Add to Calendar
When:
July 25, 2015 @ 9:00 am – 3:00 pm
2015-07-25T09:00:00-04:00
2015-07-25T15:00:00-04:00
Where:
Glasgow High School
1901 South College Avenue
Newark, DE 19702
USA
1901 South College Avenue
Newark, DE 19702
USA
Cost:
$25 BMC members & $30 nonmembers
Contact:
I wish to pre-regestered for Saturdays event on 7/25/2015..help?
Go to the event website on http://www.motorsportreg.com/events/bmc-autocross-iv-glasgow-high-school-brandywine-motorsport-club-025087#.Va05QqRViko and sign up.
To Whom it concerns-
In light of last event’s (28Jun ’15) unfortunate ‘offs’, the ‘solution’ of limiting entrees to 75 makes no sense that I can see; please help me understand.
Two drivers went off course at the same area (likely within a few feet of one another, although I didn’t investigate the scene myself), and for one of two of the same reasons; driver error (didn’t go ‘both feet in’), or poor course design; or a combination of the two; simple. The number of entrants had nothing to do with their misfortune.
I will address these in reverse order, because I want the course designers to understand that I rather enjoyed the last course (not too many cones and room for ‘line options’), and, in my mind, they bare little (if any) blame (but must be considered, sadly).
The end was effectively a ‘straight’ with a slight jog at the end; I hit third just out of the turn at WOT, and could stay buried; so it was a fast end no doubt. I’d have to re look the lot to see if a jog the other way might have been better, or even a straight shot (gasp!). The end was fast, no two-ways about it, but speed in itself isn’t dangerous; just an element that must be considered…
Driver error is the larger (key?) bit; had both gone ‘both in’ or not ‘over driven’ their cars we probably wouldn’t be ‘talking’ about this. Both are new drivers w/<1yr (6-12 events) under their belts. Neither had a ride-along or ride-with an 'instructor ' to my knowledge. 350Z happened on 'cold' tires; first of PM runs.
We could of had 300 entrants and still had the 'offs'; lack of skill and a fast, inviting end were the cause. Limiting entrants only serves to hurt/limit the club, not make its events safer.
Improvement areas:
1) Slow the end up. Even if you keep it fast, hit an end cone= DNF.
2) Rolling-lstart. No drag-start=calmer run. Start 'balls out', end 'balls out'…
3) Grid; none of this 'slow snail-line junk. I'm amazed nobody offed and hit the tree or queued cars at the third major switch-back! Nerve-racking to be in the queue there! Rode with one guy who I swear was aiming to put his left tires on the grass-line! A grid lets me actually talk to other drivers, and ride with them (or them w/me) in real time; or even communicate to 'the tent' that I need help; constantly inching up in my car hinders that; no grid is a real hinder acne this club should get away from for many reasons, IMHO. If nothing else, it's a forced stop for folks to cool their jets for a while.
Numbers didn't cause the offs, other factors did. Reducing entrants seems like a knee-jerk reaction, and I don't see how it could have possibly prevented last event's misfortunes. How does cutting numbers help?
V/r
James Nelson
Please forward as required.
James, I lost control at Auto-X III as well, but luckily was able to recover without incident. I don’t think the course design was solely to blame. There was leftover rainwater on the backside of the lot. The way the course was laid out, it placed a long puddle on the passenger side at the beginning of the last straight. If you noticed, all the vehicles that lost control were high horsepower and rear wheel drive, this was no coincidence (I was driving a Corvette by the way). I believe the long puddle reduced traction enough on one side to induce a spin. The jog near the end of the straight exacerbated the condition by shifting the vehicles’ weight from one side to the other. I believe that if the course was dry that day we would not have had those 2 unfortunate incidents.
-John
To Whom it concerns-
In light of last event’s (28Jun ’15) unfortunate ‘offs’, the ‘solution’ of limiting entrees to 75 makes no sense that I can see; please help me understand.
Two drivers went off course at the same area (likely within a few feet of one another, although I didn’t investigate the scene myself), and for one of two of the same reasons; driver error (didn’t go ‘both feet in’), or poor course design; or a combination of the two; simple. The number of entrants had nothing to do with their misfortune.
I will address these in reverse order, because I want the course designers to understand that I rather enjoyed the last course (not too many cones and room for ‘line options’), and, in my mind, they bare little (if any) blame (but must be considered, sadly).
The end was effectively a ‘straight’ with a slight jog at the end; I hit third just out of the turn at WOT, and could stay buried; so it was a fast end no doubt. I’d have to re look the lot to see if a jog the other way might have been better, or even a straight shot (gasp!). The end was fast, no two-ways about it, but speed in itself isn’t dangerous; just an element that must be considered…
Driver error is the larger (key?) bit; had both gone ‘both in’ or not ‘over driven’ their cars we probably wouldn’t be ‘talking’ about this. Both are new drivers w/<1yr (6-12 events) under their belts. Neither had a ride-along or ride-with an 'instructor ' to my knowledge. 350Z happened on 'cold' tires; first of PM runs.
We could of had 300 entrants and still had the 'offs'; lack of skill and a fast, inviting end were the cause. Limiting entrants only serves to hurt/limit the club, not make its events safer.
Improvement areas:
1) Slow the end up. Even if you keep it fast, hit an end cone= DNF.
2) Rolling-lstart. No drag-start=calmer run. Start 'balls out', end 'balls out'…
3) Grid; none of this 'slow snail-line junk. I'm amazed nobody offed and hit the tree or queued cars at the third major switch-back! Nerve-racking to be in the queue there! Rode with one guy who I swear was aiming to put his left tires on the grass-line! A grid lets me actually talk to other drivers, and ride with them (or them w/me) in real time; or even communicate to 'the tent' that I need help; constantly inching up in my car hinders that; no grid is a real hinder acne this club should get away from for many reasons, IMHO. If nothing else, it's a forced stop for folks to cool their jets for a while.
Numbers didn't cause the offs, other factors did. Reducing entrants seems like a knee-jerk reaction, and I don't see how it could have possibly prevented last event's misfortunes. How does cutting numbers help?
James – I think the reduced numbers have more to do with limited space, and not getting the 6 runs that everyone paid for. Last event we were cut to 5 runs. I’m not sure the off course incidents have anything to do with the participant cap.
James:
Thank you for your input concerning AxIII and AxIV. The event cap of 75 is not solely based on safety concerns, though they play a part in it as well.
A primary reason for capping the GHS events at 75 is the sheer physical limitation of the site. With 95 cars like we had at AxIII, cars were forced to paddock everywhere – up the access roads, along the school, anywhere space was available to park. It also caused problems in the staging area and limited us to 5 runs instead of our usual 6.
We also face complaints from the neighbors directly across the street. While the District is still supporting us so far, that will not last if they continually get angry calls from the nearby residents. Limiting the event size is one of several ways we are trying to be sensitive to the neighbors and reduce their opportunities to complain to the school. It also demonstrates to the school administration that we are being proactive in reducing our impact on the neighborhood and the campus.
Because of the available space, having more than 25 cars in each run group also causes problems in the staging area – even if people diligently move up, which they don’t, the tail of the line extends back to the stop box. Limiting the size of the event helps with this as well. We tried 2 lines but that was difficult for drivers to grasp, and as you noted, it put waiting cars even closer to the course than normal. You mention that we should have a grid, but there is simply no physical place to put one. By our agreement with the school we are required to keep the other side of the driveway open to civilian traffic. Believe me, the first thing I asked for when we requested this site was that we be allowed to close the rear driveway off entirely, but that was denied. Coupled with the limited paddock space, where would we put a grid that non-event cars could still get through?
The car count also was an indirect factor in the safety issues. With that many drivers, trying to maintain throughput meant the pace was a little quick for really effective supervision. As AX chair I am also safety steward and I do not feel I had a good enough handle on how the event progressed on course. No, the 2 spins that happened were not directly caused by the high attendance number; in that point you are correct. But the number of cars meant that everybody’s faculties were stretched to the point that a couple drivers who may have needed instruction, or at least a word or two of coaching, did not get it.
On the design side, the end of the course at AxIII was fast, and the minor kinks intended to slow it down were not effective enough. Again, with the physically small size of the lot and the number of poles, we are limited in layout options. It is a balance between course length, safety, and fun. The AxIII course missed that mark somewhat. I am returning to designs that limit straight length and require slowdowns, particularly near the end. We don’t really have room for a rolling start, but I don’t see how that would have a major effect on the launches. Whether the timing lights are 5 feet or 50 feet in front of the launch point, the desire to get the car up to speed as quickly as possible is still there.
We are always looking for ways to improve the autocross program and our events. We are also always looking for volunteers to help us do that, so feel free to contact me about getting involved.
I think the driver cap is about:
– A goal of having two sessions where drivers will get six (6) total runs by the end of the day (I know, I know, DC Region-SCCA only gets 4 and they put up with it just fine and it’s their norm).
– Easier check-in. They’re still sorting through a best of check-in process, and need to find a way to handle everyone in a way that will work for everyone. This year has just seen a HUGE explosion in attendance relative to years past. We’re seeing entry lists now that I’m certain the BMC would love to see for holding an event in Dover.
Your points and suggestions are totally valid, and I mean it. Like all of them are ideas that I pretty much agree with. But I don’t think the offs were the reasoning for the new entry limit.