Designed my first autocross course...

This is what we are going to run at Portland International Raceway on Sunday July 14th with the Oregon Porsche Club of America.

Thoughts? Feedback?

I've modified previous layouts before, but this is my first all original to get chosen.

I really like that design. From the air at least it looks like it wont be as cramped and confusing most courses are.

Also I like the tight turn at the finish so people wont be hauling ass in there.

crankwalk wrote: I really like that design. From the air at least it looks like it wont be as cramped and confusing most courses are. Also I like the tight turn at the finish so people wont be hauling ass in there.

That kind of finish is one I like, too.

but be prepared for the whining that you can go WOT through the finish, and it makes it unsafe... There are plenty of places to really put the power down, you don't need to at the finish. The point is to slow you down.

Brush off the whiners. Explain carefully why you are doing that. And that EVERYONE has to run the same track.

In reply to crankwalk:

I should post a "typical" design for comparison, as the grid is usually where corner station 6 is.

I tried to put in a little of everything (optional slaloms, offset, pivots, sweepers, and a crossover) without interrupting the flow. The surface at PIR isn't flat and is banked higher as you get lower in the photo.

One less/more cone in the second slalom would make it a choice. Looks fun! 8)

Here was last month's, which was very "typical" of our layouts recently, for comparison.

In reply to bluej:

Oh, that's a really good point. If we have the room, we'll do a "race day update" and add one in.

In reply to alfadriver:

I'm the registrar, if they whine to me I'll make their time DNF. Seriously though, we have very, very little complaints about course design itself. 99% of any negative feedback is directly the result of the poor condition of the pavement. We have been very accommodating with adjusting the layout to minimize potholes, jumps, broken pavement, etc. Our driver's are all really a great, great crew.

Javelin wrote: In reply to alfadriver: I'm the registrar, if they whine to me I'll make their time DNF. Seriously though, we have very, very little complaints about course design itself. 99% of any negative feedback is directly the result of the poor condition of the pavement. We have been very accommodating with adjusting the layout to minimize potholes, jumps, broken pavement, etc. Our driver's are all really a great, great crew.

I hate having to do that. We've been able to use a few lots that were in bad shape- and thanks to the lot condition, the courses end up being very similar each time. Again, people complained about that- but I offer to let them design a course given the same pot holes and seam openings and see what they can do. Gotta use what you have....

BTW, if you have not heard complaints, you've not done it enough. After designing a lot of events, there are features that I would much rather have than not- since they keep speeds in certian areas more sane. And I offer refunds if they want.

BTW2- one suggestion- if you trailer to events, for the final drive through BEFORE the safety run, drive the truck/trailer around. If it fits, we have found that the resulting course is a lot better flowing. Still can be slow enough, but just the flow for a driver is easier to deal with.

My only suggestion would be to eliminate the crossover. They often cause off-course calls, and also create a constant safety hazard for workers in that area and/or slowdown the flow of things due to the delays in re-setting cones between one car and the next. I've certainly seen them done well before, but its usually better to simply avoid them all-together if you can.

That looks really good!

I'm not holding my breath, but it would be awesome if the South Pits got repaved someday...

Count me in the "don't like slow finishes" group. In my 8 year autocrossing experience, what you want is a medium speed STRAIGHT finish. This accomplishes 2 things. The first, with it being straight, means that no cars come across the line sideways trying to get that last tenth. There WILL be people doing that. First timers in C5z06's and the like that will get around that last cone, stomp the gas and Whoops! Secondly you finish on a high note. You want your "customers" finishing with the "WHOOHOO! That's awesome!" sensation at full throttle, and not being pinched off at the end for a ho hum feeling. Autocross is like golf, you feel as good as the last run, or even the last part of your last run. Even if someone's slow, if they end on a high note, they'l want to come back.

Edit: I agree with the crossover elimination as well. it creates course confusion, AND you increase your car to car timing, which can slow down events.

needs more wagon wheels, tight chicago boxes, and pointer cones with 180 degree turns.....

[runs and hides, ducking the rotten tomatoes being thrown his way.]

ransom wrote: That looks really good! I'm not holding my breath, but it would be awesome if the South Pits got repaved someday...

Let's just say it won't matter either way for next season. We have big announcements coming soon.

In reply to ProDarwin:

You'll notice that the crossover in this layout is really close to the start. The idea is to have car #1 clear it, make sure there's no cones, and then send out car #2. We've done the crossover in the middle or end before and you're right, they are more trouble than they are worth there.

Javelin wrote: In reply to ProDarwin: You'll notice that the crossover in this layout is really close to the start. The idea is to have car #1 clear it, make sure there's no cones, and then send out car #2. We've done the crossover in the middle or end before and you're right, they are more trouble than they are worth there.

I've done a course like that and it worked out ok.

tpwalsh wrote: Edit: I agree with the crossover elimination as well. it creates course confusion, AND you increase your car to car timing, which can slow down events.

Where the crossover is shouldn't affect car to car timing.....the limit on the C2C timing in his design is the safety distance of the last corner to the second slalom.

A crossover is a great way to set C2C timing, and if done properly, is very straight forward to go through. I guess I'm not used to people in my regions being inable to cope with them, distracted by bright cones, or whatever else.

No. 1 Best way to reduce confusion, make a simple to follow flowing design, which is kinda what it looks like he has done, albeit a bit more technical than they are used to.

tpwalsh wrote: Count me in the "don't like slow finishes" group. In my 8 year autocrossing experience, what you want is a medium speed STRAIGHT finish.

I have heard that so many times that it's not funny.

And totally disagree with it.

slow speed finishes are so much easier to deal with. And so much safer for the paddock.

But I will stop there, since after 15 years of autocrossing, I seem to have tired of it. No idea the number of courses I've done....

YMMV.

Have fun. don't get overwhelmed. And expect some people to not help.

alfadriver wrote: Have fun. don't get overwhelmed. And expect some people to not help.

I agree with you on the finishes.....the bmwcca normally did stop boxes at the end.

+1 for expecting people to not help......they started not allowing people to run in future events if they skipped work assignments.

yamaha wrote:

alfadriver wrote: Have fun. don't get overwhelmed. And expect some people to not help.

I agree with you on the finishes.....the bmwcca normally did stop boxes at the end. +1 for expecting people to not help......they started not allowing people to run in future events if they skipped work assignments.

I'm having lots of fun, but it's only my 6th season of autocross, and the first where I had any input into it beyond helping with setup/teardown or tech. It is overwhelming, and good help is hard to come by. Luckily we have a very strong, large group of people who are all willing to chip in. We've never had a skipped assignment problem because with us, if you skip your runs get a DNF and you're banned for the season. Funnily enough, we've had no skips.

alfadriver wrote:

tpwalsh wrote: Count me in the "don't like slow finishes" group. In my 8 year autocrossing experience, what you want is a medium speed STRAIGHT finish.

I have heard that so many times that it's not funny. And totally disagree with it. slow speed finishes are so much easier to deal with. And so much safer for the paddock. But I will stop there, since after 15 years of autocrossing, I seem to have tired of it. No idea the number of courses I've done.... YMMV. Have fun. don't get overwhelmed. And expect some people to not help.

(Shrug) I'm not a course designer, though I've run it both ways with multiple clubs and seen both ways done wrong and right. To keep this discussion civil, here's a VERY good handbook of course design done by Roger Johnson.

http://www.odr-scca.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,1/Itemid,29/

tpwalsh wrote:

alfadriver wrote:

tpwalsh wrote: Count me in the "don't like slow finishes" group. In my 8 year autocrossing experience, what you want is a medium speed STRAIGHT finish.

I have heard that so many times that it's not funny. And totally disagree with it. slow speed finishes are so much easier to deal with. And so much safer for the paddock. But I will stop there, since after 15 years of autocrossing, I seem to have tired of it. No idea the number of courses I've done.... YMMV. Have fun. don't get overwhelmed. And expect some people to not help.

(Shrug) I'm not a course designer, though I've run it both ways with multiple clubs and seen both ways done wrong and right. To keep this discussion civil, here's a VERY good handbook of course design done by Roger Johnson. http://www.odr-scca.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,1/Itemid,29/

Luckily we have a very strong, large group of people who are all willing to chip in

Ya, this makes a HUGE difference. It's nice knowing I only have get the timing equipment up and running and ready for the registrar to run registration before I can walk, or get my car ready. In the past my club has burnt out many presidents who tried or had to do it all.

Javelin wrote: In reply to ProDarwin: You'll notice that the crossover in this layout is really close to the start. The idea is to have car #1 clear it, make sure there's no cones, and then send out car #2. We've done the crossover in the middle or end before and you're right, they are more trouble than they are worth there.

yamaha wrote: Where the crossover is shouldn't affect car to car timing.....the limit on the C2C timing in his design is the safety distance of the last corner to the second slalom. A crossover is a great way to set C2C timing, and if done properly, is very straight forward to go through. I guess I'm not used to people in my regions being inable to cope with them, distracted by bright cones, or whatever else.

See the bolded part for the timing impact. Lets say car A hits a cone in the crossover on its 2nd pass through. Now a cone knocked over well into car A's run is holding up car B's launch while it is reset.

Or think of it this way: The average spacing between cars is 30 seconds. That means for any cone on course knocked over, the corner worker has ~20-25 seconds to safely reset it. Cones in a crossover area are subject to a much shorter amount of time to reset - on average 1/2 the standard spacing as the car passes twice. This causes a potential safety issue, or a delay to 45 seconds for the next car any time a cone is knocked over to give the corner workers adequate time.

ProDarwin wrote:

Javelin wrote: In reply to ProDarwin: You'll notice that the crossover in this layout is really close to the start. The idea is to have car #1 clear it, make sure there's no cones, and then send out car #2. We've done the crossover in the middle or end before and you're right, they are more trouble than they are worth there.

yamaha wrote: Where the crossover is shouldn't affect car to car timing.....the limit on the C2C timing in his design is the safety distance of the last corner to the second slalom. A crossover is a great way to set C2C timing, and if done properly, is very straight forward to go through. I guess I'm not used to people in my regions being inable to cope with them, distracted by bright cones, or whatever else.

Or think of it this way: The average spacing between cars is 30 seconds. That means for any cone on course knocked over, the corner worker has ~20-25 seconds to safely reset it. Cones in a crossover area are subject to a much shorter amount of time to reset - on average 1/2 the standard spacing as the car passes twice. This causes a potential safety issue, or a delay to 45 seconds for the next car any time a cone is knocked over to give the corner workers adequate time.

Played with it a bit and came up with this.