GGR AX #5 today, very challenging course Options

[Randal]

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.

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.

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. I think I overheard the course designer express concern over things being too narrow with a certain small mid engined car driver to see what he thought. LOL!

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.

[Chris Hamilton]

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.

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! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Grant, that car must weigh like 1200lbs (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) or there abouts. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

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.

[nebreitling]

We've taken weight out from everywhere we can, however Lee estimates the weight around 1800lbs with the new sheridan trunklids.

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.

[Randal]

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.

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! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Grant, that car must weigh like 1200lbs (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) or there abouts. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

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.

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.

[J P Stein]

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 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) ), 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.

[grantsfo]

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

[Randal]

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

Pretty much a sandbagging PHD.

[Randal]

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 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) ), 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.....ever with all the 3rd gear work.

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.

[Chris Hamilton]

We've taken weight out from everywhere we can, however Lee estimates the weight around 1800lbs with the new sheridan trunklids.

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.

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.

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

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.

[grantsfo]

We've taken weight out from everywhere we can, however Lee estimates the weight around 1800lbs with the new sheridan trunklids.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

[Chris Hamilton]

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.

There is a discussion of the general idea here:
http://www.914world.com/bbs2/index.php?show...9&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.

[grantsfo]

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.

There is a discussion of the general idea here:
http://www.914world.com/bbs2/index.php?show...9&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.

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?

[Chris Hamilton]

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?

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.

[grantsfo]

OK lets get back on topic. Results.

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

[DanT]

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 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)
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 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

That will come this off-season unless, of course, the motor were to "let go" before the end of the season. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Still a nice day, decent course, and a whole lot more fun than working. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

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. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/burnout.gif)

[Steve_7x]

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! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beer.gif)

Dan - you looked fantastic driving your car. It looks very quick and solid. A lot of people were commenting how quick you were. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/clap56.gif)

Steve

[Steve_7x]

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

[Randal]

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

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.(IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif) - 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.

[Trekkor]

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 ) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/naughty.gif)

I miss Marina and LPR-PCA. I need to go down and run this month on the 30th. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/idea.gif)


KT

This post has been edited by trekkor: Jul 13 2006, 10:37 PM

[Randal]

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.

I miss Marina and LPR-PCA. I need to go down and run this month on the 30th. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/idea.gif)


KT

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