04/04/09 Bowie Auto-x

[BugBomb]

I hope everyone enjoyed my course design. I would definitely like to hear any constructive criticism people might have.

Here's onboard video of my best run today (46.25).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mKUQVSabf0

[FredK]

I thought it was great. I always think CDC courses are too tight, so I won't mention it. The pointers were good, if you went off you weren't paying attention to anything. I don't want to explain why my fast run was sooo fast, but we were lucky their wasn't an explosion.

The Black Lotus guy was pretty good in the dry too. Fun day.
FredK

[Dan133]

Great course, Mike. I really enjoyed it. The wider gates and distance between them made it possible to pick different lines through the course which makes it possible for many different types of cars to be competitive. Good Job!

[Gonz]

I uploaded some fotos onto the Flickr CDC page:



http://www.flickr.com/groups/351694@N21/?added=1


For me the course was the usual. Too fast for first gear. Too much turbo lag for second gear.
I think everyone did a great job of finding their way around the course. We had a bunch of OC's at the beginning, but by the middle of the first heat everyone seemed to really get the hang of it.

I was amazed that all our cones didn't blow away !

[defylogik]

good course but the timing of sent cars needed to be longer as worker stations were too far away to really give a safe amount of time to shuck cones effectively. blame it on the lot as there just werent safe positions in the lower half of the lot. more car time would have given any cone grabbers time to safely rest cones. safety first sometimes gets forgotten when in the hubbub of competition, and this course was definitely laid out in the disadvantage of course workers.


otherswise a good couse, but i do like the other course better that was run last year.

just my opinion.

[edfooliu]

This was my first time at a CDC event having started autoxing last year over at fedex with the SCCA. The course looked painfully tight and narrow compared to what I'm used to, but i _really_ enjoyed it once I actually drove it and started getting into rhythm. The first section had an excellent flow to it, the transition to the second lot was one of the most exciting, balls-out elements I've driven (in my short autox experience), and the two hairpins on the second lot were a really interesting (and punishing) puzzle. I thought the course was a really broad mix of elements, and the simple parts rather effectively used the topography of the lot to make things interesting with hills/camber/etc. Great use of a small venue!

A few sections were, visually, a little confusing with cone placement. The transition area between the two lots was such a dense collection of walls, pointers, and gates, that it was easy for the eyes to fixate on each boundary instead of further down the course--and I think this contributed to a _lot_ of off-course calls. Conversely, the entry into the first low-speed hairpin on the second lot was so sparsely laid out that it was difficult to find the corner unless you had your head already cranked over to the right well before corner entry. I thought that the gates that were there (particularly the gate at/near the apex) could've been better distinguished from the finish box; they visually blended into that mass of cones at the finish.

That said, a case could be made against all of these 'complaints'. Both of the areas I mentioned test the skills of looking ahead, reading and focusing on what's important and filtering out everything that isn't--so any visual difficulty could very well be the _point_. I imagine it's always a balance between making things challenging and making things easier for less experienced drivers, so I can't really argue if the intent was one way or the other.

But again, so the point isn't lost...that was quite a fun course =)

Video of my best (i think 49.18; didn't hear too clearly):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcUNwnmH2hI&fmt=18

-ed
'98 civic coupe silver

[aronparsons]

I thought it was a good course. The two hairpins were challenging; I don't think I got them exactly right all day. The tight chicane that led to the second half of the course was my favorite part of the course.

[warman]

I liked the course a lot. Probably one of my favorite CDC Bowie courses, since there was actually some areas where you could get a good bit of speed.

I got better on every run and never went off course. Best run was a 49.69.

[caelaorn]

I enjoyed the course a lot too. The transition section between the two lots was one of the biggest gut check segments that I've seen.

As for sending the cars at longer intervals, I don't think thats really necessary. If people ran for cones as soon as it was safe there wasn't any problem with reaching the cones and getting safe before the next car came.

In fact in one instance I had plenty of time to run onto the course from the spectator area, pick up a dragged cone, run the cone back to the corner worker, and run back to the spectator area without being anywhere near a car.

[mla163]

i liked it. The crossover was fun.

I thought the start box was a little narrow.

[Ben L]

I liked it a lot. It was different and flowed very nicely. The crossover with the little kink in it was a good feature. I also agree that the wide gates were nice, as they allowed one to try different lines.

[Jim Harris]

The crossover transition from lower lot to upper lot--which really started with the 180 right hander at the extreme end of the lower lot and ended with the 180 right hander near the finish gate--was a masterpiece. The finish was great, too, encouraging a controlled power slide into the lights.

The last series of 180s I hated. Too much for a 3500 pound Mustang. Plus it penalized my chronic lack of discipline in the slow stuff.

Jim
2008 Bullitt

[drakedeming]

No real complaints from me, I really liked the little box in the second half of the course.

[Gonz]

After we had the course set up and chalked ( ie, finalized) we realized that the last 3 cone slalom was actually about 10 feet left of where we had intended. When viewed from the timing table, 10 feet right would have made for an easier transition from the box into the slalom. There was still enough run off room to the right to do that safely.

As it turned out this area really penalized those who didnt' look ahead ( over their shoulder?) and set up the entry to the slalom. And yes, I'm sure it favored a smaller car as well.

[Ben L]

Yes. Both my car and me hated that transition! On what I thought was going to be my best run, it pushed so hard trying to tuck back that way that I killed all the momentum I had, making the approach to the slalom pretty much starting from a dead stop.

[defylogik]

I enjoyed the course a lot too. The transition section between the two lots was one of the biggest gut check segments that I've seen.

As for sending the cars at longer intervals, I don't think thats really necessary. If people ran for cones as soon as it was safe there wasn't any problem with reaching the cones and getting safe before the next car came.

In fact in one instance I had plenty of time to run onto the course from the spectator area, pick up a dragged cone, run the cone back to the corner worker, and run back to the spectator area without being anywhere near a car.

I guess what you consider safe and i consider safe is different. From the far worker station, it was hard to see if cars were on their first or second loop around the upper lot. My safety is a lot more important to me than a orange cone

No offense to the the cobra guys, the suxass subie guys, but there is no way i'm running out after a cone when your coming towards me

overall i would say that the course did not favor a smaller car, as the smaller cars could get the turns but not make up the speed in the long sweepers.

[BugBomb]

I'm glad so many people appreciated what I was trying to accomplish (A long, flowing section with no 180-degree turns). We pulled it off, but I was always disappointed at what I had to do in the upper lot to create that. We could have widened those 180s a little more, but it would just make the turns longer. Maybe in the future I can come up with a compromise, but Bowie is really tough to combine fast, fun, and safe.

I like what Denny pointed out, though. At the lower lot, if they just removed one pair of islands separating the lower lot from the lower-lower lot, the possibilities would be very exciting.

[defylogik]

I'm glad so many people appreciated what I was trying to accomplish (A long, flowing section with no 180-degree turns). We pulled it off, but I was always disappointed at what I had to do in the upper lot to create that. We could have widened those 180s a little more, but it would just make the turns longer. Maybe in the future I can come up with a compromise, but Bowie is really tough to combine fast, fun, and safe.

I like what Denny pointed out, though. At the lower lot, if they just removed one pair of islands separating the lower lot from the lower-lower lot, the possibilities would be very exciting.

Has anyone ever consider the idea of doing a stop/launch box where the islands are? Say you do half of the course, then you come into the stop box somewhere between the transition where the islands are, full stop, then launch again out into the second half of the course? I've never seen it done at an AX but i really like the idea of doing something like that. Could be easy enough to have a worker there to ensure you make a full stop, otherwise like 10 second penalty or something.

just a thought.

[JoeTR6]

The last series of 180s I hated. Too much for a 3500 pound Mustang. Plus it penalized my chronic lack of discipline in the slow stuff.

Actually, I was amazed at how well your car seemed to handle the tight parts of the course.

Has anyone ever consider the idea of doing a stop/launch box where the islands are?

We've talked about it. There are two problems with doing that. First, we need to put the timing tent where we could see start and stop, but that would mean we couldn't see the entire upper lot. The other problem is access to the lower lot while cars are running. We'd pretty much need to stop running if someone comes in late or leaves before a heat is done. The next heat of cars could in effect stage on the access road and drive down after the previous heat is done. Then there's a third issue of potentially having two cars running on the same lot or competing for the transition between lots. Anyone can screw up and go off course at some point, and I'd hate to risk a collision. So we'd need to separate the first and last parts of the course wasting a good part of the lot. If we drop the run overlap, the course length would suffer. So basically, we just haven't considered it enough of an advantage to work out all the problems.

If we could borrow a jackhammer, I'd volunteer to remove those dividers (assuming the stadium approved).

[FredK]

I realize that occasionally I can be a PIA, but there is only one club that does not use the lower lot at Bowie, and I've run with several. Their has never been anything close to an issue.

[kyle.bowker]

I realize that occasionally I can be a PIA, but there is only one club that does not use the lower lot at Bowie, and I've run with several. Their has never been anything close to an issue.

I have personally witnessed the carnage of a young lady smashing her dad's Miata into the island that separates the upper and lower lots at a MSCW event, destroying the rear suspension, axle, and wheel in the process and creating a lengthy delay for all participants. I've also seen some "close calls" with other clubs (cough, BMW). CDC has decided to follow SCCA course design guidelines at all the venues we use and for good reason. If, God forbid, someone smashes their car and blames the club for poor course design and we end up in court the plaintiff's attorney is going to have a field day when they find out we used SCCA course design guidelines at all of our events except the one where an incident just happened to occur. According to the course designers I've spoken to, running a course through those islands violates one of the SCCA course design guidelines and therefore we simply are not willing to take the risk at this time.

[FredK]

nevermind

[ButtDyno]

If, God forbid, someone smashes their car and blames the club for poor course design and we end up in court the plaintiff's attorney is going to have a field day when they find out we used SCCA course design guidelines at all of our events except the one where an incident just happened to occur.

The only thing that should matter is what CDC's contract with their insurance company says. If it doesn't require SCCA's guidelines to be followed I'm not sure what someone could possibly say.

[TommySalami]

I'd rather not risk it. The reason I do autox and not track days is because it's so safe.

[mla163]

I'd rather not risk it. The reason I do autox and not track days is because it's so safe.

agreed

I'd rather play it safe. I have to drive that thing to work on monday.