NCAC?

Zach Hill · **Posted:** Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:53 pm

Karl Shultz wrote:

On around revision three, it looked exactly like a slalom all the way down the runway. Because that's what it was. So, we made an effort to not make it look like a billion-cone slalom.

I know it's somewhat simplistic, but can't every autocross course be broken down basically into nothing but a series of slaloms? :roll:

Gwen Habenicht · **Posted:** Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:53 pm

.....and if someone was upset about the "HUGE" sweeper, he probably would have been miserable at Nationals. Like Spratte said in another thread, the sweepers there were larger than our entire Greenville site. Hummmm...1200 drivers took all those huge, fast sweepers without draining their oil pans. Weird. :wink:

Karl Shultz · **Posted:** Wed Oct 06, 2010 5:20 pm

JamesShort wrote:

At the exit of the sweeper, there was one lone gate which was followed by the lane change (3x 2 two cone gates, slightly offset). How is this not obvious? The 1 lone two cone gate was there to direct you a given way into the lane change, and then there was a lane change. I don't see how you can get confused about this part of the course.

Yeah. I don't know either. <Clarkson>How hard could it be?</Clarkson>

Matt McGrain · **Posted:** Wed Oct 06, 2010 5:24 pm

I drove the sweeper during my first run just like I did Saturday (slalom left and exit left) and heavy on the throttle on the connector. Bad idea.

I totally DNF'd and remember looking left at that first gate thinking "oh there it is". It was way too late to save it. I think we set a consecutive DNF record in the beginning of group five. :oops:

KendtEklund · **Joined:** Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:29 pm **Posts:** 1204

Zach Hill wrote:

Karl Shultz wrote:

On around revision three, it looked exactly like a slalom all the way down the runway. Because that's what it was. So, we made an effort to not make it look like a billion-cone slalom.

I know it's somewhat simplistic, but can't every autocross course be broken down basically into nothing but a series of slaloms? :roll:

Not to stir the pot, but that taxiway was about a billion times better use of the space than the last Triad event I drove there.

I don't get the complaint about 'the spacing changed without any visual indication' - um, is that not why you walk the course? I remember plenty of opportunities to pick out straight lines from slalom to slalom, and one element that I drove like a chicago box because that's what it looked like, minus the walls.

Dustin Fredrickson · **Posted:** Wed Oct 06, 2010 5:31 pm

Karl Shultz wrote:

JamesShort wrote:

At the exit of the sweeper, there was one lone gate which was followed by the lane change (3x 2 two cone gates, slightly offset). How is this not obvious? The 1 lone two cone gate was there to direct you a given way into the lane change, and then there was a lane change. I don't see how you can get confused about this part of the course.

Yeah. I don't know either. <Clarkson>How hard could it be?</Clarkson>

These courses definitely rewarded looking ahead and being smooth. Most of the negative, or otherwise "oops" related commentary I've seen seems directly related to a likely lapse in one of these areas, IMO.

Karl Shultz · **Posted:** Wed Oct 06, 2010 5:39 pm

KendtEklund wrote:

I don't get the complaint about 'the spacing changed without any visual indication' - um, is that not why you walk the course?

I wasn't going to say anything, but, yeah. I especially don't get that one. WTH did they want - brake markers like on a road course? :lol:

I suppose that maybe people expect an area spaced one way to "look different" than an area spaced a different way.

Anyway, to the discussion about the sweeper exit on day one versus day two, I tend to agree with Dustin. If people couldn't figure out to drive through the gate that was after the sweeper, I'm not sure how much I can help them. Especially considering that I told at least a dozen people that the runway on Sunday was a mirror image of Saturday's. You guys in group five must have all eaten the same thing for lunch. :lol:

JasonWatts · **Posted:** Wed Oct 06, 2010 6:11 pm

the last post on the above link says it wasnt a very challenging course... then why were there 21 off's? (according to the other thread) sounds like a few people found it too chalenging for their skill set.

I also wonder if the 3 blown engines includes the one that I saw pouring oil into his running car... and then blew it all out on the very next run. I heard someone say the guy had 4 bottles in his bad as he went running up grid. :roll:

I wasnt overly fond of the course, but thats becuase I had issues with the 2nd to 3rd and back along with multiple other issues.

Aaron Buckley · **Posted:** Wed Oct 06, 2010 6:27 pm

While it wasn't the most difficult course I have driven, I did find it to be a sea of cones on the taxiway, but the site lends itself to that. On both days I had to shift from 2nd to 3rd four times per run. Jadrice lost two of his 2-3 shifts on Sunday... the STi has just too short of gearing. I am pretty confident I could have gone faster in a base WRX for I would have stayed in 2nd everywhere.

I think all in all, most people enjoyed the extra speed (myself included, even if it was tough due to the shifting). - AB

JamesShort · **Posted:** Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:13 pm

All I have to say is Jason only went off, what, once or twice over both days. That's a well designed course in my books!

And yeah, the comments about distances between elements and markers etc is just garbage.

At an even more simplistic view than Zach's, autocross is a drag race with adversity. The point of the sport is to overcome said adversity by negotiating the course to the best of your ability. It's not supposed to be easy or obvious or spoon fed to you.

JasonWatts · **Posted:** Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:34 pm

JamesShort wrote:

All I have to say is Jason only went off, what, once or twice over both days. That's a well designed course in my books!

I only spun on 1 run on day 1. loss of traction happened on most all of my runs.

Jason Mauldin · **Posted:** Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:52 pm

The joys of the NCAC.... Blaming an autocross for blowing your engine!! :lol:

That's classic! I guess some things will never change.

JohnByers · **Posted:** Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:22 pm

I personally just enjoyed a higher speed course. My problem was grip and lack of cojones! I was over driving areas I shouldn't have and underdriving areas I shouln't have :lol:

Steven Carter · **Posted:** Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:43 pm

JamesShort wrote:

All I have to say is Jason only went off, what, once or twice over both days. That's a well designed course in my books!

And yeah, the comments about distances between elements and markers etc is just garbage.

At an even more simplistic view than Zach's, autocross is a drag race with adversity. The point of the sport is to overcome said adversity by negotiating the course to the best of your ability. It's not supposed to be easy or obvious or spoon fed to you.

Libertarian autocross?

I found the "clearly marked brake zones" commentary on the prior linked thread pretty hilarious as well....as Mr Byers said, that's why one walks the course, takes notes, makes a gameplan and visualizes their runs!

I had trouble with the taxiway as well, but that's MY problem. The course is at it is. Other people are better at autocross than me, they drove better, they trophied. I sucked it on Sunday and finished poorly. Not the course's fault, but mine. I got lost, forgot some cones and wasn't aggressive enough to win.

edit: a driver was lugging engine oil to his car while in grid? Wow...I'd say he was overly optimistic on his car's chances. Was this that tealish CRX with the 30-day tags on it?

JohnByers · **Posted:** Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:30 pm

I'm thinking that was the supercharged Fiero. Thing was so loud it made me happy to hear Jeremy's car! :shock:

THSCC Forums

NCAC?

Who is online