----- Original Message -----
From: <JDMurphy47@aol.com>
To: ""Rocky Entriken"" <rocky@tri.net>; <seb@scca.com>
Cc: <autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: Proposal for Certified Course Designer Program
>> Rocky,
>> Okay, point taken about certification. Then how do you go about getting
assurance of some kind that the course designer knows not only the course
spec's in the Solo 2 book
Well, for us anyway (and YMMV just about anywhere) -- we rather take our
newbie designers by the hand. What they come up with, most often, is a
design of where the course goes: turn here, go straight, slalom, left,
right, U-turn, etc. Often they are clueless the morning of the event how to
actually put down cones to make it go there, and that's where the
experienced helpers come in as we help him build his course and execute his
design. The experienced helpers are the ones who would suggest, for example,
lets use a wall here instead of a sea of cones; let's stretch this slalom a
little, make it 5 cones instead of six; let's lengthen your chicago box and
remove the end cones so it is a bit more makeable, etc. We do tell him he
needs to read the course specs in the book, but I am also mindful (as many
forget) that the limits there (gate width, slalom separation) are NOT
mandatory rules for a local solo. They are good parameters and an ideal to
strive for, but if the site suggests narrower or shorter would just work
better, then do it.
IOW, the newbie designer is not just thrown out there alone. But the trick
is to execute HIS design, not to make major changes to it.
>>but also the design recommendations for just about every possible feature
shown throughout Roger Johnson's How To Paper? You can offer all the
training you want from HQ but many regions are not aware of what's available
and/or do not put a high enough priority on course designer training to
start with.
IMHO, Roger's way is just one way to do it, not necessarily THE way. It is a
very good way. The recommendations he makes are so good they should be a
guideline always looked upon. But they are not engraved in stone and other
ways can also be used effectively. What I am really saying here is that just
because training from HQ may offer some different principles does not make
it bad training. Even Roger's booklet does not cover every situation, every
eventuality. There is no One Right Way. I easily agree, however, that
Roger's book makes an excellent text -- probably the best available today --
for such training.
And so, it is impossible to expect anyone will become the Instant Expert on
course design at first exposure. It is like learning to drive an
autocross -- we never stop learning. Even Roger is always learning (remember
Rogerson mentioning how people there like to do very un-Roger courses and
how Roger then gleefully borrows their ideas?).
>> Please note that nowhere in either set is there any restriction about
creativity so I do not believe that boring sameness will come out of this
program.
I do, just my opinion though. The intent may well be not to restrict
creativity, but too much "this is how to do it" tends to do that anyway. The
design parameters in the rulebook are actually relatively few, and the only
other restrictions are of a safety nature. Beyond that, the designer needs
to be unfettered. IMHO.
>> Like I said before, your part of the country is blessed to have this
cross-pollination but my part of the country is not and has not been blessed
for many years. I suspect that other parts of the country have this same
situation.
That I do not see as a design problem. It is an involvement problem. The
solution -- again very IMHO -- is that the leaders of the region (meaning in
this case, the top solo drivers, not necessarily the officers) have to
encourage cross-pollination. Go to other events. Encourage other drivers to
do the same. Experience how other regions do theirs. And go with open minds.
You are a 400-member region doing 180-car events and you are going to a
region with 85 members doing 40-car events -- expect it to be more casual,
with a run order that is strange to you and design philosophies different
from yours. One of the reasons you go is to experience that very difference.
And then, do not be judgmental about how they do it, but share ideas in a
bench-racing format. Similarly if you are a small-region guy used to the
casual way you do things, go to a big-region event and expect more
structure.
The cross-pollination comes from sharing, not from imposing one's system on
another's setup. The way the big region does it and the way the small region
does it both work. There is no One Right Way. However, the small region's
way may not work for the big region (and vice versa) for reasons that have
more to do with the relative size than with How To Do It.
> Hoping to improve our sport.
Absolutely. I saw that in your proposal from the beginning. The fact I
disagree with it in no way diminishes what I saw as a sincere effort. Even
in disagreeing I attempted to achieve the same end.
The debate generates further ideas, encourages new viewpoints, exposes
different concepts. This is all good.
> Jim
--Rocky
By the way, I took the SEB out of this reply -- I think we are in a phase
now it only clutters their mailbox to be getting all the repartee.
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|