MOWOG VI Course Design

[psundberg]

I have a request to the MOWOG VI & VII EM's/course designers.

Please make an attempt to design a course that is smooth & flowing. Granted this is easier said than done but it can be done, even at Midway. The course doesn't have to be 60 seeconds long or anything fancy or weird. A nice course, avoiding 1st gear hairpins, using few cones with the opportunity for drivers to find the fast line without being penned in by cones would be great. Just a thought...
Phil

[SaturnRaycer]

Why not have a contest?

Get a copy of the lot drawing from Darryl and design your course. Submit the designs to Dwight by 9/20. The judging committee should include Jeremy, Pat Washburn and one other. The top two designs will be the courses for MOWOG VI & VII.

Just a thought. Lets bring this up as new business at Weds night's meeeting!

[914 Dave]

Nate (silveracer) and I am working on just this for Mowog VII along with some other ideas, so we'll keep this in mind...

[weidnerpaul]

My contribution:

X X X X

X X
X X X X X

X X

X



X



X

X

X



X


A course by messageboard, who wants to add to it? :D :) :D

Paul

Oh well, the formatting of the pylons didn't survive the posting...

[fitz]

Why would anyone do anything different (on purpose)?

Is there an EM for the next MOWOG? Since I had to back out at the last minute for the last one I sort of feel like I need to make it up on the next one.

[Darryl]

Fitz,

Steve Garnjobst (mnbiker) is EM for MOWOG VI and Dave Parsons (914Dave) has MOWOG VII.

Darryl

[MNbiker]

Originally posted by Darryl
Steve Garnjobst (mnbiker) is EM for MOWOG VI ....

I am indeed the lucky victim for MOWOG VI.:)

In the spirit of this thread, I'd like to solicit assistance from other MAC members in the following areas:

1. I need a co-EM! I'm flexible on how we divide up the work, but I need someone experienced, as I'm a first-time EM.

2. My preliminary plan was to use a slightly modified version of the course layout from MOWOG III that received excellent reviews from most drivers. I have edited Darryl's drawing with a few minor changes, to try and improve flow a bit. Please review & comment on the layout, which is posted in JPEG and Visio formats here:
JPEG version of Proposed Course (http://home.comcast.net/~stevegarnjobst/MAC/MOWOG_VI.jpg)
Visio version of Proposed Course (http://home.comcast.net/~stevegarnjobst/MAC/MOWOG_VI.vsd)
OR
Submit your own design for consideration. We'll let everyone give their $.02, then select a final design on Sept. 22nd. If no clear consensus is reached, I'll select the layout.

Thanks!

Steve Garnjobst
email: mnbiker@comcast.net
phone: 651-771-4971

p.s. I'm a big fan of putting down chalk lines, to make 100% sure all drivers know where the course goes and I'd like to go with 3 runs per heat, to reduce worker changeovers.

[SaturnRaycer]

Looks good. Use as few cones as necessary. Looks like you could eliminate some "cone walls" Consider pointers or an occasional double gate. Chalk lines will help define the course in the early going. The danger is that some people will see them as boundaries and won't perform as well as they could. Maybe chalking just the corners?

Three runs per heat is a good idea. For me, three runs at a time gives me a better chance to get at least one of them right and fast. Any set up that allows a driver to "get the rhythm" of the course gives them a better chance. Not everyone can read a course as quickly as the instructors at Evolution School.

[SalahK]

Originally posted by SaturnRaycer


The danger is that some people will see them as boundaries and won't perform as well as they could.

Three runs per heat is a good idea. For me, three runs at a time gives me a better chance to get at least one of them right and fast. Any set up that allows a driver to "get the rhythm" of the course gives them a better chance. Not everyone can read a course as quickly as the instructors at Evolution School.


There is nothing wrong with people not performing their best because of chalk lines. In fact that might be a good thing ;)

Drivers who need 3 runs to get into a rhythm need to unlearn this BAD habit. I personally don't mind 3 runs because it shortens total turnaround time, but "rhythm" has nothing to do with this preference.

The only addition i would make to the course is to add a single cone with a pointer at the north end of the course to prevent the fastest line from getting illegally close to the north curb . Other than that, removing the cones at the southeast corner of the crossover might help drivers see a little better. BTW, I am assuming "North" is the stadium side.

[SaturnRaycer]

Drivers who need 3 runs to get into a rhythm need to unlearn this BAD habit. I personally don't mind 3 runs because it shortens total turnaround time, but "rhythm" has nothing to do with this preference.

Ouch!!!

[MNbiker]

Originally posted by SalahK
The only addition i would make to the course is to add a single cone with a pointer at the north end of the course to prevent the fastest line from getting illegally close to the north curb . Other than that, removing the cones at the southeast corner of the crossover might help drivers see a little better. BTW, I am assuming "North" is the stadium side.

I made a couple changes to the layout, based on Salah's comments. Instead of adding a pointer cone on the outside, I added a cone on both walls, which I think accomplishes the same thing. I took a couple cones out elsewhere, as penance for adding cones!:p
JPEG version of Proposed Course (http://home.comcast.net/~stevegarnjobst/MAC/MOWOG_VI.jpg)
Visio version of Proposed Course (http://home.comcast.net/~stevegarnjobst/MAC/MOWOG_VI.vsd)

-Steve

Moved the finish back a few feet (per Paul's suggestion) & moved a couple more cones away from the crossover to further open up sightlines.

[weidnerpaul]

Any chance of moving the timing end up for more runoff?
At least on the map it doesn't look like much room...
Paul
BTW, You are brave asking for comments on the course...

[MNbiker]

Originally posted by weidnerpaul
Any chance of moving the timing end up for more runoff?
At least on the map it doesn't look like much room...
Paul
BTW, You are brave asking for comments on the course...

I don't think runout will be a big problem. If you can remember MOWOG III, you really had to slow down to make the right turn after the big left sweeper. However, I'll move the timing lights one set of cones further back, to give us a little extra room.

-Steve

[SaturnRaycer]

I don't think runout will be a big problem. If you can remember MOWOG III, you really had to slow down to make the right turn after the big left sweeper. However, I'll move the timing lights one set of cones further back, to give us a little extra room.

Just so it doesn't wind up like MOWOG4 where you couldn't accelerate thru the finish.

[MNbiker]

Originally posted by SaturnRaycer
Just so it doesn't wind up like MOWOG4 where you couldn't accelerate thru the finish.

Agreed. We'll make sure to test drive whatever layout is used, and adjust before competition runs, if necessary.

-Steve

[housecat]

I really like the chalk lines idea... a lot.

Even though it's really good practice for me to try and figure out a line through a massive sea of cones-- I prefer chalk lines.

my $.02

:D nikki

[MNbiker]

Here's the latest version of the proposed course - with chalklines (shown as dotted blue lines).
JPEG version of Proposed Course (http://home.comcast.net/~stevegarnjobst/MAC/MOWOG_VI.jpg)
Visio version of Proposed Course (http://home.comcast.net/~stevegarnjobst/MAC/MOWOG_VI.vsd)


-Steve

[MNbiker]

The basic course layout is the same, but I made quite a few changes in how marker/boundary cones are placed. My primary goal was to reduce the "sea of cones" feel of the course. Please review & provide comments/suggestions.

JPEG version of Proposed Course (revised) (http://home.comcast.net/~stevegarnjobst/MAC/MOWOG_VI_b.jpg)
Visio version of Proposed Course (revised) (http://home.comcast.net/~stevegarnjobst/MAC/MOWOG_VI_b.vsd)

-Steve

[SaturnRaycer]

Only one set of chalk lines I'd consider eliminating. They are to the right of the 3 cone slalom just before the finish line. I'd also consider eliminating the pointer cones on pin 2 and 3 of the slalom. If you want to designate a directional slalom, you simply put a pointer on the first cone. An alternative is to make the second cone of that a gate.

[MNbiker]

Originally posted by SaturnRaycer
Only one set of chalk lines I'd consider eliminating. They are to the right of the 3 cone slalom just before the finish line. I'd also consider eliminating the pointer cones on pin 2 and 3 of the slalom. If you want to designate a directional slalom, you simply put a pointer on the first cone. An alternative is to make the second cone of that a gate.


I'm not exactly sure which chalk line you're referring to - the area to the right of the last 3 cone slalom is a wall. It doesn't really matter whether we chalk it or not - I had it marked for consistency's sake.

Actually, I could eliminate the cone 2 & 3 pointers on both 3 cone slaloms. I have mixed feelings about how to mark 3 cone slaloms. They seem to look somewhat out of place & confusing with only the first cone marked, but I'm open to marking them either way. Opinions? Informal poll?

-Steve

[StevenMosley]

Originally posted by MNbiker



Originally posted by SaturnRaycer
Only one set of chalk lines I'd consider eliminating. They are to the right of the 3 cone slalom just before the finish line. I'd also consider eliminating the pointer cones on pin 2 and 3 of the slalom. If you want to designate a directional slalom, you simply put a pointer on the first cone. An alternative is to make the second cone of that a gate.


I'm not exactly sure which chalk line you're referring to - the area to the right of the last 3 cone slalom is a wall. It doesn't really matter whether we chalk it or not - I had it marked for consistency's sake.

Actually, I could eliminate the cone 2 & 3 pointers on both 3 cone slaloms. I have mixed feelings about how to mark 3 cone slaloms. They seem to look somewhat out of place & confusing with only the first cone marked, but I'm open to marking them either way. Opinions? Informal poll?

-Steve

I'm for leaving the pointer cones. It will make the course easier to read and if it is easier to read that means less DNF's which means a smoother event.

[silveracer]

I think I might have to be the voice of reason. Why I should say this I'm not sure, Because I so badly need any inside advantage I can get, being the novice idiot I am. I'm not sure that posting all the course designs is such a good idea. It's a little like giving away the answers to the test before you take it. Even though I do think that we need some strong collaboration on course design, my fear is that many, I included, may study a course that on race day is not the actual one and get all screwed up. It's just an opinion and you guyz can tell me to shut up if you want. I do however applaud the amount of support that has been given MNBIKER and I hope the same will be available for 914dave and I.
Nate

[914 Dave]

Hi Nate, my thoughts almost exactally. I would hope we can get our act togather, set up some ideas on paper, review them with the powers that be at the sept. meeting, and go with it. Set up the course the day of the event, be open to last second changes as suggested by our elders, accept that not all will like it as much as we do, and start the event. I'll give you a call about meeting later this week. Does anyone else think this as well?... I always kinda thought part of the challenge of the event was to figure out the course that day, not to come into the event with alot of PCN's. (pre-conceived notions) Oh well, live and learn. Sadly I'll have to miss the sept event for some work training, but Oct will be a blast.

[StevenMosley]

Originally posted by silveracer


I think I might have to be the voice of reason. Why I should say this I'm not sure, Because I so badly need any inside advantage I can get, being the novice idiot I am. I'm not sure that posting all the course designs is such a good idea. It's a little like giving away the answers to the test before you take it. Even though I do think that we need some strong collaboration on course design, my fear is that many, I included, may study a course that on race day is not the actual one and get all screwed up. It's just an opinion and you guyz can tell me to shut up if you want. I do however applaud the amount of support that has been given MNBIKER and I hope the same will be available for 914dave and I.
Nate

Nate,

I think you are taking this way to seriously. I'm not sure what advantage anyone would get from looking at a sheet of paper before the event over walking the course twice. If there is an advantage it would be very very minimal. My feeling is if the course is setup right you should be able to scan a lot without walking it and get the same value as Steve's map represents. I certainly have not been losing any sleep looking at the
course and probably won't look at it again until the event.

I think that by Steve posting the course he has had a chance to take some others input and tweak the design. These small improvements will far out weigh any benefit that anyone would have from seeing it ahead of time.

Steven

[MNbiker]

While I don't think it should be common practice to post all the course maps online weeks in advance, I think it's a GOOD thing for MAC to let drivers know what to expect in advance. We've had a bit of grumbling about course layouts this year - so here's a chance to get the grumbling out of the way in advance. I'm not sure it's feasible, but I think it would be kinda cool if MAC posted course maps the day before each MOWOG event.

At a Divisional/National level, a course design would be considered seriously flawed if it took too much effort to decipher the route. At every larger event I've been to, you get a course map and plenty of time to walk the course the day BEFORE the competition starts. The focus is on reading the finer points of the course, which can only be done in person, and on driving.

One other comment - this has been a great way for me to get my feet wet as a course designer. I'd much prefer correcting mistakes ahead of time on paper, versus at the last second with drivers standing around waiting. Thanks to all who have provided feedback!

-Steve

[silveracer]

Ok Ok!
Like I said I'm the novice. All things aside the course looks to be a good one. I'm sure that mnbiker will do a great job. Also, as rookie as my skills are, I don't believe that I'll get much from viewing it in advance anyway. I do think it's great that MAC helps it's members and takes the fear and mystery out of the racing dogma.
Also I'm starting to build a web site and hope to get some picts up, loaded off of some video I took during past events. And eventually some video later if I can stretch it. In the meantime good luck EM, it looks as though you have everything under control. Maybe better than that WRX. JK!
Nate

[washburn]

I think under the conditions, it's O.K. Steve's trying to learn some points of course design and it's far better than someone not asking and setting up a mess on Sunday.

What's on paper, and how it reads walking is another matter. The Mosley brother did an excellent job designing a course, but a few tweaks here and ther made it much easier to read. Have them, and a few other "elders" walk the course early, and ask for suggestions as to how to make it read better. Remember the points I made earlier in another post about cone placements. Good luck, I will again be in Milwaukee.

[SalahK]

Originally posted by silveracer
my fear is that many, I included, may study a course that on race day is not the actual one and get all screwed up. It's just an opinion and you guyz can tell me to shut up if you want.

Ok then SHUT UP ! ;)

Hey! Its good to get screwed up once in a while.

At my first Nationals in 2001, I showed up late to the event and barely got to walk HALF the course before it was time for me to run. And RUN blind I did ! Somehow I managed to end up in the top half without ever having walked several sections of the course. I had to rely on Adam's and Chuck's description of the course to help me through. The rest was just plain Improvization.

BTW, at the Nationals, every competitor gets their own copy of the course maps, but as anyone will tell you, there is no substitute for walking the course.

[Dave Keillor]

[i]

Hey! Its good to get screwed up once in a while.



There were two Honda S-2000 drivers this yeat at Nationals who would not agree with that statement after one got screwed up on course and the two cars came together in a very expense t-bone collision.

Dave

[Dennis G.]

I'm pretty sure we all agree on this but I wanted to say it any way. A course walk should be, as someone said, to pick out the finer points like subtle ideas on a correct line, etc..... A walk should NOT be necessary to get out there and figure out WHERE it goes. Think of it this way: A driver SHOULD be able to follow the course if sent out with NO previous idea of course design, shape,etc. It should be easy enough to read to be able to follow it "cold", sight unseen, (if possibly a little slow). Everyone agree?

[SalahK]

Originally posted by Dave Keillor



[i]

Hey! Its good to get screwed up once in a while.



There were two Honda S-2000 drivers this yeat at Nationals who would not agree with that statement after one got screwed up on course and the two cars came together in a very expense t-bone collision.

Dave

You are right! Those two drivers will disagree with me...

In the end, no amount of Map Memorization or Course Walking can substitute for good 'ol fashioned Common Sense and a little bit of Peripheral Vision, two ingredients that these two drivers obviously lacked...

[Dave Keillor]

Originally posted by Dennis G.

I'm pretty sure we all agree on this but I wanted to say it any way. A course walk should be, as someone said, to pick out the finer points like subtle ideas on a correct line, etc..... A walk should NOT be necessary to get out there and figure out WHERE it goes. Think of it this way: A driver SHOULD be able to follow the course if sent out with NO previous idea of course design, shape,etc. It should be easy enough to read to be able to follow it "cold", sight unseen, (if possibly a little slow). Everyone agree?


Yep, I agree 100%. The object isn't figuring out a maze, it's executing a series of manuevers in the shortest possible time. In the Nationals incident (which I witnessed), a contributing factor was a lot of rubber leading in the wrong direction that had been laid down from a previous course. That, and what I would consider improper car spacing by the start marshals.

Dave

[MNbiker]

Originally posted by Dave Keillor
There were two Honda S-2000 drivers this yeat at Nationals who would not agree with that statement after one got screwed up on course and the two cars came together in a very expense t-bone collision.

Dave

I was there to witness this crash. It was simply a matter of one driver getting out of shape on course, then getting lost and making a wrong turn in a VERY bad direction. The rainy weather was a contributing factor, as it had obliterated the course lines.

The course really wasn't very hard to follow - it was just one of those things. Fortunately, no one was injured.

-Steve

[washburn]

My understanding is that the driver was Tasha Goodale. While she is the Rally/Solo Department Head for the National Office, she does not regularly autocross. This may have contributed. I was sorry to hear about the incident, and am glad everyone is O.K.

[Dave Keillor]

Yes, Tasha was the driver who went off-course (driving a borrowed car). Ann Vogel was the one who hit her. Probably more than a bit embarassing -- SCCA Solo department head precipitates an on-course accident while driving a borrowed car! Btw, Tasha wasn't the first driver to go off-course at that point and in essentially the same way. I didn't talk to her, but I suspect rubber laid down from a previous course (that went in the wrong direction) played a significant role.

Dave

[Dave Keillor]

Originally posted by MNbiker

The course really wasn't very hard to follow - it was just one of those things. Fortunately, no one was injured.

-Steve


Steve, you're correct about the course. My points were 1) that getting lost on course wasn't something to be taken lightly and 2) autocrossing isn't about learning to navigate a maze.

Having said that, the North course was much more technical and seemed to have a lot more DNFs than the South course on Thursday. Also, the rubber marks leading in the wrong direction were probably not helpful.

Btw, I watched your runs on both Thursday and Friday, but never connected MNbiker with the blue WRX driven by the guy who had just started autocrossing this year.

Dave

[StevenMosley]

Originally posted by Dave Keillor



[i]

Hey! Its good to get screwed up once in a while.



There were two Honda S-2000 drivers this yeat at Nationals who would not agree with that statement after one got screwed up on course and the two cars came together in a very expense t-bone collision.

Dave

They better get Macco!!!

[phile]

Originally posted by Dennis G.


I'm pretty sure we all agree on this but I wanted to say it any way. A course walk should be, as someone said, to pick out the finer points like subtle ideas on a correct line, etc..... A walk should NOT be necessary to get out there and figure out WHERE it goes. Think of it this way: A driver SHOULD be able to follow the course if sent out with NO previous idea of course design, shape,etc. It should be easy enough to read to be able to follow it "cold", sight unseen, (if possibly a little slow). Everyone agree?

I absolutely agree. You should get caught off-line and get a lousy time. You should not go off-course just because you don't know where to go.

If you see a lot of DNFs on the first run, it's a course problem, whether the drivers walked the course or not.

Phil Ethier