Da Groj

Hopefully this will show up -- not sure if Jeff still has it loaded up.

[img]http://www.kickflop.net/temp/nov17-FAST-course.png[/img]

I think this is the first course I tried using a double crossover. Looking at the post-event chatter, it was reasonably well-received at the time. I seem to remember stretching out the return slalom (marked w/ short cone walls) coming off the top crossover -- opened the gap up to two blocks (50 ft).

Discuss.

the course map did not load up ?
i cant see what your talking about

Jeff Blaine -- help! If you don't still have this map, let me know and I'll e-mail it to you.

I found a video of it.
Nothing like autocrossing to some Molly Hatchet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-Pqq4HhPxw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

that looks fun, nice flow!

I remember that course. It was a decent course from what I remember.

that looks fun, nice flow!

It was fun, and it did flow...now about that flow: Why? It seemed to me that none of the maneuvers were too close together, nor offset too much, which was good for "flow," but the "line" wasn't obvious (not to me, anyway - my post-event-thread post said it took me 7 tries to get a run I was happy with) and if you got off the line, you lost the "flow" (of course that happens with any course).

For those lurking, and for my own head, someone throw some guidelines out there for "flow." Like, if I'm designing a course on paper, and I want flow...

Native wrote:For those lurking, and for my own head, someone throw some guidelines out there for "flow." Like, if I'm designing a course on paper, and I want flow...

I try to stick with two guidelines: first, upon completing any maneuver, the next gate should be clearly visible within the driver's field of vision. That lets them focus on placing the car, rather than figuring out where to go next. Second, the driver should be able to steer through any maneuver without removing their hands from the wheel -- that's simply my own measure to limit the abruptness of any turn.

and when designing the course on paper, in order to anticipate the driver's field of vision, is that something you "visualize" in your head, or do you have a guideline: "x" degrees, or feet of offset per distance to next gate or some such. Ditto being able to steer without moving hands.

Both great tips, but when a noob is designing a course, how can they know? or is it a matter of experience and practice? (I know the answer to the second part is always yes...)

For field of vision, if the driver locks his head forward, the next part of the course should be in periphial vision. I normally figure that at 45 degrees to either side of centerline. You'll see I violated that twice on this course -- outbound on the front crossover and at the top of the course. The original design had additional cones in those locations, but they actually made the visual picture more confusing, and the direction of the next gate was pretty obvious -- the alternative was the trees!

Steering input is more of a qualitative measure based on experience, especially since some cars have pretty loose steering...my truck would be hopeless in all but the most open corners! I think it through as if I'm driving a minivan. Dave's land yacht is probably another good measure. Realize that "not moving hands" doesn't preclude winding around until your arms are crossed, and just because it's physically possible doesn't mean it's the best way to actually steer. The bottom line is to avoid maneuvers so tight that the driver has to spin the wheel madly to get in or out.

That same rule of thumb avoid features that forces you back to first gear. I practice 2-1 downshifts, and I realize for some cars that may be the fast way around, but there shouldn't be a corner where the choice is shift or stall out.

Ok - imagine 45 degrees or so - that's something hopefully most of us can manage to do...steering input - avoid too much lock - the 45 degree rule might come in handy there, too. - ya know, a 90 degree turn is pretty tight, and could be painful in some situations...

The first gear/speed thing is a good point - which brings up another issue: IMHO, it's difficult to determine speed of a given maneuver on a piece of paper. Again, it's an experience thing to be able to look at a map and say, "oh, that section is too fast...or too slow" but for the novice designer, is there a general rule? Like, a 30 foot slalom is tight and a 50-60 foot slalom comfortable and a 75 foot slalom pretty fast...

I'd imagine it's a combination of variables - distance between gates, straight vs. turn, gate width, offset, entry speed, etc. But what's a noob to do?

What is the name of the book on course design? I would love to read it.

nc4me wrote:What is the name of the book on course design? I would love to read it.

http://www.houscca.com/solo/courses/coursedesign.zip" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks Jeremy.

Native wrote:But what's a noob to do?

Read Roger Johnson's guide at the link Jeremy posted. Then err on the loose side. The most common noob mistake is a too-tight course. IIRC, the SCCA minimum for slaloms is 45-ft spacing...and that's pretty tight. I only go that tight when I'm deliberately trying to slow down the car. One of the clubs I used to run with specified a mininum 25-ft turn radius (primarily to prevent "pin" turns around a single cone). Johnson recommends a 45-ft minimum radius. Since I do my course layouts in MS Powerpoint, I make up some circles of varying diameter (radius x 2) and keep them handy for checking corners.

Another thing that I don't see happen too often, is test drives. Every SCCA course is test driven for safety and flow, and some sections are driven more than once until the course is slowed down or sped up as needed.

Because just as you said, it's very difficult to get it right on paper.

Maybe do like Jamie suggested and keep the course "closed for walking" somehow until it's been completely set up and tested. Most other clubs get the course set up earlier than FAST so that's never been an issue for them. I usually get to events at about 8AM and SCCA courses are usually completed at that time, where as FAST courses are just starting to get built.

The only soft spot I can see is hands available at 0700 -- the trailer's normally there at that time or very shortly afterwards. I'm willing to take suggestions....

Jamie wrote:Dave's land yacht is probably another good measure.

Not as good of a measure as the old Isuzu Pickup I used to autocross.. 5 or 6.x turns lock to lock

Even if I don't like a course, it's a simple manner to adapt, or maybe that's just me, I'm not sure honestly. I've just never been on a course that was so confusing, or so tight that it was impossible to figure at least most of it.

Actually I think the only course I've really disliked was at Deland, but that wasn't the course (besides it being a boring, but flowing, out and back slalom design), the surface is such crap I could never figure out if I'd have traction or not...

One of the tricks I use in designing a course is to do it in a program that has a good curved line drawing tool. (amazingly, the silly drawing tools in Microsoft Word work great for this!) Set your line width to the equivalent of at least 12-15 feet and make that line visibly "flow" through the course. No harsh 90's, no tight bends, just a smooth flowing line. (look at any of my old course maps, I leave that line on there)

If you draw with a pencil-thin line, you can do things that look "smooth" that no car can do. Make your line much wider than a car (most cars are about 6-8 feet wide) and what looks smooth on the paper will be relatively smooth in reality.

Have a scale on your map for a 25' and a 50' radius... refer to it frequently. A 25' radius isn't so bad, but it IS tight, and it should be used sparingly. If it's more than a 90 degree turn, it's verging on a "hairpin". You don't need to make every turn a 50' radius, but you definitely want more of them to be on that end of the scale than on the 25' end.

(recognize that we're talking RADIUS, not DIAMETER... if it's a 180 degree turn, 25' RADIUS = 50' between the entry and the exit... sounds big... is NOT big)

Jeremy wrote: Maybe do like Jamie suggested and keep the course "closed for walking" somehow

Perhaps a small sign we can put up at the start line (a whiteboard on a stick in a flower pot with cement in it?) that we can write "Course will open for walking at X:00 time".