OVR SCCA Forum
August 20, 2017, 10:09:44 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Course Ideas/Designs  (Read 9416 times)
Brian
Member with Way Too Many Posts
*
Posts: 1241


« on: May 23, 2012, 10:35:45 AM »

It seems about time to have a seperate thread, dedicated to all things POSITIVE for course design and layout. Some place to POST your ideas, get feedback on them, and perhaps end up with the best product possible that the majority of partipants will enjoy navigating and that those who have stepped up to lead course design for the region will be open to try. This is an open forum (obviously) so perhaps we will end up with quite a few ideas that we can grow and come back to and tweak over the course of this year and into the future.


OVR maps (we don't use Cooper any more):
http://www.ovr-scca.org/_autocross/tools/tools.asp

A guide from Houston Region (compressed PDF to download):
http://www.houscca.com/solo/courses/coursedesign.zip

National Solo II Rulebook (PDF) found here (Pages 27-31 contain the course design/safety considerations):
http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/assets/2012_Solo_Rules_May.pdf

« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 11:24:18 AM by lao ce » Logged
Brian
Member with Way Too Many Posts
*
Posts: 1241


« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2012, 12:13:13 PM »

I will start with my 3 I have played with so far, Sorry for the MS Paint quality drawing... the grey dots/cones are the finish cones. Most of my slaloms are assumed optional, or if necessary for safety we could set a pointer down to dictate the order.

OSU Idea 1


OSU Idea 2


NTR Idea 1
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 11:12:19 AM by lao ce » Logged
pylnrcr
AX Chief's round table member
Was Novice Long Ago
*
Posts: 1117


« Reply #2 on: May 23, 2012, 02:05:36 PM »

I realize these are just basic course sketches and the actual course can be changed during set up, and I'm only saying this because I've been there, tried that, but here are a couple things to think about on the two Ackerman layouts. 1) The finish headed towards the start on the first map would likely cause concern with the safety folks, and 2) on the second map try to imagine the velocity that a vehicle like Hoovers Tiger would be capable of when accerating wide open from the SE corner to the 90 degree before the finish. While I think we all agree that speed is sweet, features like that not only create high risk but do they really present a "driving" challenge?
Logged
Brian
Member with Way Too Many Posts
*
Posts: 1241


« Reply #3 on: May 23, 2012, 04:18:34 PM »

Thanks Bruno, this is what I was hoping to get out of a constructive conversation.

OSU#1. All are subject to safety review of course, and perhaps the 'angle of approach' for #1 will need addressed, or maybe my terrible MS Paint drawing makes them appear much closer than they actually are.

OSU#2. Understood, revision below.
Logged
pylnrcr
AX Chief's round table member
Was Novice Long Ago
*
Posts: 1117


« Reply #4 on: May 23, 2012, 04:55:59 PM »

Thanks Bruno, this is what I was hoping to get out of a constructive conversation.

OSU#1. All are subject to safety review of course, and perhaps the 'angle of approach' for #1 will need addressed, or maybe my terrible MS Paint drawing makes them appear much closer than they actually are.

OSU#2. Understood, revision below.


Hearing you on the course maps - when I was setting them up I tried my hardest to create a printed map for everyone (The Pylon Report if anyone remembers) but I would end up modifying my own plan after I actually started tossing pylons so I gave up on the printed maps.

I like that revision  - you could also consider going a little deeper into the open area North of the last 90, into a decreasing radious sweeper and then a straight shot up the hill to the finish.

Logged
craig71188
AX Chief's round table member
Forum Veteran
*
Posts: 475

The Voice of Reason(?)


« Reply #5 on: May 23, 2012, 08:03:48 PM »

OSU Idea 1


NTR Idea 1


OSU Idea 1 - This is the basis (as of today) for the non Gov's Cup two day event in July

NTR Idea 1 - My concern, the rough/rippled pavement when running across the lot in this direction - the single cone slalom could be real rough about 2/3's of the way through
Logged

Craig Butt - who knows what he'll show up with next!
SCCAchamp
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 34


« Reply #6 on: May 23, 2012, 09:01:24 PM »

I have done course design while in Florida.  I gave the OSU lot a try, I am not real sure where the areas to avoid are I know where the hump is and think I have accounted for it.  I do not know about drains and such.  Here it is. It is a very rough sketch!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/35717592@N06/7259036224/

« Last Edit: May 23, 2012, 09:04:42 PM by SCCAchamp » Logged

Tony Alfano
91 MR2  "needs tires"
Mywifehatesfords
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 106


« Reply #7 on: May 24, 2012, 02:41:27 PM »

I'll throw this out there.  What types of elements does everyone like?  I know slaloms are fun, and I really enjoy them when they are preceded or concluded by a long hard sweeper.  Especially fun, (and tricky) is when a sweeper forces you to reeeeaaaallllyyy late apex to get the best line to the next section.   Very hard for newbies, and still challenging for the experienced.  Off set gates are fun too.  I don't particurlary care for wallums, but if they're there it's not worth complaining about.

All that being said, I haven't even run this year so take it with a grain of salt....
Logged
lao ce
Global Moderator
Forum Veteran
*****
Posts: 518


« Reply #8 on: May 25, 2012, 09:41:05 AM »

I like lane changes.
I also prefer the "minimal cone" setup when cone walls don't indicate the driving line.
I like loops, it adds to the length and makes the course more interesting.
We had a Bruno optional gate (or similar name) a while ago, but I didn't see that in the last years.
Logged
Aaron
AX Chief's round table member
Forum Veteran
*
Posts: 417


« Reply #9 on: May 25, 2012, 09:58:36 AM »

Technical elements where placement is most important.
Requirements to look ahead and not just follow rows of cones.
Decreasing radius where braking under a tightening corner.
Trail braking into a corner setting up for a good apex.
3 cone offset (easier or harder) slaloms instead of 4-5 cone slaloms in the same distance.
Logged

#117 SS / SSR 996 GT3

The object of autocross is to do the least amount of autocross.
Bub
Crashtest Dummy
*
Posts: 1405

#13 STC Chevy Turbo Sonic


« Reply #10 on: May 30, 2012, 08:20:58 AM »

I'm a fan of almost anything that does not require questioning if I should go back to 1st gear or not.  That being said I do like the occational chicago box that really forces you to think.   It is all in the placement of the elements... sometimes 2 or 3 elements work great in one sequence, but not in a different order.. I used to hate longer high speed slaloms, but don't mind them so much now.   

I'm becoming more a fan of minimal cone placement as well.  I didn't think so at first, but after having run 3 cincy events I'm amazed at the fact that relatively few cones are used and I've never gotten lost yet and don't recall even the noobs at those events getting lost either. Also.. they don't even chalk line the course either.  I think with about 25-50% fewer cones and a chalk outline we would still be in good shape.  Another benefit of that also is shorter setup and teardown time.
Logged
pylnrcr
AX Chief's round table member
Was Novice Long Ago
*
Posts: 1117


« Reply #11 on: May 30, 2012, 11:49:55 AM »

I'm a fan of almost anything that does not require questioning if I should go back to 1st gear or not.  That being said I do like the occational chicago box that really forces you to think.   It is all in the placement of the elements... sometimes 2 or 3 elements work great in one sequence, but not in a different order.. I used to hate longer high speed slaloms, but don't mind them so much now.   

I'm becoming more a fan of minimal cone placement as well.  I didn't think so at first, but after having run 3 cincy events I'm amazed at the fact that relatively few cones are used and I've never gotten lost yet and don't recall even the noobs at those events getting lost either. Also.. they don't even chalk line the course either.  I think with about 25-50% fewer cones and a chalk outline we would still be in good shape.  Another benefit of that also is shorter setup and teardown time.
I also am a fan of fewer is better, but....

One thing to remember about the seemingly overuse use of cones - it's usually not done because of a love of cones by the course designer but more of a need to make sure that the course direction is well defined, espcially on lots like OSU where different sections of the course will turn back and run close to itself. The course definition has to account for the new drivers who problably aren't looking very far ahead and an open section between gates could confuse them creating unintended risk and consequences. Just last week there was a section heading into the first tight right-hander after the slalom where several folks got lost. That might be OK on a type of course that doesn't turn back on itself or has tons of space when it does, but at OSU it's a ticking time bomb.
Logged
splash
AX Chief's round table member
Member with Way Too Many Posts
*
Posts: 1393

You can see what I'm thinking about!


« Reply #12 on: May 30, 2012, 02:28:42 PM »

Heh, anyone who saw this past weekend's Lincoln Nat Tour 2nd day course would see what I mean about making courses with too much of one element. It was basically nothing but slaloms, connected with the occasional sweeper to change direction.
Logged

STU 82/182
OVR Youth/Kart Steward
Bub
Crashtest Dummy
*
Posts: 1405

#13 STC Chevy Turbo Sonic


« Reply #13 on: May 30, 2012, 03:59:31 PM »

Yep.. I hear you bruno.. the shorter the layout is though the less need for more cones.. even with a course that loops back over itself.  One cincy event had basically  a huge figure 8 with a few elements both before and after the 8.   It was simple, fast and fun. 

One design I think I like is one where the North Western portion of the lot is used first and has a loop of some sort just before breaking back outward into the south and eastern portions of the lot.  I know we used something with that design before.  There was a loopback that went near the start line and once it was passed then the next car could go.   

Here is a clip of one I found a video of with that early crossover I was talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvmwdyTi4J4

Here is another video of one that seemed well received by people (once a couple of setup things were corrected).  It was at National trails and Gary, Myself, and Craig set it up.  The main portion of the layout was Gary's idea. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5CTNyn4O_s
Logged
Bub
Crashtest Dummy
*
Posts: 1405

#13 STC Chevy Turbo Sonic


« Reply #14 on: May 30, 2012, 04:10:54 PM »

While I was at it I looked up a couple of more videos.. these were a couple of the cincy layouts.  

This one is at the Airport:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GULXqifWZc

And these were at the Cincy Mall last year:
(same course 2 different drivers)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXHMRccNKaE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8ECKbgIukk

The 2nd one was a pretty quick minimally marked course.  The first one considering the area it covers made good use of cones.. The "lane changes" or slalom type thing to finish was marked with quite a few cones, but then again it wasn't exactly a true slalom or lane change IMO.  It was something sort of in between the 2. 

« Last Edit: May 30, 2012, 04:12:55 PM by Bub » Logged
Brian
Member with Way Too Many Posts
*
Posts: 1241


« Reply #15 on: May 30, 2012, 07:50:52 PM »

We can start a video thread if someone wants, but I would really like to keep this on topic to the course design discussion, submit your own ideas, or share thoughts on posted course designs, do not want to stray too far into 'this is what x region does'  Please help step up, offer your own design for our lots, or just leave it be.

Sure I will get flamed for that, but I do want to help make this a useful discussion for OVR course design.
Logged
Bub
Crashtest Dummy
*
Posts: 1405

#13 STC Chevy Turbo Sonic


« Reply #16 on: June 01, 2012, 04:35:14 PM »

The "figure 8" with extra elements (or something very similar) could definitely be done at one of our available lots.  It was simple enough and short enough.
Logged
Redline91
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 37


« Reply #17 on: September 22, 2013, 09:36:31 PM »

I agree with Bub's comment about always having to think about downshifting. Downshifting is going to happen, but sometimes it seems like we're trying to make the run times longer by adding lots of 180's, or a 360 that's off-camber the whole way. Ackerman isn't that big, but courses like the Governor's cup are really fun even though they only last 35 seconds.

I think the courses Brian is posting look fun. In a small lot, why not run around the outside instead of having 3 poll turns?

Todd Kunze
91 STX
Logged

Todd K. - STX Integra
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.056 seconds with 16 queries.