Results anf feedback for June 22, 2019 event at Fort Macleod

[MurrayPeterson]

Day's results: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ThdqTfZvdIg33FK6Ro2-GZ_E-9qqXUnj

Updated overall scores: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Az86-0pVbDJt0VCcDhUVv16-T-DB4z3L

[John in Calgary]

Looks like Gary made it into the Ladies classing.

My feedback - I really enjoyed the tight transition between the eyebrow and the gate in the morning (I might be in the minority but it was very satisfying to actually get that right for at least one run).  I also had a blast figuring out the counterclockwise sweeper on the apron for the afternoon, I actually got my car to rotate after the brake zone on more than one run which was very cool.

John

[MurrayPeterson]

Looks like Gary made it into the Ladies classing.

Fixed

[94boosted]

Thanks Murray, first 3 runs am and first 3 runs PM only? 

I found the apron turnaround in the PM very tricky, couldn't quite get it right.

[PedalFaster]

I thought it was a fun course, especially in the afternoon once the thread-the-needle gate was removed.

Having said that, we should keep an eye on our finish speeds. According to my data, I hit 124 km/h through the lights today, and 129 km/h at the last Fort Macleod event! That's really fast given that our finishes there are inevitably pointed at grid.

[Midnightsky]

I thought it was a fun course, especially in the afternoon once the thread-the-needle gate was removed.

Having said that, we should keep an eye on our finish speeds. According to my data, I hit 124 km/h through the lights today, and 129 km/h at the last Fort Macleod event! That's really fast given that our finishes there are inevitably pointed at grid.

drive slower? 🤣🤣

[MurrayPeterson]

Thanks Murray, first 3 runs am and first 3 runs PM only? 

AM: https://drive.google.com/open?id=10pwjR5hcoUxv58LOZlAdJrwcPNpUiWup
PM: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1r0uIReQx1-MvMvUv9D_f3RgUoWDkVf3M

I found the apron turnaround in the PM very tricky, couldn't quite get it right.

That was the course element I found to be the most fun in the PM.

[MurrayPeterson]

I thought it was a fun course, especially in the afternoon once the thread-the-needle gate was removed.

Having said that, we should keep an eye on our finish speeds. According to my data, I hit 124 km/h through the lights today, and 129 km/h at the last Fort Macleod event! That's really fast given that our finishes there are inevitably pointed at grid.

May I request that we reign back on course speeds as a whole?  In the afternoon, I was literally full throttle all the way from the runway turn-around back to the finish beam (not including a shift to 3rd somewhere in the slalom).  Where's the driving challenge in that? 

Without that thread-the-needle element, it was more drag race than autocross.

[PedalFaster]

Thanks Murray, first 3 runs am and first 3 runs PM only? 

AM: https://drive.google.com/open?id=10pwjR5hcoUxv58LOZlAdJrwcPNpUiWup
PM: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1r0uIReQx1-MvMvUv9D_f3RgUoWDkVf3M

I like these results a lot more. Can we keep them? 

[JamesTCallaghan]

I was entering the stop box between 135-140km/h in the afternoon so it was very fast.

[Reijo]

You have to remember the speeds are relative to the class.  SCCA bases their speed "judgments" on stock/street class cars.  In 2008 when I ran AM where the  Corvettes and GT3's were doing about 100 kph, we were at 150 kph on a "small" lot at Heartland Park in Topeka, Kansas. 

Same when Joe Cheng brought the Phantom to Race City back in about 2001.  Joe/Gary were coming into the stop box around 90 mph was their guess.   The rest of us were nowhere near that speed.  Note that the AM will also stop a helluva lot faster and in a lot shorter distance than a "street"-class car.  So be careful what you wish for and what you base your judgement on.  Maybe go back to Deerfoot mall days and your short 2nd gear is too tall?  Speeds are low too ... but still people still hit concrete curbs ... again relative. I'm sure you get what I'm talking about.

[Cagare]

I was entering the stop box between 135-140km/h in the afternoon so it was very fast.

Same, that was my concern when I removed the wall at lunch as it made the finish a lot more open.

[Reijo]

Something else to consider:    A few years ago we added a chicane to slow speeds into the finish but then we started to get spins into the grass and light when people had to slow down to make the maneuver (rear unweights and around you go while trying to make the maneuver).   It is tricky to set it up "just right" so it is safe. 

So, ironically enough, we slowed things down but made it more unsafe!!!

Maybe it is time for another course design seminar?

Reijo

[PedalFaster]

You have to remember the speeds are relative to the class.  SCCA bases their speed "judgments" on stock/street class cars.

I was in an FS car -- so a heavy, soft, but admittedly powerful car on street tires. I'd expect well-driven SS, AS, and BS cars to be going at least as fast as I was through the finish, as would all but the least powerful cars from higher prep categories.

A few years ago we added a chicane to slow speeds into the finish but then we started to get spins into the grass and light when people had to slow down to make the maneuver (rear unweights and around you go while trying to make the maneuver).   

With all due respect, that's just bad course design; we've seen and fixed a few finishes like that this year. The solution to a 120 km/h finish is *not* to put a hard transition right before the finish. That just ensures that people are going through the finish at 100 km/h, but sideways or backwards.

There are four pages in the course design handbook devoted to designing safe finishes. We have a copy of the handbook in the course design folder: https://1drv.ms/f/s!AlGgFhfYvU3xhe8gQiQbV_Ti3klTrQ.

So be careful what you wish for and what you base your judgement on.  Maybe go back to Deerfoot mall days and your short 2nd gear is too tall?  Speeds are low too ... but still people still hit concrete curbs ... again relative. I'm sure you get what I'm talking about.

You're conflating two separate issues. If the venue and design philosophy are kept the same, then a slower course will be a safer course, period. I wasn't here in the Deerfoot days, but if people were hitting curbs with any frequency, that means that the courses were poorly designed and/or still too fast for the available space. We don't need to build a course remotely as slow as what you're describing to be safe at Fort Macleod, but we should really avoid 125 km/h runs straight at grid.

Related anecdote: I posted a video of one of our Fort Macleod events to Facebook last year. An autocrosser friend of mine commented saying that the person shooting the video was standing in a dangerous location. I responded that the video was shot by someone standing in grid, and they were flabbergasted. 

[PedalFaster]

May I request that we reign back on course speeds as a whole?  In the afternoon, I was literally full throttle all the way from the runway turn-around back to the finish beam (not including a shift to 3rd somewhere in the slalom).  Where's the driving challenge in that? 

So be careful what you wish for and what you base your judgement on.  Maybe go back to Deerfoot mall days and your short 2nd gear is too tall?  Speeds are low too ... but still people still hit concrete curbs ... again relative. I'm sure you get what I'm talking about.

I've been banging this drum a lot recently, but I agree with Murray. We've gotten better this year, but our courses are still usually power-intensive. My car's heavier and more powerful than Murray's, but after the turnaround I still only had to tap the brakes once (entering the slalom), and briefly modulate the gas once (through the transition before the finish). Other than that I was accelerating all the way, most of the time flat!

Note that "acceleration zone" is the key term here -- not "speed". Speed doesn't necessarily disadvantage low-power cars -- a CS Miata will murder my FS M3 through an 80 km/h slalom or a series of 80 km/h transitions. What's unusual about our courses is the number of long, uninterrupted acceleration zones, often from 30 km/h to 100 km/h or more. Cars make less power at our altitude too, which further exacerbates the effect of acceleration zones.

I looked at my data from our events this year and identified the longest uninterrupted acceleration zones:

• SASC 5 -- 4.7 s (from the tightest part of the turnaround on the pad to the slalom entry)
• SASC 3 -- 5.2 s
• SASC 2 -- 4.3 s
• SASC 1 -- 3.7 s (note that this was one of the tightest courses we've had in recent memory

Average longest acceleration zone: 4.5 seconds. Median longest acceleration zone: 4.5 seconds.

Then I did the same thing for the last few SCCA national-level events I've done:

• 2019 SCCA Toledo Pro -- 2.9 s
• 2019 SCCA Fontana Pro -- 2.9 s
• 2018 SCCA Nationals West Course -- 4.2 s
• 2018 SCCA Packwood Pro -- 2.0 s

Average longest acceleration zone: 3.0 seconds. Median longest acceleration zone: 2.9 seconds.

(Note that I omitted the starts from Pro Solos. Pros traditionally use drag starts, and they actually use a different index than normal events for that reason. After the start, Pro courses resemble regular autocross courses.)

These aren't apples-to-apples comparisons, as the cars I've run locally have been an FS M3 (414 hp) and a BS Camaro (455 hp), while the cars I ran at the last few SCCA events were less-powerful GS and HS cars (180-205 hp). This actually means that the length of the acceleration zones at the SCCA events are exaggerated relative to those at our events, as lower-power cars can accelerate for longer on a given straight than more powerful cars, and can stay in the gas in places where more powerful cars can't.

Despite that, whether we compare averages or medians, the acceleration zones at our events in this data set are 50% longer than those at SCCA national-level events. The SCCA classing system and PAX indexes aren't designed for courses with acceleration zones that long; they're designed for more balanced courses. Unless/until we adjust our courses to be more aligned with the SCCA's, people in lower-power cars are going to be disadvantaged at all of our events.