Cal Club Autocross Forums

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3K6SxbLYVI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

new angle for my videos....

fun course --- big sweepers again and gotta love the oval at the start....

Steve G

Steve Glusman wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3K6SxbLYVI
new angle for my videos....
fun course --- big sweepers again and gotta love the oval at the start....
Steve G

I loved the oval, but my tires didn't.

Here's mine:

http://vimeo.com/5160309

And the practice:

http://vimeo.com/5148762

http://vimeo.com/5148526

Steve Glusman wrote: fun course --- big sweepers again and gotta love the oval at the start....

Unnecessary element, only 12' wide, with no choice of line that made the course overly long.

Aaron Goldsmith wrote:

Steve Glusman wrote: fun course --- big sweepers again and gotta love the oval at the start....

Unnecessary element, only 12' wide, with no choice of line that made the course overly long.

Okay, don't pull any punches...what did you really think of it?

Aaron Goldsmith wrote:

Steve Glusman wrote: fun course --- big sweepers again and gotta love the oval at the start....

Unnecessary element, only 12' wide, with no choice of line that made the course overly long.

Thought I saw someone measure it so that it was the required 15'. It was there as a No$ homage to Craig who had done something similar in the past.

Rick Brown wrote: It was there as a No$ homage to Craig who had done something similar in the past.

Yeah, i remember. It was what it was. Anyway here's our video for the championship day with data, sorry for the crap angle, but the roof of the car is currently not useable for camera mounting.

Toby's fastest clean lap (68.849):
http://www.vimeo.com/5172859" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Aaron's fastest lap (69.753):
http://www.vimeo.com/5172794" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The only loops I remember were from Art Rinner, but Craig did a lot of courses over a lot of decades, I'm sure there is a little of everything. The big thing I remember about Craig Angel courses were they were generally fun. I didn't like the course. I thought the loop was a tire shredder, but Craig was famous for making tire shredder courses at times. Especially the finishes. Course looked fun Saturday and I think the reviews at the practice were overwhelmingly positive. Didn't like on Sunday. The course didn't flow as well and I hated the changes made. I heard people hurting themselves turning the wheel. I had some pain in my right wrist. A 10mph turn is just stupid.

I didn't see how a 5 or 6 yo was going to figure out the loop. No problems. Robert drove it a lot better than mommie, daddy, or uncles did.

Aaron Goldsmith wrote: Anyway here's our video for the championship day with data, sorry for the crap angle, but the roof of the car is currently not useable for camera mounting.

Why so rich? 12:1 AFR's are for turbo'd cars.

Practice Saturday. 61.1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bOFGtgyvGA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUSI6MAAC-g" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;




Sunday in Tom Dobyns SS Corvette. 71.2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5X0JpfdxaA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Steve A.

Unnecessary element, only 12' wide, with no choice of line that made the course overly long.

I didn't care for the skid pad element, but there was a line thru it since is was an egg shaped oval, not a circle. If you apexed close to the East and West ends and drifted out slightly on the South and North sides, you could make it into more of a skid pad type circle. The rest of the course was challenging, but interesting. I thought the rest of the course was a better balance of speed maintenance vs point and shoot then many of the courses we run. I would have preferred that the course width be a bit wider so the options on lines for big cars vs small cars would have been better. But that would end up favoring the small car also. Overall I thought it was a very challenging course, so Well Done.

Rick Brown wrote:[
Thought I saw someone measure it so that it was the required 15'.

15' is a good minimum but unfortunately it's not in a mandatory section of the rulebook. 2.x?

Aaron Goldsmith wrote:Unnecessary element, only 12' wide, with no choice of line.

There was some room for line choice (I had lots ) Look at your video and Leonards. You can see where Leonard made it into more of a circle (like I told Jon but he didn't do it!) and you were tight all the way around (including the exit, maybe you were avoiding the pothole?)

Eric Clements wrote:

Rick Brown wrote:[
Thought I saw someone measure it so that it was the required 15'.

15' is a good minimum but unfortunately it's not in a mandatory section of the rulebook. 2.x?

From the 2009 SCCA Solo rule book:

2.3 COURSE DESIGN RULES
B. The course shall be at least 15 feet wide, and single-file slalom
markers shall be at least 45 feet apart. Any series of course
markers which are generally in a line and have the effect of a
slalom are considered to be a slalom. Additional course markers
associated with the slalom markers to form gates, “boxes”, etc.,
do not cancel this limit.

Christine Berry wrote:[From the 2009 SCCA Solo rule book:
2.3 COURSE DESIGN RULES
B. The course shall be at least 15 feet wide, and single-file slalom
markers shall be at least 45 feet apart. Any series of course
markers which are generally in a line and have the effect of a
slalom are considered to be a slalom. Additional course markers
associated with the slalom markers to form gates, “boxes”, etc.,
do not cancel this limit.

Yep, no underline = not mandatory. Section 1.1

I find 8 paces across makes for happy.

Hmmm... section 1.1 specifically identifies 2.3 as one of the mandatory sections, and reading that section I'm of the opinion that it's a key requirement. Time for the SEB to issue a correction (one way or the other...)

Mike

Eric Clements wrote: Yep, no underline = not mandatory. Section 1.1

I was curious about this, and looked it up... and got confused as 2.3 (like 2.4) is specified as mandatory in 1.1 but not underlined (unlike 2.4):
So what is it then, mandatory or not?

In the 2008 rule book, 2.2 was changed as an addition and the original 2.2 changed to 2.3. However the mandatory section in 1.1 was not updated. 2.3 is not manatory.

SEB is now aware of this.

Glenn Duensing wrote:2.3 is not manatory

Really?!?! We can design courses with 10 ft. widths, gimmicks, reverse required, 20 ft. slalom spacing, and unmarked cone placement? Avoiding every single one of those things defines SCCA Solo in my mind!

Here is my video from Practice....66.6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPQDnHZVSSs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just because we can doesn't mean we should.....

Okay, here's the Fiat contingent @ NO$...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S5Lszx7xEU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; My Fiat X1/9

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwZsYE6zl_Y" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Craig Way driving his Fiat 850 Spyder

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pscYQS5jX8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Me driving Craig’s Fiat 850 Spyder

I managed a low 67 sec run in Craig's car. Quite a bit faster than when the Sedan would post.