Autox course design input, please!

[edit] Click here for updated layout - thanks! [/edit]

Hey, all, we have a new venue and brand new timing equipment that lets us have more than 1 car on course, so I want to take advantage of both. Our first event here is in about 3 weeks. I'd appreciate any and all feedback on this layout.

The paving overall is pretty decent asphalt. The red areas designate handicap parking - nothing really wrong there, except they have parking bumpers and signage, so I just masked out the whole area. There are a lot of light poles, on about 120'-130' centers.

There are a number of houses right across the street on the long side of the lot. I have tried to arrange it so that the main acceleration zones point toward the houses, meaning most of the noise is thrown away from them.

I'm figuring I can start a car, wait until it gets to the turn complex at the bottom left, and then start a second car. That should keep clearance because the second car will be away from the start by the time the first car reaches the end of the slalom.

For scale, the gates are 16' and the slalom is evenly spaced at 60 feet. The tightest turns are 30' radius and most of them are in the 50'-60' radius range.

Thanks!

course looks good, may be a little simple for experienced autocrossers.

looks like good opportunity for overlap

I think your insurance likely has some rules regarding permanent objects and how close the course can be to them.

Looks too simple and wide-open for my taste, although to make it more complex you'll also have to space the cars out more. What software did you use to make this? Maybe I could use the same thing to draw up some suggestions.

solfly wrote: course looks good, may be a little simple for experienced autocrossers.

Well, usually 30% of our turnout is novices or first-timers. While I don't want it to be too easy to drive, I do want it to be straightforward to follow.

DaveEstey wrote: I think your insurance likely has some rules regarding permanent objects and how close the course can be to them.

It's actually not as bad as it looks zoomed out this far. All the close poles are on the insides of turns before the apex, so if you understeer you'll miss it and if you oversteer you'll be past it before the car cuts to the inside. I can probably finesse the layout so that there is a little more space at those points.

GameboyRMH wrote: Looks too simple and wide-open for my taste, although to make it more complex you'll also have to space the cars out more. What software did you use to make this? Maybe I could use the same thing to draw up some suggestions.

I would like to make it a little more technical, but if it snakes too deeply, I lose my opportunity to run multiple cars. Also, I get near even more poles than I am now.

I did it in the free version of SketchUp. I am planning on publishing a collection of all the components - cones, gates, etc. as freeware once I have them finished.

All good input. Thanks, everybody.

Looks like a good plan. As far as spacing, it is best to have an expereinced autocrosser starting cars. Some drivers require more spacing than others. You just need to have a starter that is watching the course before sending another car.

In reply to Duke:

Insurance groups don't care about under steer and over steer. They care about a measuring tape from the object to the course. I'm director of my clubs autox program so I have to deal with it all the time. Our minimum is 75 feet.

DaveEstey wrote: I'm director of my clubs autox program so I have to deal with it all the time. Our minimum is 75 feet.

If I was required to be 75 feet from all permanent objects, I couldn't run on any of the lots I have at my disposal. Our usual lot is 130' wide by 270' long, and curbed on all 4 sides.

Your point, however, is taken. I will try to adjust it for larger clearances.

If it's SCCA, it's minimum 15 ft. gate width, 45 ft. between slalom cones, and 75 ft. from any hard objects (more at end of straights). Common sense should be applied on top of these numbers.

Regarding course fun, don't forget to add some elements that are special. There's nothing wrong with a crossover if it means adding a 270 degree skid pad. If this element is 1/2 way through, it's also a good indicator for your starter to send the next car.

kylini wrote: If it's SCCA, it's minimum 15 ft. gate width, 45 ft. between slalom cones, and 75 ft. from any hard objects (more at end of straights). Common sense should be applied on top of these numbers. Regarding course fun, don't forget to add some elements that are special. There's nothing wrong with a crossover if it means adding a 270 degree skid pad. If this element is 1/2 way through, it's also a good indicator for your starter to send the next car.

SCCA is only 25 ft from solid objects (50 ft if you are running karts)

trucke wrote: Looks like a good plan. As far as spacing, it is best to have an expereinced autocrosser starting cars. Some drivers require more spacing than others. You just need to have a starter that is watching the course before sending another car.

along with an experienced starter, you should really rely on your SS to set the time element … it is their responsibility for the overall safety of the event

wbjones wrote:

trucke wrote: Looks like a good plan. As far as spacing, it is best to have an expereinced autocrosser starting cars. Some drivers require more spacing than others. You just need to have a starter that is watching the course before sending another car.

along with an experienced starter, you should really rely on your SS to set the time element … it is their responsibility for the overall safety of the event

Well, coincidentally, starter, safety steward, and course designer are all the same person - me.

I am working on a tighter version that stays farther from the poles.

DaveEstey wrote: In reply to Duke: Insurance groups don't care about under steer and over steer. They care about a measuring tape from the object to the course. I'm director of my clubs autox program so I have to deal with it all the time. Our minimum is 75 feet.

Actually they don't. They care about if you follow your rules or not. Someone in your organization (whoever wrote the rules) put the 75 ft stipulation in- not the insurance company. They have no idea about that. Just like they don't care about the safety of the car- that's up to the club.

There are two companies that actually underwrite insurance for motorsports events, on the other hand, there's a whole host of rules and regulations based on who is running the event.

I went through all of this when I was on the board of directors of AROC-USA. Even with conversations directly with the insurance agents, there are lot of miconseptions.

Duke wrote:

wbjones wrote:

trucke wrote: Looks like a good plan. As far as spacing, it is best to have an expereinced autocrosser starting cars. Some drivers require more spacing than others. You just need to have a starter that is watching the course before sending another car.

along with an experienced starter, you should really rely on your SS to set the time element … it is their responsibility for the overall safety of the event

Well, coincidentally, starter, safety steward, and course designer are all the same person - me. I am working on a tighter version that stays farther from the poles.

I was actually only going to comment on the multiple car thing, but the insurance part got me sidetracked...

when you think about starting multiple cars, please keep consideration of the time keepers. Depending on who is running the clock, you may be very rate limited by the amount of information they can process. Also, the "cleaner" the course- the more you can put on- basically, as long as you don't have multiple areas where everyone is going to have penalties, you can put cars out faster. Again, it's not just a matter of the course workers, but the rate of information that comes into the timekeepers.

Our clubs targets was always to have 3 cars on the course at the same time- one started and finished within a few seconds of each other. But we always listened to the timekeepers and made sure they were able to process all of the information.

I'm not planning on having more than 2 cars out there; the lot is too small and I want 20-25 seconds between cars. Even at Dover Speedway I would probably only have 2-3 cars, and that lot is big .

moxnix wrote:

kylini wrote: If it's SCCA, it's minimum 15 ft. gate width, 45 ft. between slalom cones, and 75 ft. from any hard objects (more at end of straights). Common sense should be applied on top of these numbers. Regarding course fun, don't forget to add some elements that are special. There's nothing wrong with a crossover if it means adding a 270 degree skid pad. If this element is 1/2 way through, it's also a good indicator for your starter to send the next car.

SCCA is only 25 ft from solid objects (50 ft if you are running karts)

I double-checked and you're right! It's 75 ft for spectators without positive protection. My bad.

About the only thing that scared me about the original layout was the tight proximity to the first two poles. I've seen cars snap-oversteer off course in turns like that. It still looked awesome!

Actual helpful content: here's the Houston SCCA's 2014 Course Design Guide by Roger Johnson. This document is AWESOME: http://www.houscca.com/solo/courses/Course_Design_4-1-2.pdf

More goodies at http://www.houscca.com/solo/courses.php#design

Duke wrote:

DaveEstey wrote: I'm director of my clubs autox program so I have to deal with it all the time. Our minimum is 75 feet.

If I was required to be 75 feet from all permanent objects, I couldn't run on any of the lots I have at my disposal. Our usual lot is 130' wide by 270' long, and curbed on all 4 sides. Your point, however, is taken. I will try to adjust it for larger clearances.

I think his point was not so much to tell you to redesign it with larger clearances, but rather to know your insurance requirements.

Yeah, I usually have Roger's design guide open in the background when I'm laying out a new course. Agreed, it's a great resource.

SVreX, I literally have no insurance requirements. Our carrier doesn't issue any, and just uses a lot of "reasonable care" language in our policy. So I typically go by a combination of SCCA and PCA requirements, then make field adjustments if something looks iffy when we put it on the lot.

alfadriver wrote:

DaveEstey wrote: In reply to Duke: Insurance groups don't care about under steer and over steer. They care about a measuring tape from the object to the course. I'm director of my clubs autox program so I have to deal with it all the time. Our minimum is 75 feet.

Actually they don't. They care about if you follow your rules or not. Someone in your organization (whoever wrote the rules) put the 75 ft stipulation in- not the insurance company. They have no idea about that. Just like they don't care about the safety of the car- that's up to the club. There are two companies that actually underwrite insurance for motorsports events, on the other hand, there's a whole host of rules and regulations based on who is running the event. I went through all of this when I was on the board of directors of AROC-USA. Even with conversations directly with the insurance agents, there are lot of miconseptions.

I'm the director of my program. I'm not going to send you the paperwork but I assure you the distance stipulation is in there for our contracts.

On your map, just put circles around each light pole of the minimum required distance (like you did with the handicap spots) before you draw out the course. It'll make it easier for future course designs.

In reply to DaveEstey:

And I can reply back with similar, but counter information. There are insurance carriers (as it looks to be in Duke's case) that only want you to follow your own organizational rules. That's it- you make a rule, you HAVE to follow it.

Anyway, I don't do events anymore, so I'll stay out of the rest of this.

Spoolpigeon wrote: On your map, just put circles around each light pole of the minimum required distance (like you did with the handicap spots) before you draw out the course. It'll make it easier for future course designs.

Yeah, I did that in the revised version that I'm working on. Thanks for the suggestion, though.

I'm refining these design tools as I lay out more courses. As soon as I have the kit in good shape, I will put them up as freeware. The SketchUp program is free, very easy to learn, and you can automatically import scaled background information (which even includes approximate terrain if you want). I'm setting up my tool kit to make it easy to lay out courses and print course maps, if your club does that.

^Very nice^

Duke wrote: The SketchUp program is free, very easy to learn, and you can automatically import scaled background information (which even includes approximate terrain if you want).

+1 to sketchup, I love it. I tried importing my local school's parking lot, though, and the approximate terrain was WAY off. Granted this parking lot has extreme elevation changes and some odd shapes for a parking lot so the case might be a bit on the extreme end, but it showed drastic humps where the real lot is flat, and a smooth uphill where there are many changes. YMMV. The image quality is pretty bad, too, but this is a low priority spot for google it would seem. You can still make out borders of the lot and some light pole locations, though, so it should work for course layouts despite the flaws.

The course looks pretty good to me based on the space limitations.

I can see that one of your goals was to maximize the length of the course. You're making very good use of the small lot that you are on. I kept looking over sections of the course to find places to add more interesting elements like a Chicago box or hairpin or something, but there really isn't any more room to work with. Those poles are pretty close together.

I'm sure once you have run a weekend on this lot with this layout you'll have some ideas on how to make improvements. This looks like a great way to start.