I agree with pretty much everything Kevin says. Also, I'll applaud John for
designing a great season opener course. It was simple enough for everyone to
follow and fast enough for them to get a thrill (a bit too fast IMHO).
However, I don't think that type of course does anything whatsoever to prepare
for National level events. Actually, in some fashion it does because hopefully
a few people "caught the bug" on it and will return. But for those with only a
bit more experience, I don't think the course offered any of the technical
challenge seen at Tours, Divisionals, Nationals. How are the middle to high
level of experience drivers supposed to develop and be competitive if they are
continually surprised by more technical courses?
Again, I think the course Sunday was just what was called for on our season
opener, no criticism there. But if that is a continued trend I think we will
start losing some of our more experienced competitors to other series. Of
course, whether that is a cause for concern is also a point of argument.
-Andy
--- Kevin Stevens <Kevin_Stevens@Bigfoot.com> wrote:
> While having people not get lost is A Good Thing, it should be a result
> rather
> than a goal of good course design. I wouldn't agree that it should be
> pursued
> as a primary indicator of a successful program. You could have a simple
> straightaway with a pin turn and nobody would ever get lost. It could even
> be a
> rousing success in terms of attracting and retaining new members. It would
> be a
> terrible autocross program.
>
> Yesterday's course was very well designed for the location, expected weather,
> and number of entrants. It was somewhat simplistic for a typical SFR and
> national course - running it in my head I count 11 notable elements, vs 16-24
> that I find typical for an SCCA course.
>
> Keeping the courses overly simplistic doesn't encourage looking ahead, and
> often
> fails to reward proper lines or penalize poor ones - basically allowing
> drivers
> to go point-to-point. I think if we are careful to avoid poor or "tricky"
> course design, which annoys drivers even if they don't get lost, the rest
> should
> take care of itself. I'm thinking of things such as entry gates with the
> same
> spacing as the straightaway cones, no/wrongly placed double or pointer cones,
> "blind" turns where it is impossible to see the apex, etc.
>
> KeS
>
> (once DNFed two out of three clearly marked runs at a Nat. Tour and still won
> the darned thing!)
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net
> > [mailto:owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net]On Behalf Of John Kelly
> > Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 15:56
> > To: BayArea Team.Net
> > Subject: SFR autocross opener
> >
> >
> > According to the results lady, Pat Kelly, we had 273 entries at 3 Com Park
> > yesterday.
> > That's a similar number to our Super Bowl Sunday event in late January
> > 1999. A key difference is yesterday we had over an hour of additional
> > daylight than we had in 1999.
> >
> > There are some other interesting numbers, too. And we'll get to some of
> > them in the coming week.
> > The one number that please me most is the Zero for the "People who
> > got lost" column.
> > If our upcoming season can pursue that Big Zero at every event, we'll have
> > a more than successful program.
> >
> > --John Kelly
>
>
Do You Yahoo!?
|