Da Groj

Native wrote: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.

How about "the more the merrier" or "two heads are better than one"?
I don't think people understand that no one is trying to ruin or change their design, just improve it. As people have said, having different course designers for every event is a positive, not a negative.

Simply posting a course map and asking for comments is not going to kill you. You don't even have to follow the advice if you don't want to. I know I wouldn't care as long as my comments were at least welcomed.

I think adding a separate forum for course design would be cool. You could give chairmen the option of going there for help pre-event, and we could discuss previous courses. Not sure if it would be used enough to warrant the work it'll take to add.

So... when does the class start?

As for my opinion on it, I just adjust to the course, I don't really care what the course is.

Dave-ROR wrote: As for my opinion on it, I just adjust to the course, I don't really care what the course is.

Yea... well, with your Grand Marquis it doesn't matter how tight the course is.

snookwheel wrote:

Dave-ROR wrote: As for my opinion on it, I just adjust to the course, I don't really care what the course is.

Yea... well, with your Grand Marquis it doesn't matter how tight the course is.

LOL yeah if anyone should be whining about a tight technical course design around here it should be me damnit.

Loren wrote: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.

+1

Jeremy wrote:I don't think people understand that no one is trying to ruin or change their design, just improve it.

Possibly so.

Jeremy wrote:As people have said, having different course designers for every event is a positive, not a negative.

Yes, and good for us for setting it up that way. Now to find a way to train them all at once, right?

Jeremy wrote:Simply posting a course map and asking for comments is not going to kill you. You don't even have to follow the advice if you don't want to.

+1. Except unless the advice is a clear safety issue.

Jeremy wrote:I think adding a separate forum for course design would be cool. You could give chairmen the option of going there for help pre-event, and we could discuss previous courses. Not sure if it would be used enough to warrant the work it'll take to add.

Well, Kickslop added the Vendor forum just for the asking, didn't complain, and that doesn't get used much. I'll check with him about adding another section and see just what a big deal it is. I think it'll be ok... I'd think a sub-forum under General, yes?

Native wrote:I'd think a sub-forum under General, yes?

I'd vote for a subforum under "Upcoming events" since we apparently intend for it to be a "course design in the open" thing?

Honestly, I think that's a great idea no matter where it is eventually put. Have the safety review right out in a new thread. Iterations of the course posted as we go. It hits the areas that Jeremy is yearning for, and will, in theory, make the safety guy's jobs easier since we could perhaps have a "common issues from safety" thread or people will hopefully read some threads in there before designing. We could even enable attaching images in that forum for members maybe? That way nobody has to worry about finding a place to upload them, etc.

Plus, it's always fun to watch a course design evolve. I usually go through about 10 revisions before I even send it out for safety review and comments.

Alizarin wrote:I'd vote for a subforum under "Upcoming events" since we apparently intend for it to be a "course design in the open" thing?

Have we? What I read was we're going to set up a forum to discuss design features of previous courses as mutual education.

Honestly, I think that's a great idea no matter where it is eventually put.

I'll be the grouchy person who disagrees. Any engineer knows a design by committee is compromised; the larger the committee, the more the compromise, and the longer it takes. We may as well design a standard course and never change it.

If preventing gaffes by inexperienced course designers is a problem, let's automatically pair 'em up with someone more experienced and rotate the duty. Pick a number for "experienced" -- 5 courses? 10? 50? "Course gurus" each year picked by the membership? Anything has to be better than nit-picking a design clean of any unique and interesting aspects through on-line kibbitzing.

Jamie wrote:Anything has to be better than nit-picking a design clean of any unique and interesting aspects through on-line kibbitzing.

From past events, I wouldn't expect too many comments other than a few "looks fun". Plus on-line kibbitzing is better than kibbitzing during the event. For example, changing a course at the last minute after everyone has already walked it.

Jeremy wrote:From past events, I wouldn't expect too many comments other than a few "looks fun". Plus on-line kibbitzing is better than kibbitzing during the event. For example, changing a course at the last minute after everyone has already walked it.

The only time I remember THAT happening in recent history was when the course designer never submitted his design for approval, showed up with a paper map and set up his course that had obvious safety issues.

If the design approval process is followed, only minor changes are required on-site.

I had a thought ....

(usually a dangerous thing)

My apologies if this has come up before... I've read some of the threads on here, but I have a life too (sometimes) and can't read all of them.

I'll lead up to how I came up with it...

My car got rubbed in traffic today. I'm not very happy, but the lady was nice, and the insurance is covering the damage (or so they say now). Several people asked "what happened?", and I go through the same mental exercise, explaining the intersection, my position, their position, relative speeds, and final outcome.

Before TPD showed up, I sketched the scene on paper, so I wouldn't have to overexplain it. He was appreciative. I didn't hear the other drivers explanation (I was in my car cleaning up after digging for my registration), and he asked "Is that what you say happened?" I told him I didn't hear, but he saw my sketch, looked for a second, and said "Ok, you agree."

Instead of scanning my sketch and posting it, I went to Google Maps, and started doing a custom map. They're not terribly hard to do, and the scale is going to be a whole lot better than any paper drawing, and you get visual cues that exist in the real world (or at least when Google shot the pictures)

I'm volunteering my services if my services are wanted (free, since I want it. hehe) Of course, it doesn't have to be me. I believe a few people may have access to that new fangled Google thing. They have "collaboration" mode, so if there are a few people working on it, you can all make adjustments, and not make it public until it's ready to be public.

Not that it's very exciting, but here's the Map of it. Feel free to ignore it.

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8& ... 03905&z=18

JWSmythe wrote:I had a thought ....

Not a bad idea if we were starting from blank paper. For SPC, we have a scaled overhead drawing with the major landmarks laid in. Brooksville is basically a large strip of grid paper (literally!), since the runway pavement is laid down in blocks -- we have a template. This idea could be pretty useful for Lakeland, though, since I don't believe we have a good site template.

Jeremy wrote:...changing a course at the last minute after everyone has already walked it.

I'm also sure you realize that many times people start walking the course while it's still being laid out and checked. That doesn't get too much sympathy from me, but maybe we should hang a green flag from the trailer when the course is declared set and complete.

I don't mind cleaning up a Google Maps view, so it's a usable template, rather than a satellite/aircraft view. Which runway do we use? What scale would you like the hash lines at?

I wouldn't mind converting others on occasion. Well, the events aren't too often, so it shouldn't be a real problem for me to do it frequently, unless work gets hectic. It's easy enough to provide instructions on how to do it too.

Last minute changes are .... well .... beyond the scope of what I can do. I don't have my VZW air card any more, and my budget kinda precludes getting one right now.

At Lakeland, we use the parking lot at Joker Marchant Stadium. The site location is in the FAST web pages -- http://www.wedrivefast.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, and go to "our events" and "locations".

A 25' x 25' grid overlaid would be pretty useful.

We're good for the other two sites.

I think adding a separate forum for course design would be cool. You could give chairmen the option of going there for help pre-event, and we could discuss previous courses. Not sure if it would be used enough to warrant the work it'll take to add.

Kickslop (Jeff) took care of it lickety-split:


http://www.kickflop.net/autocrossbb/viewforum.php?f=7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

someone post a course and let's chat...