THSCC Forums

Mr. Whitney asked the question in the other thread, and that seemed like a topic all by itself.

Here's my thoughts..

No matter how easy it seems like it ought to be to find rallycross sites, the truth is that sites are hard to find, and we now have two. That's a bare minimum for a real program to survive. So, I'm ok keeping the Rockingham site, but I would suggest some changes.

The Rockingham site has the advantage of being truly hugelymongus! Since the really big problem that chews up courses in rallycross sites is tight turns and well defined lines (or relatively narrow gates).... We should try harder to eliminate those problems. As Mr. Whitney already suggested in the other Rockingham thread, the solution may be to make the gates, and thus the available driving room, much, much wider.

With all that space out there to play with, I would think we'd have better luck making one huge course, with long sweeping turns, no tight stuff, and where possible, lots of width to play with. The downside to that approach is that speeds will be higher, especially when the course is green. The experienced rally guys may need to help with the design of such a course to ensure that we don't get it too fast or run in to safety issues.

I've seen suggestions for having different courses for different classes. Well, most of the time, what is needed is simply a minor change in a few critical corners to eliminate having to drive through the sandpiles. If we were able to come up with a fair scheme for changing the course after every run session to eliminate the sandpiles, we'd probably be ok.

To do that, you obviously can't have classes split across multiple run groups and that may create a problem for multi-driver cars (those with four or more drivers, like the group rally beaters!)

I like the Rockingham site as a rallycross site for the 1 to 2 events a year where the Four Oaks field is not available. We get burgers, restrooms with sinks and running water, and more room to play with than you could likely find anywhere else.

We also must find a way to get back to a tighter launch interval. Ditch the laser timers if you must. We need bigger numbers of cars to make the finances work, but we can't do that if we have a 75 second launch interval.
I realize dust may keep it down to 45 seconds or so, but we've got to improve from yesterday afternoon.

At Rockingham, we actually have enough room, as demonstrated yesterday to run two courses at a time. If we ditch the laser timers and go back to the stone age stopwatch system.... We could possibly run two courses at a time, especially if there was some distance between them. For an 80 car event, if we ever get there, such a setup might be ideal.

There's no criticism meant here towards anyone. I'm very thankful for the hard work of those who worked so hard so many times to get this program off the ground. I still think we need to be working towards a group of rallycross officers and support folks for 2005 that can take the load off our regular officers for such a program to thrive, and not kill the good guys that take care of our autox program and other club duties!

Food for thought.

Miles

I was the one suggesting different courses for different classes but I only threw it out there as a discussion point.

As for timing: I think we'd have fewer problems if we could find some way of damping down the course; even if it's only near the finish. We'd need a higher attendance if we went with a water truck as described in the link posted by Carl...

http://www.4g61t.com/thsccforum/viewtopic.php?t=1760

Or how about finishing on the gravel?

Simon

That could be an excellent idea. We need to think about that.

Maybe we should use more of the gravel/pavement in the courses?

_________________
Mike Whitney
whit32@gmail.com, 919-454-5445
V10, V8, V8t, I6, I6, V6, F4t, I4, I4, I4, I4, I2, 1, 1

I don't think widening the line is an effective method of reducing rutting, nor is it necessarily a safe practice. No matter how wide you make the possible line, the fast line is usually only 1 car wide, and that is where the ruts are going to form. And one lesson I thought we'd taken away from the May rallyX school is that you don't want to allow too steep an approach into a turn, particularly a tight one that has most likely become rutted. If your cones are defining the inside radius of turns, then, it scarely matters if you even place the outside cones, as they're not a factor.

I don't favor the idea of using different courses for different classes, either. I can't speak for everyone else, but I like to see where I stack up in the overall results, and that comparison wouldn't be possible if everyone wasn't running the same courses.

What is needed is a way to level the playing field for everyone. So far the best way I've thought of to do that would be to have a tractor scrape off all the grass and firm soil off the course before the first run, and then let the cars go, and re-grade it after each heat. That would yield the most consistent course conditions across the entire event. Alternatively, we could increase the number of course variations during the day so instead of say everyone taking 3 runs on each of 2 courses, they would take 2 runs on each of 3 courses. But that still has the first runners getting better conditions than the last, and now there is less opportunity to learn and improve on each course (yeah, I know, Anders... )

Obviously I did not see what the dust situation was like yesterday, but it was sometimes a problem at the May 22nd event, so this is going to be another issue we will need to deal with. I think we need to find a way to adapt the old rubber hose timing line to work as the finish signal, then acknowledge that rallyX can be dusty and adjust our launch interval if necessary so that the workers can always see cars in motion in their area. A water truck would be nice, but it's not in the budget with our current level of subscriptions.

_________________
Carl Fisher

Be Cool to the Pizza Dude:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=4651531

Ah I mentioned the rubber hose idea to Rice while tending the timer yesterday. Didn't know it had been done in the past. That would be absolutely ideal, and the resolution would be more than enough for cumulative timing. Aaron was able somehow to tend the box better -- during his group he was able to keep the launch interval at 45 sec. or so.

I tend to agree with Carl on the lines/course size issue -- no matter how wide the gates are the line is going to be narrow. Now I'm all for wide gates too as that gives me the option of taking a tight line and beating up the car or taking a wide line and staying out of the ruts. I'm not sure many people would take the no rut solution though... We're all type-A here and want to be first.

I would love to find a gravel or at least non-sand site but I sure wouldn't do it in the WRX. I'd need bash plates and real mudflaps at a gravel site and don't want to tear up the car to install them. I would still attend but would have to do it in some other car.

--Kevin H.

_________________
2003 WRX (again!)

Carl, I would say that the courses yesterday were in general much more open and flowing than some of the ones at Four Oaks. So, when I was talking about the "tight'" turns, that was a term relative to yesterday's course. With only one exception, and that was the finish on the 2nd course, most of the turns were pretty open.

The problem yesterday was not related to course design but to the consistency of the surface. The soil there, if you can call it that, is POWDER. It's not even sand. It's a fine powder that won't pack, and makes instant dust that floats forever. We had a gentle breeze most of the day yesterday and the dust still seemed to hang around in the air all day. It was amazing. After just a few runs the course came apart and ruts started forming. It didn't take a sharp turn to make ruts. Almost any turn would create ruts, and quickly. After ten runs in the afternoon, the course looked like a Four Oaks course after a full heat.

Part of the strategy about "wide gates and lines" was discussed yesterday while the event was under way. Some people chose to take the much wider line, just to stay out of the ruts. Now you must realize that we aren't talking about ruts like we got at Four Oaks. This is a sand pile. It's a fine silt that got to be a foot deep in places or more, or so it seemed. I know some of the piles must have been 18 inches in places that helped form the ruts. If you drove into that stuff, you just about stopped. It didn't matter if you stayed "in the ruts" or not. The AWD cars did better with this situation, but the low hp 2wd cars just got killed in this stuff. I was genuinely concerned a time or two that I might get the little beast stuck!!

So.. it was a different experience. There really were times when it was quicker to take the line that was three car widths wider around the outside of the turn than driving through the sand pits. It partly depended on your car.

You had to be there....... It was uh, different.

Miles

I really like the idea of starting & finishing on the gravel. Also wanted to say that I agree that all of the turns - with the exception of the afternoon finish - were bigger than the smaller turns we've had at Four Oaks. It was just too sandy for the course design to prevent ruts, and I don't think there's really any way to work around it. There were a lot of places that even wanted to bog down the rally car, and several more where it was hard to choose a line that wasn't in 2ft deep ruts (but if I did, I mowed down the next gate or DNFed ). And there were several "yumps" that I saw some cars banging up & down on - the green Integra was the worst one I saw.

I do think that it was a lot of fun, and I liked the course designs. And after I get my rally suspension on the car (next week hopefully), I'll have no issues with running my car there.

I vote that we stick with it, if they'll have us back.

On the "two course" idea -

One thought I had on Sunday was that we could run the different groups each on 2 completely parallel courses - workers would just have to pick up the "outside" cone and place it in a pre-marked "inside" box when changing workers. The old inside cone would then be the outside cone. I looked at the first course we ran on Sat, and except for a few places where we had navigated around some rough sections, it would have worked.

Naturally one course would be a little shorter and a bit tighter - but I suspect the difference in time would be smaller than the "hit" from course deterioration.

Then again, the course seemed to be pretty rutted after only a dozen or so runs - so it just gives an additional advantage to those who manage to grid early.

Just a thought. Haven't thought it all the way through yet.

_________________
Mike Whitney
whit32@gmail.com, 919-454-5445
V10, V8, V8t, I6, I6, V6, F4t, I4, I4, I4, I4, I2, 1, 1

I don't think a start on gravel is a good idea - it wouldn't last long anyway before we wore it down to the dirt. And the owners probably wouldn't like it too much either. Finishing should be less abrasive than starting, especially if the post-finish runoff is not on gravel. Ideally we'd want 20-30 yards of straight gravel before the finish line and then exit onto dirt/grass.

Simon

I would be a little concerned that the transition from the dirt to the gravel road would just wear away the dirt until we created a big height difference... basically a ramp! We saw that happening some on Sunday even though we were just driving straight across one of the roads at a 90 degree angle.

I agree with Simon that we would want to be careful not to destroy or damage the gravel/asphalt roads.

Ok, out of the box thinking time. What if no one got "fresh dirt". Instead of course walk throughs, we had course drive throughs, i.e.: your first time doesn't count. The cours will still degrade during the event, but a novice will not likely be 10 seconds faster than experienced drivers running later in the group. (no offense Bill G., but that was SOME beginner's luck.)

As relates to the site, I still had a good time after I decided I was in it for the fun and stopped getting frustrated by the giant diferences resulting from running later. The sand was, in fact, powder and easily capable of slowing the cars to a stop. There were a few places in the morning that my frustration level got pretty high as the car ground to a near stop. After that I became one of those who drove way out of the way and criss crossed the course at the transitional gates. This technique was easier on the afternoon course than on the morning course.
Would I go back...you bet. Would I like to think of it a competition? Maybe. I do think that defining the course using wider gates or simply inside corner cones could go along way to equalizing the differences in run position. If there is an option to take the outside versus the inside deeply rutted path, there will be at least one fool out there on the fringe going faster and farther. It does add a "think quick" measure to the equation, and the number of theories about the "fast" line will increase up to near the total registration count. It adds a lot of material for Monday morning strategy sessions.
Charlie Guthrie
P.S. Pete and I went through the Dirtmaster removing protruding fastners and fileing and tapeing sharp edges. Good safety is common sense (and taking adequate time for preparation).

_________________
1998 BMW Z3
1987 BMW 325is
2000 BMW
1996 F250 Turbo Diesel