Da Groj

puncturina wrote:Doug and Eva are just hoping to get past the break-in period before the 15th.

Let me use it to go back and forth to work next week...there's 400 miles right off the top. More if you need it.

puncturina wrote:The major drawback of this car for me in the peanut gallery thus far is the lack of power/memory seat adjustments. Makes sharing a car the way we've been doing it quite a hassle.

Not to mention that with a "top" Doug will have to look more like "Lurch". Ask me how I know that.

So you have a Corolla? How exciting. I have a 93 Crown Vic:)

Who wants to see the course map?

Printable PDF

Looks like a fast course (speed, not "FAST")

As Meghan Trainor might say: It's all about the gates, 'bout the gates, - no spinning

(well it is Grammy day)....
Dan

Looks like fun. That turnaround looks easier compared to the recent layouts

I was going to call this course "The Gates of Hell".

Loren wrote:I was going to call this course "The Gates of Hell".

Or call it "short".

Solar wrote:

Loren wrote:I was going to call this course "The Gates of Hell".

Or call it "short".

so it wasn't just me.

We plan Championship events for 100 drivers and 5-6 runs. We can't do that with a long course.

Brian, you know this.

For longer courses and more runs, we do smaller Classic events.

We could have a longer course and still get all the runs in if you got rid of all the cones in the way

This should be my first event with new shocks so I like the length. Fewer variables so I can concentrate on the car. I just hope for more than 4 runs.

actually like the idea of a more technical course. looks fun.

Professional_Slacker wrote:actually like the idea of a more technical course. looks fun.

It's pretty straight forward. The only part people might blow is not slowing enough for the kink a hair past station 6. This is a power course ...you may want to bring the Audi !

I think it's cute that you guys think you can really read how "fast" a course will be from the map.

The difference between "painful" and "faster than an autocross should be" rests with specific set up of just a few particular gates or apexes on any course being placed 2-3 feet one way or the other. That's all it takes. With cones being about 4 feet in diameter on the scale of the map... the map is really just an approximation to help familiarize you with the layout and to help us with setup.

If the map looks "really fast", odds are, we'll be making adjustments to "normalize" that speed. If it looks "really tight", we'll tweak things just so to try to make a path for the savvy driver to get through it. Look for smooth and easy way through, there almost always is one.

FWIW, I think most of this course looks to be on the "tight" side, but we always try to go fairly straight past the rubble and where two cars on course pass (which is the same area). So, that section is where you're likely to get a little speed going.

Loren thinks you are cute!
:heart:

^^^ Ew.

Loren wrote:I think it's cute that you guys think you can really read how "fast" a course will be from the map.

The difference between "painful" and "faster than an autocross should be" rests with specific set up of just a few particular gates or apexes on any course being placed 2-3 feet one way or the other. That's all it takes. With cones being about 4 feet in diameter on the scale of the map... the map is really just an approximation to help familiarize you with the layout and to help us with setup.

If the map looks "really fast", odds are, we'll be making adjustments to "normalize" that speed. If it looks "really tight", we'll tweak things just so to try to make a path for the savvy driver to get through it. Look for smooth and easy way through, there almost always is one.

FWIW, I think most of this course looks to be on the "tight" side, but we always try to go fairly straight past the rubble and where two cars on course pass (which is the same area). So, that section is where you're likely to get a little speed going.

So a wake up call for spoiled driving plan thinkers. What would you do if on the morning of the xcross Loren were to hand you this map and turn 8 first time novices loose on it too out of 58 drivers? Believe it or not it was a very enjoyable course of about 45-46 seconds for most.

^^^ Ew.

Loren wrote:^^^ Ew.

Like most autocross courses, there are a few key spots to set up for significantly more acceleration than if not maximized. So this course map does show potentially "fast" areas relative to a more straight line slalom heavy course.

Yeah, you can tell what sections of the course will be "fast" relative to other sections, but by controlling your entry speed into those straights (and the severity of the braking required at the end fo it), we can limit just how fast the straight will be. We do that by shifting apexes and gates as necessary. We have parameters we are required to operate within. Both our insurance company and the airport have defined maximum speeds for us that we do our best to stay within.

What I'm saying is that we could EASILY set up a course using the exact same map and tweak it to make it "too fast" or "too tight". It's all in the little details, so don't put too much faith in the map. It will generally keep you from getting lost and give you a reference for the general course layout, but it's no substitute for a course walk.