Kevin Allen wrote:
Open means there's a lot of space between elements & inside gates, so you can choose a line based on what your car can do, or by what you think is faster.
Kevin's explanation was right on the money. But let's also look at what makes a course "not open."
- Gates that are minimum gate width (15')
- 45' slaloms
- short distances in the direction of travel between gates
The above three things have characterized many of our courses this year. It is just not possible to have an "open, choose your own line" kind of course when the above is in place.
So, how far and wide and far apart should things be?
It's tough to answer that as it depends on the site, the goals of the course and a host of other things. But... here's a stab at some numbers.
I think a good rule of thumb is-
1) A slalom with 60' spacing is a "medium" speed slalom
2) A slalom with 70' spacing or better is a moderately fast slalom
3) A slalom with 45' spacing is slow and even painful to larger cars
Gate widths for most typical elements should probably be closer to 20' in width and wider is just fine.
I've had gate widths for elements like sweepers at Lbg that were 50' or more, to allow plenty of lattitude in choosing the inside vs the outside line.
The only reason to have a 15' wide gate is if you are constrained in the space available due to the site, or are trying to slow cars down for a very specific reason (like the finish).
The last element above, with regards to distance between gates, is harder to issue any kind of rule of thumb on. I think though if you remember that every autox element pretty much boils down to a turn, a slalom or an offset, it will help you in regards to spacing.
Sometimes the distance between elements is much greater than the distance between maneuvers. For example, in a series of offsets gates, the advanced drivers will be turning well before they get to the gate in order to set up for it properly. This means the maneuver to set up for the gate begins well before the gate itself. It is necessary to do this in order to maximize the radius of each turn, but it is easy to forget that's what's happening as a novice course designer. Thus, things actually drive much tighter than you what the designer intended.
It may also help to think about the speeds you want to achieve on a certain section of the course and convert that into time. For example, at 60 mph, a car is traveling at 88 ft/sec. Gates that are 100 feet apart will be covered in just a little over a second if that part of the course was traveled at 60 mph. Suddenly, a feature that you thought would take a long time to traverse goes by in an instant if it is truly fairly open.
Getting the distances right in both the offset direction and the direction of travel between gates is one of the hardest things to get right in a design. It really only comes by experience and paying close attention to the distances between features on various course.
I would encourage all the newbies to "calibrate" their pace. Put down a tape measure and figure out how many paces it takes for you to walk 25' or 50' and so on. Try to get so you can walk a "calibrated pace" in your steps. With a little bit of a stretch, I can consistently walk a 36" pace. So I know that 20 paces is a 60' slalom. I also know what that feels like in my car.
Get to the point where you can pace off elements of a course during your course walk, and know how far apart key cones are. File that away so that when you create a course of your own, you know that the elements of a lane change should be "x" feet apart to create a certain effect, or that offset gates should be "x" distance, and try to get a feel for how fast that is in your car.
I have fun walking the course with Dick, because I can tell that for his usual FF car, he knows how long it takes to accelerate to a certain speed, how many feet he needs before shifting into 2nd, etc. Those are helpful numbers to have in mind when walking a course.
We are all learning and growing. I personally think that the goal for any autox course should be:
1) fun to drive
2) separate the newbies from the advanced drivers
3) be clearly and properly marked
4) result in few, if any DNFs
5) not result in a high cone count
6) not favor low or high HP cars
Incicentally, if you meet 1-3, goals 4-6 follow naturally. If you meet 4-6, goals 1-3 will follow naturally.
One thought on number 3. At Danville, I didn't think the problem was so much "too many" cones. But I did feel that the cones could have been laid out to be visually more clear.. I'm referring to the offsets up the runway after sweeper. How you do that is not a subject I'll tackle in this post.
The flow of the gates at Danville was generally pretty good I thought. There were a few gates that were tighter than I liked, but the spacing was fine, except for maybe those few offsets headed up the runway. Even those weren't bad, but they weren't laid out as clearly as I had wished for. The proper use of pointer cones can really help clear things up at times.
No criticism intended... just honest feedback.
Kevin, I appreciate how receptive you've been to comments from the peanut gallery. Thanks for listening!
Miles
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
