whining than we have. While I am not professing to be the expert, I am happy to give any input asked for, but I won't be so presumptuous as to force my opinion unless I see an unsafe area. If there was enough interest, we might be able to get some kind of class with people who have designed courses at a national level.

I agree with everything you said. The "course design group" doesn't have to be the same people every time though. This would prevent the course designs from becoming stale.

[Anonymous]

Stolen from the other thread...

Most people...will often collaborate with a few people, not with "everyone". I've found that most people are VERY accomodating of the suggestions that are given to them in their "safety review", as long as they've started the design process early enough to have time to make revisions.

+1. Scott sent me an initial draft and I returned some comments. He's sending it for safety review (and additional comments)...should be a reasonable result.

So basically, a novice course designer and Jamie/Loren/Ron/Steve design every course. And this happens over and over again every month.

All I am saying is add a few more novice course designers into the mix and let them learn too. It takes at least 4 tries designing a course before you finally get the hang of it. Why are you guys training 1 person every month when you could be training 5 at a time.

[Loren]

Jamie/Loren/Ron/Steve design every course. And this happens over and over again every month.

Our list of trained safety stewards is longer than just those four. There are also Howard, Aaron, Dan, Nick and yourself just off the top of my head. (I'm sure there are at least a couple others who have either been trained by myself or are qualified either by SCCA training or sheer experience) Some volunteer to put their training to use more than others do. But, such is the nature of an all-volunteer organization.

[Alizarin]

I voted that it's fine the way it is, and here's why. Each course is designed by a different event chair. These event chair have different ideas as to what they like or don't like in a course. They also have the right to defer to somebody else and have them design the course, or use one already run before. Most of them don't.

Personally, I like courses that flow well, no matter what the features used. That and not having to downshift to 1st gear. I also like more open finishes because it allows people to straighten out before going through the lights.

I've done 2 events at each site, and I think I've done alright with my course designs. You can't please all the people all the time, but if I get positive comments from certain people, I consider it a win. Other event chairs may prefer slaloms, or lane change maneuvers, or offset gates. It all comes down to whoever is running the event.

[Anonymous]

However, YOU might take it upon yourself to do a sort of online course design class in just that manner.

If Roger Johnson or Karen Babb were teaching, it would be a boon. Local talent needs to simply step up and chair or co-chair an event, which entitles you to take your best shot and ask for as little or as much help as you want.

I just realized that Jamie nailed it right there. The people that chair events aren't interested in becoming better course designers or don't realize that you aren't going to become better without help. So they don't ask.

When I design courses, I get as many opinions as I can from people that have designed successful courses, because I want to become better. Same with my driving, I always ask people who are better than me to ride with me or if I can ride with them.

I guess this thread is done. Short of FAST requiring people to get help, it's not going to happen. And requiring help is kind of silly.

[Anonymous]

Woohoo, 1 person voted with me.

[Jamie]

When I design courses, I get as many opinions as I can from people that have designed successful courses, because I want to become better.

I think you'd find the course designers for each event ask for more help than you realize. Wrt Loren and I, at least, I think we're pretty willing to let variations come through, though. I know I tend to look for decently wide gates (15-25 ft, depending on the corner) to allow people to pick their own driving line, and strive for the course to be clear enough that a noob can navigate through it without getting lost (which is not the same as driving it quickly). I don't much care whether it's a momentum course or more technical -- on my own courses, I tend to work some technical parts in, but don't insist on it.

You haven't pointed out what you don't like about the courses you've run. (Leave out the SPC police course -- it's not typical.) I know from watching you drive -- and the course design you posted reinforces it -- that you prefer momentum courses. IMO, that's just a preference, though. What else are we not seeing?

[Anonymous]

What else are we not seeing?

I think I could make suggestions to improve flow, readability, etc. Every time a course map gets posted, I have comments about it. But at that point it's finalized and I keep my mouth shut, because I don't think anyone wants to hear a critique on a finalized course map.

Loren mentioned there are a bunch of safety stewards who help in the process. But how many of them have designed more than 5 courses? Maybe you and Loren?

I just don't see the course designs improving under the current system. With public discussion we can all become better designers, and at the same time better course readers!!!

Will this cause fights, problems, etc, and be totally not worth the trouble? Maybe, but it's just an idea.

[Jack]

keep it comming!
i agree !
i my self have not tryed to design yet, i am still learning myself.
i do think we need to challange our selfs and try to design good courses!
i am currently becoming an scca safety steward so we have one more safety person to the list.

heres a thought, at lunch at the event bring out a chalk board, white board, etc
then let the group go over the next event layout, make suggestions, to the event chair as to what the group wants???
you wanted feed back well the whole group will be there.
then you can design from the groups suggestions!

[Native]

The following quotes are from this thread:

http://www.kickflop.net/autocrossbb/vie" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... c&start=75

I just want to help people have better course designs, but no one is interested in learning.

YOU might take it upon yourself to do a sort of online course design class in just that manner. People can learn in just the way you propose... and maybe someday someone will actually use the resultant course design or parts of it... but it doesn't need to be intended as a course for a specific event. Get my drift? Maybe start with "here's a typical course design that a first-time course designer might come up with... let's discuss what's right with it, what's wrong with it, and how we can make it better". And go from there.

I guess I thought this thread was going to be a discussion about different ideas regarding how to design a good autocross course, not a critique of the "FAST Method of Course Design." But there's nothing wrong with taking a look at that, too. From looking at poll results so far, it seems folks are ok with our current process. Which, as has been stated, requires a design to go through multiple revisions, reviewed by different eyes, looking for a variety of features and issues, and then even though posted on-line invariably gets tweaked again by a variety of different people during setup. It actually is "couse design by committee" and that committee is made up of some of the same people each time, and some different people each time.

I'll make a disclaimer that while I have never been to an SCCA event locally (yet), I've heard lots about them and have had some experience with SCCA folks at FAST events, and feel reasonably comfortable in stating that it's obvious they "their" design philosophy is different than "ours." So it makes sense that the courses might be different. That's not necessarily bad, in fact, variety between clubs is good. That way, people can pick what they like better.

If we COULD actually have a discussion about the different ideas and philosophies about how to design a good couse, I bet it would be helpful for a lot of people. I have to think that folks are hesitant to volunteer to chair events because they think they HAVE TO design a course, and know they either haven't ever before, or aren't very good at it. Teaching folks might help that, and get us away from training one person at a time, as someone noted above. We talk about "flow," and "smooth," and "momentum," and "painful," but most folks have no idea how to go from the words to a coursemap. Even after reading Johnson.

Maybe we could even start a new subforum for Course Design talk. We could post old courses, or new ideas, and everyone could discuss and learn. Then, when time comes to volunteer to chair an event and actually design a course, it might not be so intimidating, or frustrating?

[Native]

edit: delete duplicate post

[Jamie]

I think I could make suggestions to improve flow, readability, etc. Every time a course map gets posted, I have comments about it.

You haven't told us anything other than you don't like most of the courses...there are no common elements to that dislike? Too technical? Not technical enough? Gates too narrow? Too hard to read?

Being a regular in both clubs, I disagree that local SCCA courses reflect a different design philosophy, other than lately they've been experimenting with ways to make the runs longer by looping back on part of the course. The couple of folks who do most of the course designs prefer longer courses, and given the small grids, its doesn't stretch out the day too long. I see a preference for momentum courses in both clubs. Part of that is driven by the site -- it's difficult to do a highly technical course on a runway -- and part by driver preference. To be fair, that's an overall trend in autocross over the last several years. Skill with the middle pedal is tested less these days, which is too bad. Features often condemned for breaking flow actually flow quite nicely if the driver uses more than the throttle and the steering wheel.

I do like Steve's idea about resurrecting some of the old courses and discussing them. Pull one that's at least several months old, post it up, and let's discuss. I recommend not picking courses we all knew were compromised or experiments -- Muddy's back-of-the-envelope redesign at Lakeland was imposed by necessity and time; the police course at SPC was something many people wanted to try once. Failing to experiment -- or let new designers try out ideas -- just means we run the same course all the time. Set it up!

[Anonymous]

I think I could make suggestions to improve flow, readability, etc. Every time a course map gets posted, I have comments about it.

You haven't told us anything other than you don't like most of the courses...there are no common elements to that dislike? Too technical? Not technical enough? Gates too narrow? Too hard to read?

I said "flow, readability, etc." in the quote above. But really it could be anything.

Failing to experiment -- or let new designers try out ideas -- just means we run the same course all the time.

It was never my intention to stop new designers from getting creative. I just want the course design process to be more public. So that more people can learn what makes a good course.

How are courses supposed to improve in design when you have 2 or 3 novice course designers creating a course in secret? Do you think FAST has reached the pinnacle of course designs and there is no way we could all improve? Does the current process foster improvement? Does anyone care?

FAST has been making great improvements in all areas of autocross in the last few years. I just felt it was time to address course design as the next step in becoming a better organization.

[Native]

FAST has been making great improvements in all areas of autocross in the last few years.

High praise from a credible source. Thanks.

How are courses supposed to improve in design when you have 2 or 3 novice course designers creating a course in secret?

2/3 of those who responded to the poll don't think there's a problem. Further, there is no "in secret" - no conspiracy. No one has ever said a course-designer-event-chair couldn't post their idea for pre-safety-approval feedback. People have chosen not to. I wouldn't - it would easily become a "too many cooks spoil the broth" kind of situation.

So, to improve course design, whether it needs it or not depending who you ask, so far ideas include: we can discuss old designs; people can post their ideas, either randomly or as they are actually chairing/designing an event; someone(s) with enough skill could host a forum discussion/lecture; we could meet before, during or after an event to critique/discuss/learn. These are all valid, do-able ideas, and could be used in any combination...

So yeah, evidently people do care, and if anyone has any other ideas for how we may spread the skill of course design, let's hear 'em!

[Loren]

What I'm seeing is a lot of good ideas, but nothing that requires a "policy change". If you're an event chairman or designated course designer and you want to do any of these things, DO IT! But, if you don't want to do these things, we're happy that you volunteered and we'll be happy with whatever course you come up with as long as "safety" approves it for both safety and drivability.

I'm still waiting for Jeremy to start his class.