Cal Club Autocross Forums

Kurt, I think you did an excellent job of making use of the available space. I heard that the amount of real estate you had to work with changed several times, with each change necessitating a redesign. Way to hang in there under difficult circumstances.

The course really challenged your concentration...required precision, patience, aggression, then repeat. Took a whole bottle of bug & tar remover to get the cone scuffs off the Miata's nose!

I may be a little biased because I happen to drive a car that excels (and accels )in transition, but that was my favorite El Toro course in the last couple of years.

Great job Kurt - really challenging course. I didn't like the beginning elements with the apex cone on the wrong end of the element which was really confusing visually, but other than that, I thought you did a fantastic job on both days.

I hate you! That Sunday course looked "fast and easy". It was neither. Another 10 or 12 runs and I would have had it totally under control.

Great job with the design both days, but I'm glad changes were made for Sunday.

Max Hayter wrote:Great job Kurt - really challenging course. I didn't like the beginning elements with the apex cone on the wrong end of the element which was really confusing visually, but other than that, I thought you did a fantastic job on both days.

+1 to Max's compliments.

And I totally agree on the apex cone needing to be on the right end of the element.
I recall last months course had these too
Let's make this the last course marked like that for walloms.
It creates depth issues when you are at ride height and at speed.
Roger's design guide warned of this if I recall too.

Roger also frowns on having two sets of doubles with a lay down next to the doubles BTW. >^^ ^^< should be ^^ ^^ only.
Less is more.

I would like to add that the Chicago box entry/exit into the sweeper and the reverse on Sunday was pure genius!

I enjoyed it. A few visually distracting things, but Kurt & team did a fantastic job making it not feel like a 100 cone slalom .

Thanks, guys. Let's just say that between the workers needing new shoes after the event and discovering the difference between what something looks like from directly above vs. at ground level, I learned a lot. But I had fun driving it.

I found it visually very messy (especially the initial walls with the pointer at the "wrong" end) but it was very fun to drive once I got it all figured out!

Rick Brown wrote:I found it visually very messy (especially the initial walls with the pointer at the "wrong" end) but it was very fun to drive once I got it all figured out!

Funny, those walls with the pointer at the wrong end also screwed my up to the point of spinning. Began heading for the wrong end, then pulled the wheel to correct, and voila......round and round I go. I'm sure Kurt was just looking for a different way to disguise a slalom.

Even though I never got a clean run, I REALLY enjoyed the course.

Even with my 2 DNF's I had a great time, very challenging - - Loved the course Kurt!

Excellent job on the course design Kurt. I know you spent a pile of time designing and re-designing.. and I think it paid off.
A little confusing at the start, but got much better as it went.
From the far turn around to the finish was incredible!! Very challenging and fun.
Thanks for all you hard work Kurt.

I think someone told me that this course would be easier than the one in March. LIARS! Haha. Though, in hindsight March wasn't bad at all. Anyway, it was a challenging Sunday for sure and very difficult to stay ahead of, especially since this was my second Sunday event. I absolutely loved Saturday's course, but Sunday was confusing at times and I basically got schooled. Thanks for a great weekend guys and gals AND course design. Can't wait for Pro Solo!!!

Ed Holley wrote:That Sunday course looked "fast and easy".

To me it looked exactly the opposite. Walking it, slalom, followed by wall'em, them slalom, turn right, slalom, then slalom, then slalom, turn left... I personally though it was going to be tight, slow, and monotonous.

Though I'm shocked I only hit one cone in 4 runs (not counting the spin), it actually drove fast and easy. Every run I got back to grid, and thought, OK I can carry more speed in a couple of places. Normally I'm more of the "lets remember slow is fast" self coaching between runs.

easy - with the exception of the wall'ems misplaced pointer cone (to jump on the band wagon, drawn by a dead horse by now )

Great job Kurt!

The course was fun in the wagon. I did get sucked in on two of my four runs (2nd and 4th) by the transition between the slant walls and parallel walls on the way out -- turned in to go to the right of the first parallel wall, then had to jink left to stay on the correct side. That caused some coneage on the 2nd run, but didn't seem to hurt much on my 4th run, which was my fastest by over a second.

My other critique involves the long straight slalom with no directional markings. In general, optional slaloms cause confusion for rookies, and they also require much more concentration from the course workers because they have to watch which side the car enters on and make sure that it alternates sides with each cone. With a fixed entry direction, all the cars pass on the same side of each cone which is easier to keep track of. So if you want to make a slalom have an optional entry direction, there should be a strong reason to do so. Usually it is to give drivers a puzzle, a choice between two paths that trade off benefits and drawbacks. The easy entry puts you in a less favorable position at the exit, and working to make the harder entry pays off on the way out. Or the optional feature can offer one path that's good for momentum cars and one path that's good for power cars. If the easy side on entry connects to the easy side on exit, you really ought to just mark it, at least the first cone. In talking to Doug Teulie, it sounds like maybe Kurt had originally set it up as non-optional.

What was the spacing on that slalom, by the way? It was tight but didn't feel as tight as when I've had to drive through a 40' (minimum legal spacing) slalom. It was probably about as short as you can get before it becomes really painful.

What was the spacing on that slalom, by the way? It was tight but didn't feel as tight as when I've had to drive through a 40' (minimum legal spacing) slalom. It was probably about as short as you can get before it becomes really painful.

The first pair of cones were approx 42 ft, the next were 51 ft, the next two pairs were 63 ft ea. I don't know the spacing between the last two cones as they were added after I walked.

I can't remember the last time I had to work that hard behind the wheel. I forgot to breath. It was an excellent use of some seriously small space and quite the opposite of boring. It was also a fresh change of pace from the technical approaches to this OMG Can I Make It design. Just to finish without a cone was a thrill!!!!!!!

Good job.

t

Thanks for a real Auto-x course. I had fun!!

John Fendel wrote:

What was the spacing on that slalom, by the way? It was tight but didn't feel as tight as when I've had to drive through a 40' (minimum legal spacing) slalom. It was probably about as short as you can get before it becomes really painful.

The first pair of cones were approx 42 ft, the next were 51 ft, the next two pairs were 63 ft ea. I don't know the spacing between the last two cones as they were added after I walked.

John Stimson - I think you mean 45'?

2.3 COURSE DESIGN RULES
A. All corners shall be negotiable without reversing by any car classified
by make/model in the Solo® 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 three (3) or more
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.

John Fendel - Your 42' is actually 46' (four squares plus two feet). Unless I've been told incorrectly, those squares are actually 11 feet, not 10 feet.

I was quite fond of this course too; Even as a rookie I didn't find it confusing at all. I especially liked the big sweeper into the Chicago box, and my second favorite part was right after the hard right turn until the turnaround (section 2, i suppose?). I don't think I ever got it quite right in any of my 8 runs, but I sure had fun trying

John Fendel - Your 42' is actually 46' (four squares plus two feet). Unless I've been told incorrectly, those squares are actually 11 feet, not 10 feet.

Like I said, my measurements are approximate. I have about a 3 ft stride and I paced off 14 strides between the first two cones, so that comes out to 42 ft.

KJ Christopher wrote:

John Fendel wrote:

What was the spacing on that slalom, by the way? It was tight but didn't feel as tight as when I've had to drive through a 40' (minimum legal spacing) slalom. It was probably about as short as you can get before it becomes really painful.

The first pair of cones were approx 42 ft, the next were 51 ft, the next two pairs were 63 ft ea. I don't know the spacing between the last two cones as they were added after I walked.

John Stimson - I think you mean 45'?

2.3 COURSE DESIGN RULES
A. All corners shall be negotiable without reversing by any car classified
by make/model in the Solo® 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 three (3) or more
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.

John Fendel - Your 42' is actually 46' (four squares plus two feet). Unless I've been told incorrectly, those squares are actually 11 feet, not 10 feet.

Yes, 11', or actually 11.03' if you want to go by Patch Simanyi's nuclear powered laser guided ruler launcher thingy.

Once Christine gets caught up, should we be seeing the 2012 Championship standings ....

Great job on the course, Kurt! Especially given the real estate you were given. You managed to keep a ton of transitions fresh and interesting... and challenging! I had a blast both days! Your effort is definitely appreciated.
Mark D.

KJ Christopher wrote:John Stimson - I think you mean 45'?

Yeah, 45'. I drove at an event with a minimum-spaced slalom, and pretty much everyone's reaction was "KILL ME NOW". This one was work, but not that bad.