Okanagan Autocross

mcsinc wrote:

Brain wrote:It is my job to cater to the lowest common denominator. If some clown in a 1000 hp car crashes through the gate and hits a bus load of nuns we all lose

Brain wrote:I've probably seen 15 major incidents over the years at various races. Number of novices = 1. Number of good,experienced drivers = 11. Number of drivers that I highly respect and rate in the top 5% of drivers = 3.

Aren't these statements contradictory?

Are they? Course design is supposed to attempt to protect the lowest common denominator from themselves - that could be the slowest driver or the fastest. Safety has to be number one so that A) nobody gets hurt and B) an accident doesn't result in the loss of the lot and ruin it for everybody. My only point in mentioning the good drivers is that sometimes the course really does need to slow down. People with all levels of skill often push harder than they should. Course design is about protecting everyone no matter their skill or speed.

mcsinc wrote:I agree with See23 about the pinch points, ONLY because I'm not as intuitive of a driver as some, meaning I often don't see the "fast line". Or perhaps I'm just too derpy to try different lines and am thinking "oh I must need to go faster here etc. when in fact the opposite it true. Although I don't like the pinch points, the bottom line is that we all drive the same course and have to deal with the same elements.

Nobody likes pinch points. I already said I didn't like the course.....because I don't like pinch points. I might dislike them more than anybody else actually since I'm driving a FWD car with zero torque and a tall second gear. It was no fun having to shift 2 or 3 times per run and it's hard on the car and the tires.

But - and it's a big BUT - the Vernon lot sucks in shape and layout. If we are going to go fast then we have to slow down. So any element that takes a car from 100 km/h to 30 km/h is going to feel pinched. The only way we can use the full lot is to go deep into the corners...which means we have to slow down even more. Nobody wants to just do a big loop in the middle 4 times and go home.

I actually don't agree with the theory that everybody drives the same course. Everyone drives the same pattern, but different cars drive it completely differently. Part of the challenge of making a fair course is equalizing (relative to pax) for both a tiny 90 hp Civic and a giant 500 hp Corvette. I think that saying was just invented by some course designer as an excuse instead of admitting their course sucked.

I would imagine that I've designed several hundred courses. Things I've learned:

- I'm my own worst critic
- You will never make everyone happy
- Some courses suck

Personally I just move on. Take mental notes on what works and what doesn't. Sundays course will be different. Eliminator courses will be previously tested concepts. Next year will be a new lot (I hope) with a whole new learning curve.....and list of complaints.

I know you know more than anyone when a course sucks.
I'd like to think of my comments as feedback for forum discussion rather than complaints.
If there has ever been any consistency to my ....uhhh feedback it's that I hate those PPs!

Looking forward to the next event, as usual.

See23 wrote:I'd like to think of my comments as feedback for forum discussion rather than complaints.

Call it what you like - I wish more people would do it. I think we've had close to 100 different drivers this year (Vernon and Kelowna) and all the feedback typically comes from the same 5 people.

Brain wrote:Are they? Course design is supposed to attempt to protect the lowest common denominator from themselves - that could be the slowest driver or the fastest. Safety has to be number one so that A) nobody gets hurt and B) an accident doesn't result in the loss of the lot and ruin it for everybody. My only point in mentioning the good drivers is that sometimes the course really does need to slow down. People with all levels of skill often push harder than they should. Course design is about protecting everyone no matter their skill or speed.

OK, point taken. I guess I was thinking of the "lowest common denominator" as the inexperienced driver that comes out and drives like a goon, but I suppose it could also mean when an experienced driver pushes too hard.

Brain wrote:I actually don't agree with the theory that everybody drives the same course. Everyone drives the same pattern, but different cars drive it completely differently.

It IS the exact same physical course was my point. Yes, drivers will all have to drive differently depending on level of modification and driving style, but it is still the same course.

Either way, whether you think a course you designed sucks or someone else does, we must all be having fun, or else we wouldn't keep coming out!

Last word. Yes? No?
Where is the input from some of the other board members?? C'mon peeps, speak up.

Oh, and now that I've seen how the timing computer works, have you tried drop down menus instead of typing in the driver number and switching back and forth between tabs? It's a pet peeve of mine on Excel that there isn't a quick toggle for tabs.

My 2 cents..
As far as track layout goes, I thought it was the most demanding of me yet. I don't have the experience to say it was good or bad. I can say that it was one that I had to work the hardest at and even though the car felt like right crap and wasn't as smooth as I prefer I posted my fastest times to date and I'm just pleased that I'm now even with some of you guys,
I understand the work involved in set up and design so I'll probably never be one to bad mouth the layout as I doubt I could even come close in that aspect.
Just putting it out there that I appreciate all the effort that gets put forth by you guys

mcsinc wrote:Oh, and now that I've seen how the timing computer works, have you tried drop down menus instead of typing in the driver number and switching back and forth between tabs? It's a pet peeve of mine on Excel that there isn't a quick toggle for tabs.

Yes - I tried drop down boxes a couple years ago. We didn't like it. Between the convoluted lookup tables for pax and some quirks in Excel it ended up being easier just to flip between tabs and look up the driver number. We decided it really wasn't a big deal since you only have to find the number once (plus Matt and I know the numbers for most of the regulars). Plus by flipping to the fully populated tab we can use the find function and search for name, make, model, color, etc - more options than are available through drop downs.

mcsinc wrote:Last word. Yes? No?

Do you really think Richard or I will let you have the last word? You must be new here

Okay so your right and I never do post on here much if at all anymore, and it did take quite a few attempts before I got my login correct . Anyway I digress, yes I do agree that Sunday's course had a few extra or tighter than expected pinch points but in my opinion that is better than someone going too fast and something bad happening. Yes flowing courses are more fun but in the Vernon lot, like Brian said they would all be the same and that would get quite boring all of the time. It is quite difficult to come up with different courses in both Kelowna and Vernon all of the time and your right they are not all going to be winners, there are many times where the course just did not work like it was supposed to. Not to suck up but Brian has put a lot of thought and effort into the courses this year and in my opinion has done a great job. I know feed back is always welcome and it is good to know which part of the course people liked and what part people hated, which helps with the next course. Please do feel free to give feed back on the course but do remember there are some things that can't be changed or are there for a reason

RichardMotion wrote:Just putting it out there that I appreciate all the effort that gets put forth by you guys

Thanks!

riceracer wrote:Okay so your right and I never do post on here much if at all anymore

13 posts in 20 months? Newb

I know but that is 14 now.