In my region there has been a debate over course designs. I have in car video from the two competing design approaches. I will not taint the poll by throwing my opinion in initially here but here are the videos...

Both videos are ~18mb.
right clich and select "save as"

Course type A (http://www.alternaterealities.info/video/cars/AutoX%202004-11-13_Jason_3.wmv)

Course type B (http://www.alternaterealities.info/video/cars/AutoX_2004-10-24_Jason_6.wmv)

I am curious as to what people think the various pros and cons to the two layouts are. The organization I am trying to push changes to has a lot of people new to the sport and is BMW centric so also keep this in mind.

[EDIT] For those having problems with the links above here are MPEG version of the same video. Slightly lower quality so I recoment the files above if they work for you.

Right click, save as. ~13mb
Course Type A (http://www.alternaterealities.info/video/cars/Course_A2.mpg)

Course Type B (http://www.alternaterealities.info/video/cars/Course_B2.mpg)

Was not able to run the videos. What am I doing wrong?

They are windows media 9 files. They should just play with the latest windows media player. You may have to right click and choose "save as" to download them first.

Looks like it may be a DNS issue, should correct itself soon. Some other are having issues also.

looks like the links are fixed. Sorry for the problems.

looks like the links are fixed.


Nope! ;)

For some reason, clicking on the videos seems to be broken -- I was able to successfully view them after saving them locally, though.

I think both of your courses have issues, but I'll get to that. :)

Course 6 doesn't look like much fun. It's very narrow, leaving little choice of what line to take. There are also lots of very long, tight corners, which aren't much fun, and again don't give any line options other than slow and tight.

Course 3's layout seems fine, except for that it has way, way too many cones -- a flaw shared by Course 6. A course should have enough cones to identify the corners, and clarify any ambiguous sections. Any more than that just leads to a visually confusing "sea of cones". Compare the number of cones in your videos to the number in this video (http://gofastvideo.com/gallery/item/predownload/232/1/free-racing-videos/san-diego-national-tour---steve-hui-bs-s2000.html) from this year's San Diego National Tour.

Also, one tip for you -- work on modulating your throttle inputs. :) On Course 6, at the exit of many corners you get overaggressive with the gas and consequently get wildly out of shape at corner exit. Sideways is fun, but not fast -- roll into the gas exiting tight corners instead of stomping on it. :D

My two cents...

Steve

For some reason, clicking on the videos seems to be broken -- I was able to successfully view them after saving them locally, though.Steve

I still can not get them to work, even by saving them.

Steve, is that whole course lined with chalk? If so, are they required to use a blower to get rid of it when the day is done?

Also, one tip for you -- work on modulating your throttle inputs. :) On Course 6, at the exit of many corners you get overaggressive with the gas and consequently get wildly out of shape at corner exit. Sideways is fun, but not fast -- roll into the gas exiting tight corners instead of stomping on it. :D


Yep, I know. It was my last run of the day and I was a very frustrated driver by that point. I have better runs in the car but I had a passenger in the car and the 2nd helment obstructs the camera.

I actually had nothign to do with either course design. However, I am pushing the designers of one of them to make changes and they are reluctant because they don't see any problem with the courses.

There is also a though in the region that "Lots of cones helps new people." I am not sure I agree with that but if does sort of force them along the right path. For the experienced drivers I think they are a distraction.

Our courses are much more open, and have many lines to take. the only time it's a tight course, is because of the limited space we have when we go to alternate parking lots.

http://www.tatajer.shawbiz.ca/jeremy/auto-x_apr25_r1.WMV

http://www.tatajer.shawbiz.ca/jeremy/jun13_autox_run1.wmv

Never seen so many cones in my life, lol. And the vids from the post before make the coarse seem confusing...maybe too little cones?

For some reason, clicking on the videos seems to be broken -- I was able to successfully view them after saving them locally, though.

I think both of your courses have issues, but I'll get to that. :)

Course 6 doesn't look like much fun. It's very narrow, leaving little choice of what line to take. There are also lots of very long, tight corners, which aren't much fun, and again don't give any line options other than slow and tight.

Course 3's layout seems fine, except for that it has way, way too many cones -- a flaw shared by Course 6. A course should have enough cones to identify the corners, and clarify any ambiguous sections. Any more than that just leads to a visually confusing "sea of cones". Compare the number of cones in your videos to the number in this video (http://gofastvideo.com/gallery/item/predownload/232/1/free-racing-videos/san-diego-national-tour---steve-hui-bs-s2000.html) from this year's San Diego National Tour.

Also, one tip for you -- work on modulating your throttle inputs. :) On Course 6, at the exit of many corners you get overaggressive with the gas and consequently get wildly out of shape at corner exit. Sideways is fun, but not fast -- roll into the gas exiting tight corners instead of stomping on it. :D

My two cents...

Steve


I agree with Steve. Minimizing the cones would help the sea of cones effect. The way that you can tell if this is a problem is watch the first run group of novice drivers, they tend to look ahead the least. If too many are getting lost then... The way we did it in Seattle was more of a gate system (two cones made up a gate that you drove through) then one gate at the beginning, apex, and exit of each turn is enough for most turns, similar to the linked vid above. This minimises the sea of cones effect and also allows flexibility for drivers to take different lines.

Course designers have a lot of responsibility and first and foremost should be Safety. I designed a bunch of auto-X courses so I'm speaking from experience. The hardest part about it is fitting the course in the lot that you have and making it safe and fun for everyone. You can never please everyone but if you are getting too many complaints you can't just brush that off. I think both of those courses would get mucho complaints if I was the designer. In general it seemed like people that I delt with liked more open courses i.e faster which could also mean less safe. It's a trade off like anything else. Multiple low speed 180 deg turns wouldn't fly.

You are making it seem like the particular group you are talking about is running the same courses for multiple different events, is that true? Our group that ran auto-X's always had a new course layout for each event. Something you might suggest so that your drivers don't get bored.

PM me if you have any questions.

Roger Johnson in Houston put together a great tutorial on course design. I'm not a course designer, I'm just a 1st year atuocrosser. I read this manual a few times so that I could be prepared for my first event.

http://home.houston.rr.com/rogerthereal/

Click on the link to the course design manual.

Slightly off-topic, it seems from reading threads on this board that the BMW-CCA events often suffer from the sea-of-cones problem. I could not see your linked videos, so I'm going by what others are saying. Is that the required method of course design for BMW-CCA events? My local BMW club does not autox, so I've been running SCCA events instead. The SCCA courses I've driven this year were all laid out like Roger describes in his manual. I always wondered if that was an SCCA vs. BMW-CCA thing, or not.

Scott

Slightly off-topic, it seems from reading threads on this board that the BMW-CCA events often suffer from the sea-of-cones problem. I could not see your linked videos, so I'm going by what others are saying. Is that the required method of course design for BMW-CCA events? My local BMW club does not autox, so I've been running SCCA events instead. The SCCA courses I've driven this year were all laid out like Roger describes in his manual. I always wondered if that was an SCCA vs. BMW-CCA thing, or not.

Scott

One course was a CCA event and the other an SCCA event. I have trying to persuade the CCA here that using every cone they have is not the best way to lay out a course. A number of time this year they stopped setting up cones once they ran out.

They feel that the additional cones help new people and that the "rodger johnson" style courses are confusing.

The other argument they make is my making the course narrow its more difficult and will therefore reward the "better drivers". They believe a "wide" course takes the skill out of the event. I was soliciting the opinions of others just to get some neutral feedback from those with no stake in the decision.

I will convert the files to MPEG when I get home for those having problem viewing them.

Added mpeg versions, edited origional post.

I am curious, I see a number of votes for B but have not had anyone say why they perfer that type?

Faster, more open course. Wider corners give more options in line selection.

Steve

I can't download the videos...

The Marina / CCA course is set up for narrow 2002s. :)

I'd guess the cause of confusion is more related to certain areas of the track being too close to other areas nearby, so it gets difficult to see where to look ahead to, particuarly for a novice. Having too many or too few cones could certainly make it harder to figure out. But there have been quite a few outstanding courses (I unfortunately didn't make many GGC events this year) set up by GGC folks at Marina. Perhaps just more practice.

IAC, I like course 3 best. It's a better mix of turn types. Sweeping, sweeping to tight, varied entrances to slalom, etc.

Dayum your car has a lot of power. :)

The Marina / CCA course is set up for narrow 2002s. :)

Well, actually Jason's argument is that we design the courses to suit e30's as we have quite a few running in our chapter, including mine. I have helped design the last couple of courses(don't know if his video is one of them since I seem to be one of the few that still can not view them), but that certainly is not our intention to make it fun only for e30's. Yes, there is room for improvement. We have also taken steps to improve our designs for next season. I agree with Jason on some points he makes and hope that next season will see challenging courses for both novice and experienced, e30 and e46.

The issues that have come up, first those being addressed.

1: The courses try to squeese too much track into too little space. This is confusing to the driver because it often appears they have about 3 choices of which way to go.

2: The courses are not marked in a consistent way.

And those where there is much disagreement.

3: I feel the courses use too many cones, as a result you are almost on top of the turn before you can visually pick up the "important" ones.

4: In my opinion they are simply too narrow, taking the choice of line away from the driver. This also artifically rewards narrow cars.

The reason I posted this here is I wanted to get some feedback from those with no vested interest in this regions courses. Also its good to have a base of opinions beyond those that like the status quo.


Dayum your car has a lot of power. :)
Thats why I am looking forward to Laguna latter this month. ITs not just point in shoot if you bring enough HP :)

Hey Guys,

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not being critical, just constructive, hopfully. :)

It's normal to squeeze as much track as possible in at a GGC event, particularly after getting used to 300+ car SCCA events where you get 3 40 second runs. We're just less consistant at putting together a non-confusing course at this point, and I'd definitely agree with most of your points there.

The narrow issue is a pretty interesting one, though. In 2000 John B and I had a wonderful battle going all year which came down to 1/10th of a second at the last run at the last event of the year. The '72 2002tii I was driving at the time was slower than his 325, but perhaps handled a little better. As I recall we had a wide variety of courses, some wider, one extremely narrow, but it invariably came down to the fact that he'd kill me on tarmac, and I had the advantage on asphalt, track width irrespective. :95

Anyway, have fun at Laguna! It's not often the 318 feels underpowered autocrossing, but everytime at the track :bash

don't know if his video is one of them since I seem to be one of the few that still can not view them

Just for you I setup a mirror :) Its a bit slower than the first one though.

Course A (ftp://66.159.230.120/video/Course_A2.mpg)

Course B (ftp://66.159.230.120/video/Course_b2.mpg)

Another B with some humor (ftp://66.159.230.120/video/AutoX 2004-04-24 Jason 6.wmv)

Just for you I setup a mirror :) Its a bit slower than the first one though.

Course A (ftp://66.159.230.120/video/Course_A2.mpg)

Course B (ftp://66.159.230.120/video/Course_b2.mpg)

Another B with some humor (ftp://66.159.230.120/video/AutoX 2004-04-24 Jason 6.wmv)

Course B was the shootout at the end of the year, and the other Course B was actually one from earlier in the year. It looks like the course where you almost took out the guy giving out the timing slips. :)

Course B was the shootout at the end of the year, and the other Course B was actually one from earlier in the year. It looks like the course where you almost took out the guy giving out the timing slips. :)

Man, one little spin in an entire season, the car didn't even completly leave the course, the rear bumper was still on course ;) The grief will never end...

However, if a car sliding 10' off course is a major issue then its a course design problem. This is autocross, people are going to spin

BTW: That spin is here (ftp://66.159.230.120/video/AutoX 2004-04-24 Jason 3.wmv) Its about 1:05 into the clip.

The setup to the spin is the finish had 3 connected high speed offsets. I got behind in the inputs, I was stuggling to find refrence points, and then had to lift for the finish as at the speed I was going there wasn't going to be enough room to stop otherwise. The car did about what you would expect lifting mid turn.

Without watching the videos, I hope my comments will be pertinent.

I've been designing courses for both SCCA and CCA in both New England and now San Diego for the past 5+ years, and have seen many others and heard and given many good and bad comments, so here goes.

The discussion about "gated" vs "lined" courses always comes back to some people thinking it's "easier" for new people to find where a lined course goes. Well, not really. I don't think it's easier to Follow a lined course, it's just a lot harder to GO offcourse on this type. Most lined courses must be driven while looking only a short distance in front of the car, because if you try to look further ahead you get confused because there are so many DAMNED cones. Where a gated course is easier to go off course, because your not TRAPPED, but are generally easier to drive, as you are looking further ahead and really only has the Key cones needed to see where the course goes.

Now, Narrow vs Wide, another discussion I've been involved in. Some say, a narrow course does something, I'm not sure what, other than trapping everyone into driving exactly the same line, and thus, eliminating any thought or choice for the driver, then making the event, strictly about who's car handles the best. A wide course at least 15 feet, if not 20, even 25 or 30 feet wide, give drivers room to setup for a corner, and has to think about where to place the car within the course for the optimal line, thus making more of a spread time wise between the good drivers and everyone else.

Then there are many other things that come down to laying out a course vs Designing a course. Any Shmoe can lay out a course, and many do, drive around the lot in the pickup truck and have people through cones out the back, then stand them up and walla, it's a course. Vs, actually, designing a course where you think about what will be required to make a car perform a certain element and what the car will be doing and what you want the driver and car to actually do next, like here in San Diego, we have elevation changes and actually thinking about having the car "drifting" sideways down the hill, that the driver then has to negotiate a corner and get the car pointed from left to right in the middle of a drift, and what it takes to have the room for the car to undergo a 10 ft drift before transitioning to the right.

And the other biggest part of being a course designer, versus a Course setup person, is that you MUST absolutly listen to every and all complaints about the course and not just disregard them, but think about them. Granted some are just complaints, which will happen even on the best course, but most are very valid points and should be taken as constructive critisism, which if followed will lead to better course designs.


And as a closing note, if someone has no idea how to design a course, if they read the Roger Johnson guide (gotta read mine again, it's been 6 months since I read it last) and follow his rules, suggestions, etc, you will be able to design at least a mediocer course.

Matthew Kogan

I have trying to persuade the CCA here that using every cone they have is not the best way to lay out a course. A number of time this year they stopped setting up cones once they ran out.

They feel that the additional cones help new people and that the "rodger johnson" style courses are confusing.

The other argument they make is my making the course narrow its more difficult and will therefore reward the "better drivers". They believe a "wide" course takes the skill out of the event. I was soliciting the opinions of others just to get some neutral feedback from those with no stake in the decision.



Jason,

You really are an Enigma. I don't understand this. I think you have misunderstood the results of your conversations with the GGC BMW Program.

1) No one thinks that using every cone is a good way to set up a course. I'm curious who told you that.

2) No one says "Roger Johnson style" courses are confusing. In fact, no one in the program is mandating that all courses be a certain way at all.

3) No one has said that narrow courses reward better drivers and that open courses require no skill. You may have misunderstood my comments about the fact that while you complain that your car is "too wide" to be fast on these courses (as you mention in the clip) there is always some room to be made up by using the entire width of the course, even if it is only 3 feet wider than your car.

Jason, while I do not represent the club or the program in any official manner, I am still concerned. You are extremely vocal about these issues, and it is clear you are trying to enlist some "backing" from the autocross community at large in order to help your "fight" with the program - But I have news for you - There is no fight!!

No one is the club disagrees with you! I am in fact on a new committee to oversee course design next year in an attempt to make sure that courses are generally more open, easier to see (no sea of cones) and more fun for novices and experts alike. What is your remaining issue? Would you prefer to have won your class? Won the season overall? Heck, wouldn't we all have preferred that?

If you feel that courses were set up to reward certain cars, I am very sorry. If you have no fun at BMWCCA autocrosses, I again feel badly. I expect that you would find more fun at NASA, SCCA and AAS events. Please, don't badmouth a volunteer program doing its best to provide a fun day for everyone involved just because they aren't able to suit your tastes, or provide you the same rewards you may get with other clubs.

I am surprised that you have taken all of this so personally, and that you simply cannot accept that your points have been made, heard, and will be acted upon next season.

Thanks,
Chris

P.S. - Andy C! We miss you at the events. You have to come out and show us how it's done with that 318ti!!

Just got around to watching the clips. First comment is one that has already been voiced - way too many cones. We try to get by with as few cones as possible and then encourage the competitors to walk the course as much as possible. Generally we have course maps available as well, just in case there is a confusion at a decision cone.

From the videos, the course first course in particular doesn't appear to have a good "flow" to it. However, I think a good portion of that is due to the driving. The person driving is trying to go way too fast in the slow stuff and is falling off line as a result. A little more patience would have yielded a better flow in those courses.

Second thought is man, you guys have some good lots! Our BMW program is struggling to find good lots. I recently designed my first course, and it was a lot harder than I initially thought it would be. Definitely a learning experience and I'm taking suggestions from the membership as to how to improve.

Given the wide open expanses the designers had to work with, I think the courses could have been better. Tough to tell without being there, though.

John

Definitely a learning experience and I'm taking suggestions from the membership as to how to improve.

Don't design a course that promotes blowing up motors. :stickoutt

Oh, and your baby is ugly! :eek:

Don't design a course that promotes blowing up motors. :stickoutt

Oh, and your baby is ugly! :eek:
:( Get an oil pan baffle? :evil2

:( Get an oil pan baffle? :evil2

That wouldn't have helped that time... but I have the VAC on order. ;)

Second thought is man, you guys have some good lots! Our BMW program is struggling to find good lots. I recently designed my first course, and it was a lot harder than I initially thought it would be. Definitely a learning experience and I'm taking suggestions from the membership as to how to improve.

The SCCA course was in the parking lot of where the Oakland Raiders play, and lose, I believe. Most of the SCCA events are there, and at Candlestick, where the 49rs play, and lose. Candlestick is a bit beat up.

BMWCCA has mostly been using Marina, which is a airport by Monterey. Area is something like 400x800, can't remember exactly. Concrete there is sticky. Bit out of the way for many of the members, but not too many options. Looking at other lots, but many are too high priced.

I co-designed the last two autox courses of the year, including the one in the video. Obviously some improvement needed, both in design, and in execution of the setup crew.