Not Cinco de Mayo autox May 6th!!1!!

RodneyWright · **Posted:** Mon May 07, 2012 9:53 am

BriceJohnson wrote:

We're working on it. And by we, I mean Zack and Carlton

. The computer did some REALLY strange things for sure, we'll figure it out. Your runs are in the computer Rodney, just not showing up on the results for some weird reason. We caught a lot of these things in audit (and by we, I mean my wife and Robert), I think we only fixed the ones that mattered since there were a lot of them.

I don't believe we can necessarily go backwards in terms of undoing the changes we did to the computers/AX Ware (we need the new classes/update PAX indices), but we will get it fixed. Sometimes these bugs are the cost of progress, lets give THSCCIT a chance to work it out. They seem to be making changes for the better.

Not arguing the work done by THSCCIT, excellent work so far! You guys have some time to tweak since the next event is 6 weeks away.

Chris Peterson · **Joined:** Tue Sep 16, 2003 9:02 am **Posts:** 243

Um....there were FIVE runs? How did I miss THAT little tidbit of information??? :shock:

MaryJohnson · **Joined:** Tue Jul 27, 2010 1:25 pm **Posts:** 39

Great event Matt, Zach, and Marcus!

Rodney I am sorry the computer was doing so weird things yesterday and THSCCIT has not had a chance to look at it since the event. I thought we caught most of the errors it audit but I'll change yours when I get home tonight. Results have already been posted and some of you may have noticed some formatting changes in the class results tab (maybe due to the recent axware update or to me being new to posting T&S reports). I will get it straightened out with Stephen and get the correct report to Emmie as soon as I can meet up with the Westerfields.

JamesMilko · **Posted:** Mon May 07, 2012 10:56 am

Can we get the class results back in the old format? The new format is very difficult to read.

Also did anyone happen to see which tire I kept locking in the c-box? My brakes were mediocre at best, hoped it was just the wrong pads on the front wheels but that ended up not being the case.

e: Took too long to type this up, just saw Mary's reply. Actually, it looks like I missed a whole page.

Gwen Habenicht · **Posted:** Mon May 07, 2012 11:07 am

RodneyWright wrote:

An excellent event, 5 timed runs and fun runs and over cast. MUCH better than the wet up at NCCAR.

Just a safety reminder here. We had some near misses up that the top of the runway due to some of the cars spinning. We as a club need to VERY mindful of setting up a safe and fun course. This also makes the starters position incredibly important in being able when to judge sending cars. If there is a novice that's slow or looks lost, hold the next car. We set Art up for failure twice.

Other than that, kudos to everyone for another great event. Now if I can just keep the a$$ end of the mustang underneath me.

Speaking of that, I saw in the results page that I only have 4 times listed. I know I have a 5th run that was a 52.xxx. It's not listed. I had a cone w/ it, so it won't change my results. From what I understand, we had some issues w/ the new laptop and AXWare being at bee-atch to work with. Is this something we can get addressed before the next event? If we need to drop back a version, do it if that means being stable....

FIVE runs? I want a do over! :cry:

Chris and I only had four. I swear that's what I heard you say at the driver's meeting, and that's how we understood the grid. Oh well, still one more than I've usually been getting. :oops:

I talked with Matt a little yesterday about the course. It was a blast to drive, but a quick count of over 380 cone calls...not counting DNFs that usually involve cones, is probably a little high. The biggest, and most simple fix to that course would have been to "flip" the C-box. I assume the box was put there to encourage drivers to slow down after what was a pretty long "peddle to the metal" section. The problem is that we mere mortals always think that we can squeeze through that last element and nail the finish. ('Cause we're silly and want to defy physics.) So, we always need to look at a safe exit to that type of element, realizing that drivers are going to break late, etc. Flipping the box would have pointed cars away from the center of the runway and into to grass. When designing courses it's always a good idea to point cars away from each other in areas where the cars are most unsettled.

It was a fun day, however. Thanks to all for the hard work.

Jeremy Ellison · **Joined:** Fri May 13, 2011 5:01 pm **Posts:** 186

Chris Peterson wrote:

Um....there were FIVE runs? How did I miss THAT little tidbit of information??? :shock:

Gwen & Chris, my apologies. I thought I had filled everyone in Grid in when the decision was made to go up to five. Heat 2 worker took over before heat 1 had quite finished, so I didn't realize neither of you had come back for a 5th run

RobLupella · **Posted:** Mon May 07, 2012 12:28 pm

Gwen Baake wrote:

RodneyWright wrote:

An excellent event, 5 timed runs and fun runs and over cast. MUCH better than the wet up at NCCAR.

Just a safety reminder here. We had some near misses up that the top of the runway due to some of the cars spinning. We as a club need to VERY mindful of setting up a safe and fun course. This also makes the starters position incredibly important in being able when to judge sending cars. If there is a novice that's slow or looks lost, hold the next car. We set Art up for failure twice.

Other than that, kudos to everyone for another great event. Now if I can just keep the a$$ end of the mustang underneath me.

Speaking of that, I saw in the results page that I only have 4 times listed. I know I have a 5th run that was a 52.xxx. It's not listed. I had a cone w/ it, so it won't change my results. From what I understand, we had some issues w/ the new laptop and AXWare being at bee-atch to work with. Is this something we can get addressed before the next event? If we need to drop back a version, do it if that means being stable....

FIVE runs? I want a do over! :cry:

Chris and I only had four. I swear that's what I heard you say at the driver's meeting, and that's how we understood the grid. Oh well, still one more than I've usually been getting. :oops:

I talked with Matt a little yesterday about the course. It was a blast to drive, but a quick count of over 380 cone calls...not counting DNFs that usually involve cones, is probably a little high. The biggest, and most simple fix to that course would have been to "flip" the C-box. I assume the box was put there to encourage drivers to slow down after what was a pretty long "peddle to the metal" section. The problem is that we mere mortals always think that we can squeeze through that last element and nail the finish. ('Cause we're silly and want to defy physics.) So, we always need to look at a safe exit to that type of element, realizing that drivers are going to break late, etc. Flipping the box would have pointed cars away from the center of the runway and into to grass. When designing courses it's always a good idea to point cars away from each other in areas where the cars are most unsettled.

It was a fun day, however. Thanks to all for the hard work.

It was a wee bit high. :wink:

My car was responsible for some of that as both of us managed to have bunches of dirty runs. I thought the course was fun - I loved the drift through the lane change. Turning the C-Box would have helped that situation I agree. The finish cones were also tight to the box so exiting you had to turn back a little to get in or you were heading for the wrong side of the timing light (or between it and the cone LOL)

I have had a couple of folks come to me recently about chalking the course like some of the other clubs do to minimize the confusion. Would it be possible to try that for a couple of events? I never found it helpful but others obviously do, after all AX should be about finding the right line on the course, not finding the course.

Zach Hill · **Posted:** Mon May 07, 2012 1:55 pm

BriceJohnson wrote:

I don't believe we can necessarily go backwards in terms of undoing the changes we did to the computers/AX Ware (we need the new classes/update PAX indices), but we will get it fixed. Sometimes these bugs are the cost of progress, lets give THSCCIT a chance to work it out. They seem to be making changes for the better.

Firstly, let me state I am not an AXware expert, in fact I barely know how to use it, and most of my experience has come from clicking on things and seeing what they do. ;-)

That said, the issues with registration/class errors and runs not showing up are strictly AXware issues, and should have nothing to do with with the new laptop, new OS, or any of the file sharing changes we've made. That's akin to parking your car in a different garage and the engine stops working, thinking the garage caused it.

It's unlikely that the new version of AXware has bugs in it, but it is possible. Do we have a support contract with them, i.e. could we call them for tech support? The new PAX indexes should be unrelated as well.

I'd like to get a hold of the laptops soon to work on some of this. Mary, can you bring them to the meeting on Wednesday? Also, I'd love to have a pow-wow with the resident AXware expert. Would that be Stephen W., or someone else/additional?

The new class results report sucks, and we should definitely go back to the old style. Maybe the old report is available in some other menu? Must experiment more there...

Gwen Baake wrote:

I talked with Matt a little yesterday about the course. It was a blast to drive, but a quick count of over 380 cone calls...not counting DNFs that usually involve cones, is probably a little high. The biggest, and most simple fix to that course would have been to "flip" the C-box. I assume the box was put there to encourage drivers to slow down after what was a pretty long "peddle to the metal" section. The problem is that we mere mortals always think that we can squeeze through that last element and nail the finish. ('Cause we're silly and want to defy physics.) So, we always need to look at a safe exit to that type of element, realizing that drivers are going to break late, etc. Flipping the box would have pointed cars away from the center of the runway and into to grass. When designing courses it's always a good idea to point cars away from each other in areas where the cars are most unsettled.

I do apologize for the dangerous situation created by the C-box, and the subsequent overlap delay required to make it safe. Designing courses is definitely a work in progress at least for me, and I welcome any and all suggestions/criticisms. Gwen had an EXCELLENT point with flipping the C-box, that would have been perfect! Now as for the high number of cones, what exactly caused that, do you think? Too tight of a course? Were there particular elements that were hit a lot?

Let me also say thanks for the encouragement and kind words said about the course, I think it came out pretty good considering it was my second one. Much kudos to Marcus, Matt, and James for their help setting it up. But as you'd expect, I am of course looking back now at the many ways it could be improved (just like my driving...)!

Steven Carter · **Posted:** Mon May 07, 2012 2:17 pm

Zach Hill wrote:

I do apologize for the dangerous situation created by the C-box, and the subsequent overlap delay required to make it safe. Designing courses is definitely a work in progress at least for me, and I welcome any and all suggestions/criticisms. Gwen had an EXCELLENT point with flipping the C-box, that would have been perfect! Now as for the high number of cones, what exactly caused that, do you think? Too tight of a course? Were there particular elements that were hit a lot?

I think people over-drove some of the elements, on the brakes too late and got pinched at the end--slalom, C-box, bracket/L-box thingies etc all saw hits stemming from that. On my runs where I hit cones it was due to late braking or not getting enough yaw in my slalom. I know one driver was responsible for ~5% of the total coneage (coughcoughJeremycoughcough), so maybe ask him?
:lol:

Carlton Whitehead · **Posted:** Mon May 07, 2012 2:24 pm

Zach Hill wrote:

That's akin to parking your car in a different garage and the engine stops working, thinking the garage caused it.

What about the demons that might live in the different garage?

I'd be happy to help out with the laptop on Wednesday, although it's probably a bit early to consider me an AXware expert.

Also, thanks for setting up the conetacular course this weekend. I don't think I've ever coned so much at an event before.

Matt McGrain · **Posted:** Mon May 07, 2012 2:33 pm

Overall, I'm happy and this was probably one of my top ten autocross weekends ever. Thanks so much Jeremy for offering the co-drive; your car is pretty awesome and I found if you want to get a good bit of wheelspin in an AP2 all you have to do is line up at the start on the 'dirty' line, as our announcer extrordinaire Mr. McRae kindly pointed out. :lol:

As far as the course, I was so transfixed on have in a slow finish yards away from the bus area that the proximity between the Chicago box and the lane change & "L boxes" was a little snug. Plus, I really was hoping that a <30 pace box would keep people in the low speed range as they crossed the finish. However, there were certainly some very, very brace novices that showed up, but the blue mini and the Yaris were coming out of there ridiculously quick and uncontrolled until we had folks ride along and Chris P. and I chatted with them to let them know if they turn it back a knotch, they'll be quicker and safer. Adjusting the launch seemed to help a bit which was good too.

Zach, the first turnaround was great IMO and found that if you lined it up just right, the corner exit put you right were you wanted to be going into the short 4-cone slalom before the bump.

I too liked Gwen's suggestion for future events. Focus on the runoff of the element and I agree that flipping the box around would have been a better move for sure.

The coneage was pretty wild (I've never had to try so hard to get a clean run after hitting six cones in the first three) and looking back, I think some of the gates were a little snug and the two tighter ~20 pace slaloms were pretty challenging as we've been running 25 pace ones lately. Plus, having open, faster sections going into these tight elements meant that there was little you could do to adjust your line late.

Thank to everyone that volunteered and especially the Johnsons for all the work in the bus with the AX Ware gremlins!

BriceJohnson · **Joined:** Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:33 am **Posts:** 2230

To me, complaining about excessive coneage means people just aren't driving right. Any course with high speed elements into low speed elements will have a lot of cones, but does that mean we should only have momentum courses? Absolutely not. Just dial it back a bit, smooth it out, and fast times can be had. Granted, I didn't take my own advice very well (1/5 runs was clean) but I don't blame the course design for that, it was just sloppy driving. Cones happen.

Steven Spampinato · **Posted:** Mon May 07, 2012 3:08 pm

BriceJohnson wrote:

To me, complaining about excessive coneage means people just aren't driving right. Any course with high speed elements into low speed elements will have a lot of cones, but does that mean we should only have momentum courses? Absolutely not. Just dial it back a bit, smooth it out, and fast times can be had. Granted, I didn't take my own advice very well (1/5 runs was clean) but I don't blame the course design for that, it was just sloppy driving. Cones happen.

Brice is right; however, sometimes I feel that courses get too technical. Too many conflicting elements.
Event one ticked me off because of the far out cone going into the Chicago box, it just made the line through there disturbed and no smooth and....FUN!

However, this past course was an awesome blend, despite pegging a cone each run! The only glitch was releasing the cars on time.

RobLupella · **Posted:** Mon May 07, 2012 3:37 pm

Matt McGrain wrote:

Overall, I'm happy and this was probably one of my top ten autocross weekends ever. Thanks so much Jeremy for offering the co-drive; your car is pretty awesome and I found if you want to get a good bit of wheelspin in an AP2 all you have to do is line up at the start on the 'dirty' line, as our announcer extrordinaire Mr. McRae kindly pointed out. :lol:

As far as the course, I was so transfixed on have in a slow finish yards away from the bus area that the proximity between the Chicago box and the lane change & "L boxes" was a little snug. Plus, I really was hoping that a <30 pace box would keep people in the low speed range as they crossed the finish. However, there were certainly some very, very brace novices that showed up, but the blue mini and the Yaris were coming out of there ridiculously quick and uncontrolled until we had folks ride along and Chris P. and I chatted with them to let them know if they turn it back a knotch, they'll be quicker and safer. Adjusting the launch seemed to help a bit which was good too.

Zach, the first turnaround was great IMO and found that if you lined it up just right, the corner exit put you right were you wanted to be going into the short 4-cone slalom before the bump.

I too liked Gwen's suggestion for future events. Focus on the runoff of the element and I agree that flipping the box around would have been a better move for sure.

The coneage was pretty wild (I've never had to try so hard to get a clean run after hitting six cones in the first three) and looking back, I think some of the gates were a little snug and the two tighter ~20 pace slaloms were pretty challenging as we've been running 25 pace ones lately. Plus, having open, faster sections going into these tight elements meant that there was little you could do to adjust your line late.

Thank to everyone that volunteered and especially the Johnsons for all the work in the bus with the AX Ware gremlins!

Warning - I am not being critical - trying to be constructive and I am not an expert at course design. My first course design had 680 cones hit in a weekend so I probably hold the record.

Part of the reason for the high coneage was there were a lot of cones on the course. Plus anytime you have a fast section followed by a element that is tight and offset will result in the cones in tat element being hit. That might not then be as bad as it seems. For example if you have 50 people doing 5 runs a single cone could potentially be hit 250 times. So if it is place where it will get plunked a lot like the CBOX cone or the one on the slalom heading for it that cone alone will account for a bunch of cone calls on its own but it's going to happen and is probably not a bad thing. AS Brice says, "Cones Happen". The Chicago box had a couple of issues IMHO. I like Gwen's suggestion to turn it around. It also set up for a spin because of the offset of the finish. Finally, (and this is personal preference) I like to put a CBox where there is a benefit to exiting fast. That puts a premium on entry to allow for a fast exit. In this case it was there to slow us down and there was not a big benefit to doing it right (other than not hitting the cone

) Not trying to be critical just post mortumy.

BTW I thought both turnarounds were well designed and fun. :thumbsup:

MaryJohnson · **Joined:** Tue Jul 27, 2010 1:25 pm **Posts:** 39

Zach Hill wrote:

I'd like to get a hold of the laptops soon to work on some of this. Mary, can you bring them to the meeting on Wednesday? Also, I'd love to have a pow-wow with the resident AXware expert. Would that be Stephen W., or someone else/additional?

I will bring the computer(s) to the meeting and I'll be glad to hang around if I can be helpful in getting to the root of the problem.

THSCC Forums

Not Cinco de Mayo autox May 6th!!1!!

Who is online