2019 SASC Event #1 Course Map

[Cagare]

Course map for tomorrow's event

[Reijo]

That is really tight slalom spacing ... ugly.   I recommend spacing them out and even removing one in the afternoon.  ugh.

[PedalFaster]

That spacing's actually pretty representative of a typical national-level course. The example slaloms in the SCCA course design guide are mostly in the 50'-60' range (15-18 m).

On a related note, I think our courses locally have been too biased towards power, particularly at Fort Macleod. At one of our Fort Macleod courses last year, I was literally flat (full throttle) from the start to the turnaround by the clubhouse, then flat again from the turnaround to the turn onto the main runway despite the fact that there was ostensibly a slalom on the way out. That's not a challenge -- it's just a gift to powerful cars.

[Terry Johns]

That spacing's actually pretty representative of a typical national-level course. The example slaloms in the SCCA course design guide are mostly in the 50'-60' range (15-18 m).

On a related note, I think our courses locally have been too biased towards power, particularly at Fort Macleod. At one of our Fort Macleod courses last year, I was literally flat (full throttle) from the start to the turnaround by the clubhouse, then flat again from the turnaround to the turn onto the main runway despite the fact that there was ostensibly a slalom on the way out. That's not a challenge -- it's just a gift to powerful cars.

WOW.....Sounds like you've done a U turn Stephen. I seem to remember saying the same thing at the end of the 2017 season that fast courses gave an advantage to big power cars, and was then shot down in flames by all the clubs experts, (yourself included) and told that PAX sorted it all out.

Glad to hear that the lights are coming on for you.

[PedalFaster]

My position's pretty much the same now as it was then. If you really want to rehash this for some reason, I'll quote my first response on that year-and-a-half-old thread, with the key part bolded:

I think you misunderstood what I said. I said (and maintain) that a Miata was the car to have on *that specific course at Fort Macleod*.  A course that's heavy on slaloms, and where you're only making relatively small speed adjustments between elements, favors nimble cars over powerful ones. Conversely, courses with lots of heavy braking followed by long, straight acceleration zones favor power cars over nimble ones. I thought this Sunday's courses were pretty well balanced.

Like Ryan, I also suspect that lower-powered cars, especially normally-aspirated ones, are at a disadvantage in general locally -- both because of the altitude, and also because Red Deer courses invariably include multiple pin turns followed by acceleration zones that favor powerful cars. If my goal was to win PAX for the season, then I wouldn't pick a car with less than 200 hp (or ideally 300 hp). But we do have courses at Fort Macleod where a low-power car can not only win, but is the favorite to win.

[...]

fast courses gave an advantage to big power cars, and was then shot down in flames by all the clubs experts, (yourself included)

You were shot down because fast courses don't necessarily give an advantage to big-power cars. The course we were discussing was consistently high-speed throughout, which favors nimble cars that transition well. Courses with acceleration zones, like the one I linked in the post you quoted, are the ones that favor big-power cars. In my opinion, we've had too many of the latter and too few of the former.

Stated differently, big-power cars only have an advantage when they're accelerating.

As an aside, as predicted, Saturday's course was more balanced than most of our local courses -- note that Murray was second overall in PAX in his 155 hp Miata after the morning runs.

[Terry Johns]

My position's pretty much the same now as it was then. If you really want to rehash this, I'll quote my first response on that year-and-a-half-old thread for some reason, with the key part bolded:

I think you misunderstood what I said. I said (and maintain) that a Miata was the car to have on *that specific course at Fort Macleod*.  A course that's heavy on slaloms, and where you're only making relatively small speed adjustments between elements, favors nimble cars over powerful ones. Conversely, courses with lots of heavy braking followed by long, straight acceleration zones favor power cars over nimble ones. I thought this Sunday's courses were pretty well balanced.

Like Ryan, I also suspect that lower-powered cars, especially normally-aspirated ones, are at a disadvantage in general locally -- both because of the altitude, and also because Red Deer courses invariably include multiple pin turns followed by acceleration zones that favor powerful cars. If my goal was to win PAX for the season, then I wouldn't pick a car with less than 200 hp (or ideally 300 hp). But we do have courses at Fort Macleod where a low-power car can not only win, but is the favorite to win.

[...]

fast courses gave an advantage to big power cars, and was then shot down in flames by all the clubs experts, (yourself included)

You were shot down because fast courses don't necessarily give an advantage to big-power cars. The course we were discussing was consistently high-speed throughout, which favors nimble cars that transition well. Courses with acceleration zones, like the one I linked in the post you quoted, are the ones that favor big-power cars. In my opinion, we've had too many of the latter and too few of the former.

Stated differently, big-power cars only have an advantage when they're accelerating.

As an aside, as predicted, Saturday's course was more balanced than most of our local courses -- note that Murray was second overall in PAX in his 155 hp Miata after the morning runs.

save it for someone else.