Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Dan (Almaden Valley) Jul 8 2006, 10:18 PM

Today was our 5th AX this season and this was a challenging course.
914 drivers were in the hunt all day.
Andrew B looks to have TTOD sewn up yet again.
BillP and Randal driving Fritz (the tail dragger) were in the top 5 as well as Steve Nieslony in his 914 AX light weight car.
I am pretty sure I was in the top 15 with my 2.0L (160K mile) motor. Thank goodness for a well set up suspension. The motor certainly isn't helping my cause any

Only other 914s in attendance were Billd in his stockish 2.0L on street tires and a black 914-6 that I know nothing about other than the driver is on a learning curve

So more than likely we had 4 914 drivers (two sharing a tail dragger) in the top 5 or 6. Official results should be out in a day or two along with some pics.

Times ranged from a low :42 by AndrewB to high 47s for the really fast crowd and then the rest.
The interesting part of todays course was that the majority of fast times were recorded by the older Porsches be they 914s or 911s. Probably only 2 or possibly 3 newer cars in the top 10.
But again we will see what the official times look like.

Posted by: trekkor Jul 8 2006, 10:32 PM

Sorry I missed it.
I was working in the yard all day in the 100 degree heat

KT

Posted by: nebreitling Jul 8 2006, 11:29 PM

thanks for the report, dan. i'm waiting for Fritz to challenge the Smurf for TTOD. given some time for Bill and Randal to get used to the car in a tight course, i think think they've got a good chance.

Posted by: Dan (Almaden Valley) Jul 8 2006, 11:33 PM

With the right course and their continued learning of the car, I think either or both can come up with TTOD over Andrew.

I was in 3rd for almost 1/2 of todays course, BillP had Fritz in 3rd at least in one spot.

With some time and possibly a course that is set up a little wider, I think the smurfmobile could go down.

I am anxiously awaiting todays results. Hopefully they will be up in a day or two like the last couple events.

Posted by: grantsfo Jul 9 2006, 08:25 AM

It was a perfect AX day. Fast course with a nice 360 degree loop, traditional fast sweeper on back part of the course, technical stuff on the return that really slowed down the big cars. Great attendance with what I think was over 100 drivers. Lots of the fast drivers there as well.

I think TTOD was in high 42 or low 43 sec Both Andrew and Steve were ripping up the course with Bill and Randal close behind. I left before last runs were completed so I'm not sure what happend. Bunch of real fast mortals in 46-47 sec range.

Had a blast driving my big 3700 lb Mazda sedan on the skinny 215/45/18 street tires and terribly soft suspension. I was able to put together an ugly 50 second run - I just couldnt get smooth and kept over cooking turns.

Didnt see you, Dan, other than when you were driving - was able to snap a picture of you driving. Your car sure looked nice. Its a great example of a clean well sorted AX car. ...man that thing is low!


Attached image(s)

Posted by: grantsfo Jul 9 2006, 08:46 AM

One more




Attached thumbnail(s)

Posted by: Randal Jul 9 2006, 09:27 AM

As Dan mentioned it was a tough course (by the way Dan's car is really beautiful).

I didn't talk with anyone that really learned it within the normal two runs. I personally never got close to a well driven clean run, so we left a lot of time out there..

Interesting that you mention the "tight course.” There is another new dimension, i.e., the course yesterday was 20 feet wide in most places.

I was talking to one of the Autocross chairs and he said this is now STANDARD.

Guess they have never read the official autox guide by Roger, i.e., the SCCA guide, which of course I’m going to be sending them..

Also the thing that I realized yesterday watching and timing all the fast guys was that a light weight 914 will always turn faster than a heaver car. You just have to watch them through the slalom course to see it. Also ask Grant who was driving a tank (but fast I might mention) about the slalom course. He was really having to work.

And if you didn't count a few cones that jumped in front of the car when Bill and I were driving, I think we've made considerable progress on at least Steve. Bill’s car was definitely a mid 42 second car, which Bill finally got close to (42.9) on his last run before he had a 2 cone bobble (last turn).

Funny, but I had my fastest time, abet with a few cones before the timing box (ugly! / Bill’s car is definitely wider than my 914) with a tire that had deflated. The car must have jumped sideways on the sweeper (very fast) about 3 feet.

And MAN, was it hot up there, but all in all a great day.

Posted by: Randal Jul 9 2006, 09:30 AM

[quote name='grantsfo' post='723057' date='Jul 9 2006, 07:25 AM']
It was a perfect AX day. Fast course with a nice 360 degree loop, traditional fast sweeper on back part of the course, technical stuff on the return that really slowed down the big cars. Great attendance with what I think was over 100 drivers. Lots of the fast drivers there as well.

I think TTOD was in high 42 or low 43 sec Both Andrew and Steve were ripping up the course with Bill and Randal close behind. I left before last runs were completed so I'm not sure what happend. Bunch of real fast mortals in 46-47 sec range.

Had a blast driving my big 3700 lb Mazda sedan on the skinny 215/45/18 street tires and terribly soft suspension. I was able to put together an ugly 50 second run - I just couldnt get smooth and kept over cooking turns.

Didnt see you, Dan, other than when you were driving - was able to snap a picture of you driving. Your car sure looked nice. Its a great example of a clean well sorted AX car. ...man that thing is low!





"man that thing is low!"

Ha, everyone thinks he is cheating. Pretty funny.

Posted by: Randal Jul 9 2006, 09:45 AM

[quote name='Randal' date='Jul 9 2006, 08:30 AM' post='723075']
[quote name='grantsfo' post='723057' date='Jul 9 2006, 07:25 AM']
It was a perfect AX day. Fast course with a nice 360 degree loop, traditional fast sweeper on back part of the course, technical stuff on the return that really slowed down the big cars. Great attendance with what I think was over 100 drivers. Lots of the fast drivers there as well.

I think TTOD was in high 42 or low 43 sec Both Andrew and Steve were ripping up the course with Bill and Randal close behind. I left before last runs were completed so I'm not sure what happend. Bunch of real fast mortals in 46-47 sec range.

Had a blast driving my big 3700 lb Mazda sedan on the skinny 215/45/18 street tires and terribly soft suspension. I was able to put together an ugly 50 second run - I just couldnt get smooth and kept over cooking turns.

Didnt see you, Dan, other than when you were driving - was able to snap a picture of you driving. Your car sure looked nice. Its a great example of a clean well sorted AX car. ...man that thing is low!





"man that thing is low!"

Ha, everyone thinks he is cheating. Pretty funny.
[/quote]


Now this is a wide car!



Attached thumbnail(s)

Posted by: Dan (Almaden Valley) Jul 9 2006, 09:47 AM

Thanks for the nice pics Grant.

I saw you running also but never got a chance to find you in the paddock.

Yea, your car was really leaning and screaming on those skinny tires. 50 sec run would have been ripping on a street car with that size tires....
There were lots of newer Porsches that never got down to 50 secs.

Posted by: grantsfo Jul 9 2006, 09:57 AM

Anyone who watches Dan's car closely would know it has a below average 2.0 engine. Its certainly not a fast car its just nicely buttoned down. Similar to my car when I had the 1.8. He is turning similar times in refrence to TTOD as my old stock powered 1.8 car. Yesterdays course was definitely a light narrow car course despite the drag strip sections. It took all the concentration I had to keep my big car between the gates while I under full accleration.

Posted by: Randal Jul 9 2006, 10:05 AM

I'll bet you were having fun through that tight section right after the button hook before the first slalom.

Posted by: nebreitling Jul 9 2006, 12:21 PM

i don't understand the super-narrow course stuff... i have a car that really works in that enviornment -- and i still hate it. a course should be wide enough that it is open for interpretation, imho.

Posted by: trekkor Jul 9 2006, 01:41 PM

Sounds like I missed another good one.


KT

Posted by: grantsfo Jul 9 2006, 02:00 PM

All the pics are up on GGR site! http://www.pca-ggr.org/photo.cgi

Nice one of Bill's car.



and my battleship


Attached image(s)

Posted by: Chris Hamilton Jul 9 2006, 02:36 PM

The day's competiton was very good. Andrew and Steve were really getting down there in the times, looked like it was going to be a close finish, which indeed it was.

Close enough in fact that this should motivate Lee to take drastic measures and put a racing engine in the car. The current 2.0 in it is smooth, however it's been over 100k miles since the bottom end was rebuilt, and it really is just a street engine like in our daily driving 914s.

Posted by: grantsfo Jul 9 2006, 03:29 PM

I noticed in PAX the car has displacement listed as 2295 cc. I had always assumed the engine in that car was pushing bigger displacement than stock. If its a 2.0 I would love to know what has been done to the top end to get so much power! I havent seen too many 100,000 mile daily driver 2.0's that can smoke fat sticky race tires off the line like the smurfmobile can!

Posted by: Dan (Almaden Valley) Jul 9 2006, 03:42 PM

Grant, that car must weigh like 1200lbs or there abouts.

Posted by: Randal Jul 9 2006, 03:59 PM

Right.

If you take the time to read and understand the design book, a course should flow, but be challenging; utilizing smarter lines rewarded.

You don't do this by making a sea of cones, narrow courses, trick sections that only a few understand or courses that favor one car or another. As a designer you have a responsibility to make the course fair for everyone that will be racing.

You also want people to learn to drive, not be frustrated.

To design a good course, as outlined in the SCCA manual:

http://home.houston.rr.com/rogerthereal

takes a lot of time; it isn't a job that gets finished quickly.

I liked the challenge the course represented yesterday. The designer did a good job, in some cases really brilliant - as the corners after the button hook, but I think the designer could still learn by reading the above manual.

Posted by: grantsfo Jul 9 2006, 04:22 PM

I agree. I have driven SCCA events now and their courses are challenging, yet much more open and intuitive (no sea of cone syndrome or too narrow gates). I always enjoy courses that flow and are challenging as opposed to those that close you in and dont flow well. This weekends course had great elements, but was a little narrow in places.

Posted by: Randal Jul 9 2006, 05:08 PM

I've already heard back from Roger Johnson (SCCA expert). I'll be sending his comments on to the Autox chairpersons.

This guy is so smart. He provided some real reasons as to why 20 feet doesn't make any sense; most of all SAFETY.

More later.

Posted by: Chris Hamilton Jul 9 2006, 05:56 PM

The PAX listing with 2295cc is for our other engine, which we only ran once a few years ago. Sadly it melted its piston pin buttons, and for the last 30 or so events we've been using the 2.0L from our black street car. Not much has been done to the top end, just a freshening up. The very moderate tuning I believe is a contributing factor to it's autocross success, very good all range power, good low end torque. We're currently running 48mm dellortors, but there is a megasquirt coming later this year hopefully.

If you're interested in having a reliable engine identical to the one in the blue car, that can be arranged for less money than you would imagine.

As for the weight, everyone always tells us it must weigh almost nothing, but we tell them they should try pushing it onto the trailer later in the afternoon if they think it's so light. The entire body and frame of the car is still intact, save for the fenders, which were sawed off by the previous owner in order to run the fibreglass bodywork. We've taken weight out from everywhere we can, however Lee estimates the weight around 1800lbs with the new sheridan trunklids.

Posted by: nebreitling Jul 9 2006, 06:04 PM

all due respect, but there ain't no way that car weighs 1800 lbs. i'm a big fan of the smurf-mobile, and i realize that there is a lot of original steel in the car, but i think 1650 or so is prolly more accurate.

Posted by: Randal Jul 9 2006, 06:12 PM

Hi Chris,

My car was 1800 lbs. and change before my stage two lightening process. Your car is missing lots of stuff that I have and your not running any cage.

Come on - 1800lbs.

No one is going to take that bet.

Posted by: J P Stein Jul 9 2006, 06:29 PM

20 feet wide.....what fool came up with that?......gotta be an anal control freak Porsche type. I don't use insults casually (with people I don't know ), but this looks like a good place for a couple.

We opperate under "as few cones as possible"....with chalk arrows as required to guide the novices.....and our venue is not anywhere near as large as yours. Trick stuff is used *only* to slow folks down in the interest of safety....like near the finish box. I totaly agree with the "freelancing" of picking a better line. A sea of cones, guiding one every step of the way negates what freedom exists on an AX course.

The WCC AX course (laid out by others) had 2 ea 12 -13 pace slaloms. Brit & I convinced them to open it up to 18-20 paces as safety was not an issue....cone chasing sure as hell was. It was still hella tight coming up the backside.....but safety was an issue there.

I wish you all luck in getting some sense into the design department. If they are ACFs(Porsche species) they'll dig in their heels. Then your only option is to vote with your feet. It's a shame to waste a good venue.

BTW speaking of which, the Parade course has maybe 100 cones on it.....mostly to slow folks down. The National PCA has approved it.....even with all the 3rd gear work.

Posted by: grantsfo Jul 9 2006, 06:33 PM

LOL! Just more of that 914 sand bagging. 1800 lbs with a wimpy 100,000 mile daily driver 2.0. Why do we all do this? ...I have an old weezy 2.4 liter 6 that barely runs (might make 140 hp) and I'm sure my car is pushing at least 2400 lbs

Posted by: Randal Jul 9 2006, 06:45 PM

Pretty much a sandbagging PHD.

Posted by: Randal Jul 9 2006, 06:47 PM

Thanks for your post JP.

I've written all the AutoX chairs and will post the letter, with Roger Johnson's (SCCA Guru) response to the 20 feet issue, shortly.

Posted by: Chris Hamilton Jul 9 2006, 07:24 PM

We don't have any scales, however with the weight jacker we measured 450lbs on each front corner and 550lbs on each rear corner. While this isn't horribly accurate, it should at least give some idea. If anyone wants to bring some scales to the next event, feel free.



While the engine mileage may be up there, and the displacement moderate, and the tuning moderate, it is far from wimpy. Lee built that engine around 1990 for my mom to drive, and when he builds an engine, it is by no means wimpy. This car is pretty much a testament to how well his rabbit rods engines perform and last.

Posted by: grantsfo Jul 9 2006, 07:59 PM

Whats a rabbit rods engine? Did a search and couldnt find anything about these engines. Doesnt sound like a stock daily driver bottom end, but sounds very cool! I had a sense there was more to that engine than some big carbs.

Posted by: Chris Hamilton Jul 9 2006, 08:59 PM

There is a discussion of the general idea here:
http://www.914world.com/bbs2/index.php?showtopic=43169&hl=rabbit

However, the explanaions there are incomplete, there are fundamental concepts involved which are not touched on, and a couple things are plain wrong. I'd hate to give away too many secrets, however you can see for yourself at the track ( not on the dyno, or the internet ) that the way Lee builds them is a winning combination.

The price for one of these engines is around $8k, which may be more than many people want to pay for 15 or 20 more horsepower than a normal 2.0, and more low and mid range torque.

Posted by: grantsfo Jul 9 2006, 09:35 PM

So there is more to the motor than just a tired 2.0 daily driver bottom end.

$8K Sounds like a deal to me. Andrew certainly does well in our local PCA AX series with this engine. Is somone actually racing these rabbit rod engines in sanctioned events?

Posted by: Chris Hamilton Jul 9 2006, 09:49 PM

Lee's unshakable policy on these engines is he'll be glad to build any kind of engine you want, however he doesn't say who he deals with or where the engines go. He's kept this level of confidentiality for 30 years, and won't give it up now. If you want to buy one and tell everyone where you get it, that's your choice.

Posted by: grantsfo Jul 10 2006, 07:54 AM

OK lets get back on topic. Results.

http://www.pca-ggr.org/acresults/070806.html

Posted by: Dan (Almaden Valley) Jul 10 2006, 10:18 AM

So, the 914s and a couple straying 914 drivers are in the top 5.
My lowly underpowered car finishes in 20th. Not too bad....at least I won my class and beat a bunch of 993s, 996s and various Boxsters
Top 15 in PAX index.

Steve really gave Andrew a run for his money this weekend.

With a slightly wider and more big car friendly course I think Bill and Randal can get to the top. They are very close with a car they are still adjusting and learning.

My car, as Grant pointed out needs a fresh motor

That will come this off-season unless, of course, the motor were to "let go" before the end of the season.

Still a nice day, decent course, and a whole lot more fun than working.

Hard to beat well preparred, well driven 914s no matter how big a motor that new car has, and what computerized gizmos are on board.

Posted by: Steve_7x Jul 11 2006, 12:30 PM

Saturday was a nice day and the layout, with it's faults (20 feet wide and the silly little loop) was a lot better then many that had been run in the past few years.

I was frustrated in that I just couldn't get below the low 43's... arghhh. Andrew drove the wheels off his car and Bill/Randall made it a real contest as well. I love the competition and challenge that each of you guys provide!

Dan - you looked fantastic driving your car. It looks very quick and solid. A lot of people were commenting how quick you were.

Steve

Posted by: Steve_7x Jul 11 2006, 12:34 PM

Randall,

I am looking forward to the letter by the SCCA course guru being posted. I think the 20 feet rule is pretty silly as well. I know that when we construct a course for SVR (over in Stockton) we use 10 strides (approx 30 feet) when looking at corner radius's and course widths and despite a smaller circuit it really opens the course up quite a bit and we can stay pretty safe.

Steve

Posted by: Randal Jul 11 2006, 01:05 PM

As it ends up Steve the rule is for a 20 foot Minimum. The AutoX chairs clarified it for me.

What I heard an "authority" saying on the course was different, but I guess I just heard wrong.

Any way here is what Roger said:

"The SCCA minimum is 15' (Rule 2.2. - but I do not think that is what you are asking. 8^)

I generally try to make gate widths 25' wide depending on the effect I am trying to accomplish. If I want it to feel tight, I will go as low as 16-18' in course width for any one specific gate, but my normal desired width is 25'. Reason for this is that the wider the course is, the less work corner workers will have when a car gets out of control or is driving a really bad line. The speeds DO NOT increase witth gate width, although it may feel like you could go faster. "key cones" are what control the speed of the car. So the most desirable situation is to have the gate width as wide as possible without the cones of the gate losing relationship to each other. In my experience, that is 25'. I do place gates at wider distances, but generally those are in conjunction with a wall or similar.

Hope this helps.
Feel free to write me for more questions or to call me if you prefer.
Just remember I am in Central time zone.

Roger"

Everything he says is so true. Roger is such a great resource.

I love the point about narrower courses being actually more dangerous for course workers, i.e., heaven knows we (GGR) have enough people running, at the wrong time, to put up cones when you have to yell, "Heads Up" to them.

Posted by: trekkor Jul 11 2006, 05:54 PM

The three courses I designed at Marina last year were all wide and free flowing.
Everybody had a blast and the times were all around a minute.
I tried to use "all" the property.

The squares at Marina in the concrete surface are 20x20, so it's real easy to make the course 30' wide like I want it.

The courses:

The squares are 100x100 ( 440x740 site )
from 4-24, 6-26 and 7-24, last year.

( next course added 7-30-06 )

I miss Marina and LPR-PCA. I need to go down and run this month on the 30th.


KT


Attached image(s)

Posted by: Randal Jul 11 2006, 06:15 PM

If you go down to the August Zone event you'll be driving on my course.

You can tell me where I go wrong.

Cheers,

Randal

Posted by: Dan (Almaden Valley) Jul 11 2006, 06:16 PM

From GGR rule book....this rule book is used for all of zone 7 AX
some of the pertinent points for AX course design.




2.3A
# Course design shall be determined so that all motion is forward and reverse gear is not required.
# Course boundaries shall be determined by existing terrain and/or white chalk lines or equivalent, and outlined with pylons. The base of each pylon shall be outlined on the pavement with no part of the pylon located inside the course boundary.
# Course boundaries shall remain the same for all drivers. If, while on course, a driver observes a course change, he must stop immediately and report the course change to course personnel, at which time the driver is to leave the course by the most direct route and be given an official re-run.
# Course width shall be a minimum width of twenty feet, and any turn or chicane shall have a minimum inside radius of twenty-five feet.

you will notice that the rules says the course shall be determined by terrain and or chalk lines....AND outlined with pylons

so the course we ran last weekend and any other course where the course is not completely outlined with CHALK would not meet the minimum standards and would therefor be in violation of our rules????


HMMM

Posted by: J P Stein Jul 11 2006, 06:39 PM

Hay, that ain't bad.....that's 20 foot minimum...no maximum width. Also, 25 foot minimum radius for corners ain't bad... I don't like the sea of cones bit tho.
Maybe the guy you were talkng to doesn't know what "minimum" means.

Posted by: trekkor Jul 11 2006, 06:50 PM

I should be there. I like your courses, Randal.

The first a/x I ever ran after my SIX conversion was your course.

And...You were my first a/x insructor. Thanks again for your help.


KT

Posted by: Dan (Almaden Valley) Jul 11 2006, 06:54 PM

JP the problem is that the folks desingning our courses have not read the rule book and don't know the minimum standards. Every AX I go to I end up pacing off many areas and widening them to at least the minimum...did it at least a dozen or more times last weekend.
As you say...it is the minimum and does not say anything about a maximum...
I remember a gate at a specific AX a couple years ago that 914s and narrow body 911s could go thru but all the other newer, wider, cars had to negotiate around....yielding a higher time for those newer cars. Someone did not read the rules when setting up that course.

the one that gets me is the lining of the course with chalk or using the terrain, and then placing cones to line the course. The cones are to be placed outside of the chalk or terrain boundries.
I don't see this as a sea of cones but to use the cones as markers denoting direction changes, apexes, or walls to slow folks down.

Posted by: Steve_7x Jul 11 2006, 07:01 PM

Thanks Randal!

I will amend my comment...

Yep the GGR/Zone 7 rule is 20 feet wide but also states that inside radius should be 25'. That means that we should have at least 25' from the inside radius on any corner... that would mean that the boxes before the first slalom would need to have 25 feet of distance between them diagonally (I hope that makes sense).

FYI - while SCCA states course width at 15', they also state that Slaloms need to be a minimum of 45 feet apart (no max provided) and that any series of corners (like boxes) must meet that rule as well.

Those that have Acrobat can download the whole SCCA rule book from here (free). Course stuff starts at page 18 I believe:

http://www.scca.org/_FileLibrary/File/2006_solo_rules.pdf

Posted by: Steve_7x Jul 11 2006, 07:06 PM

Well stated Dan.

I have been tempted to go Home Depot and buy a 25 foot long length of plastic chain and go take it out on a course walk.

Better yet it would be a good thing to have in each Regions Trailer.

Steve

Posted by: Steve_7x Jul 11 2006, 07:07 PM

Randal,

Not sure if we can make it to Alameda afterall.. still lookign at budgets and all. We will have just gotten back from Parade and autocrossing against JP twice in a week (hey JP!). Stay tuned.

Steve

Posted by: Randal Jul 11 2006, 07:08 PM

Your last point is well taken.

The SCCA bible says that courses should be lined, so that drivers don't get confused and can concrentrate on learning the best line.

Posted by: trekkor Jul 11 2006, 07:13 PM

That was the Halloween course at the stick two years ago.
Thread the needle, baby!!

We were working that station and paced it off. then we paced off the car width back in the paddock...Six inches to spare.

We liked it

They changed the course, too. A lot of people didn't know about the change until they were adding cones and going DNF.


KT

Posted by: trekkor Jul 11 2006, 07:16 PM

I prefer a lined course and have pushed the chalker many a time.
That thing needs replacing. really sticks.


KT

Posted by: Randal Jul 11 2006, 07:18 PM

Don't worry I already have a 30 foot wide marker as I try to make all my course wider. That's why I got so concerned on Saturday when I heard 20 wide (period, i.e., no larger than). Didn't make any sense.

Posted by: trekkor Jul 11 2006, 07:24 PM

That's the great thing about the gridded concrete at Marina.

You just tell all the helpers in the morning, "one and a half squares wide, please" ( 30 feet )


KT

Posted by: Randal Jul 11 2006, 07:25 PM

OK Dan now I need your expert help.

If I look at the SCCA book it shows the lines intersecting the cones. If you read (page 47 of 121) of the SCCA book it says lines should not be so far outside the cones as to not be visable, when someone is lining outside the cones.

It also says that the lining of the course shouldn't overlap the correct line, as open wheel drivers will tell you right away.

So it sounds optional, but it doesn't ever say to line inside the cones..

Posted by: Dan (Almaden Valley) Jul 11 2006, 07:36 PM

Our rules specifically state that the terrain and or the chalk are the boundries of the course. NO part of the pylon shall be inside the course boundries.
What this says to me is that the base of the pylon should be right on the chalk line or terrain boundry. Not way off to the outside but not inside either.
So the chalk and the terrain are really what delineates the course....if you read our rules with a strict interpretation.

You are right Randal...I looked at the SCCA book also and got that same impression.

Posted by: trekkor Jul 11 2006, 07:38 PM

I like it when the chalk line is on the inside of the cones. That way you can run over the chalk and not hit a cone.

I don't ever drive, "by the chalk". I just know it's there, out of the corner of my eye


KT

Posted by: Dan (Almaden Valley) Jul 11 2006, 07:44 PM

According to zone 7 rules the chalk line is always supposed to be inside the pylons.

Posted by: grantsfo Jul 11 2006, 08:08 PM

SCCA courses have been much more fun for me to drive. More open and easier to navigate. More time spent on getting every last ounce of momentum out of the car rather than going into a sea of cones on an unneccesarily tight course. Nice flow as well.

Trekkors designs at Marina were good - especially the one with the loop. Redwood region is a blast too! hard to get lost at that venue. I enjoyed SVR AX a couple years ago as well.

Many of the GGR courses are confusing etc. However I just appreciate that people volunteer to run these things and design the course regardless of how it turns out. I have a real appreciation for the hard work people put into these events.

But having said that seems to me when you have a big field of cars with huge variation in driving skills that simplifying a course leads to safer enviroment and ulimately more runs due to fewer reruns. Lots of reruns this past Saturday due to course workers not being able to get back in time after cones were knocked down. We had a couple close calls at my station as well. Also reduces the amount of people needed to work a course. Seems like some real simple guidelines could be developed for those with little course design expereince.