Auto X and Endurance Track release

With the way the tracks are released early as of now it seems to really give heavily funded/well grounded teams a major advantage of driver training on a track that will be identical at competition. Many teams do not have access to facilities that allow for a full scale enduro/autocross. After watching a video of a team test a full day at a private Bosch event for the enduro course it really seems to give an unfair advantage to a select set of teams. Especially given the driver levels which make the driver arguably the largest variable of a reliable car. So why not actually in the spirit of real autocross racing not release track maps until the start of competition to flatten the playing field?

I doubt these teams are paying Bosch daily rates to use the facilities. Why not reach out to local suppliers with test track access to see if they're willing to sponsor? Or companies with large parking lots, schools, etc. Or get a license to Assetto Corsa and simulate the track.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acedeuce802

I doubt these teams are paying Bosch daily rates to use the facilities. Why not reach out to local suppliers with test track access to see if they're willing to sponsor? Or companies with large parking lots, schools, etc. Or get a license to Assetto Corsa and simulate the track.

---

You are correct they are not paying Bosch it is a sponsored event for a select few teams (many top 10 teams). You will find as I have already that insurance is king when it comes to testing. That's a whole rabbits hole in itself of politics with the school not to mention cost. School parking lots etc do not offer near a large enough area to do even 1/4 of the MIS back stretch. Simulation on a video game does not offer the realism nor does it allow for real setup of the car/execution needed at competition.

A driver that knows the track could easily knock off multiple seconds. You can have the fastest car but honestly I'd rather know the track. Play your favorite game/simulator pick a track you dont know and tell me which would make a larger difference in the first two laps, a faster car or better memorization of braking points and turn ins?

What is the pros of offering the track early to teams? (In the mindset of benefiting all teams)

Access to testing area doesn't necessarily have much to do with being "heavily funded". As it has already been noted, the example you gave wasn't paying Bosch for access, they got it for free. Not everyone has access to something as good as the Bosch testing ground but I think most teams could find something adequate within an hour of them and get permission to test there (big campus parking lot, regional airstrip, local kart track, etc). If you really can't set up the course and test it, publishing the map at least still gives you the opportunity to simulate the course in rFactor or Asseto Corsa, or in your own lap sim program.

So taking the funding out of the equation, what it comes down to is you're saying teams that are well organized, experienced, prepared for comp early, and ready to test have a big advantage? That's **always** going to be the case, and why shouldn't it be?

If you didn't publish the course maps, it will still give just as big of an advantage to talented drivers because being able to improvise and figure out a new course in just 1 lap is an extremely difficult skill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JT A.

Access to testing area doesn't necessarily have much to do with being "heavily funded". As it has already been noted, the example you gave wasn't paying Bosch for access, they got it for free. Not everyone has access to something as good as the Bosch testing ground but I think most teams could find something adequate within an hour of them and get permission to test there (big campus parking lot, regional airstrip, local kart track, etc). If you really can't set up the course and test it, publishing the map at least still gives you the opportunity to simulate the course in rFactor or Asseto Corsa, or in your own lap sim program.

So taking the funding out of the equation, what it comes down to is you're saying teams that are well organized, experienced, prepared for comp early, and ready to test have a big advantage? That's **always** going to be the case, and why shouldn't it be?

If you didn't publish the course maps, it will still give just as big of an advantage to talented drivers because being able to improvise and figure out a new course in just 1 lap is an extremely difficult skill.

---

Almost every team disagrees with you about finding a testing facility. It is definitely a major problem for the majority of teams. In a perfect world everyone would test on the identical track and that would reduce the talent gap. The preparation from an identical course is an unfair bias and I have never heard of an auto x give away the track location ahead of time. Many racing series are actively reducing the number of resources needed to be competitive why not do the same here in SAE?

Again simulation is a huge leap away from physical testing.

I can be prepared for a test without practicing on an identical test in school cant I?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoyt H

Almost every team disagrees with you about finding a testing facility. It is definitely a major problem for the majority of teams. In a perfect world everyone would test on the identical track and that would reduce the talent gap. The preparation from an identical course is an unfair bias and I have never heard of an auto x give away the track location ahead of time. Many racing series are actively reducing the number of resources needed to be competitive why not do the same here in SAE?

Again simulation is a huge leap away from physical testing.

I can be prepared for a test without practicing on an identical test in school cant I?

---

Sorry man I completely disagree with you. Yes teams all have trouble finding parking lots to test in but that's all location and rarely funding related . Besides that Bosch sponsored test day (which are you positive they setup the exact track ahead of time? If so impressive) most can't find a place big enough to build an entire comp sized track. Be resourceful and pick out the tricky sections of the track and set them up in your local parking lot. This isn't an instance where teams with more funding get some.massive advantage. Also many SCCA/PCA regions release their tracks ahead of time. We've done just fine in the past with simulation. These teams aren't winning just because they had a full scale test track.

This thread is being hijacked in a wrong direction. Well funded teams have an option to pay for a facility. Regardless funding is a minute point.

A team that test at an identical track will place better probably significantly better than one that didn't. In no series does simulation replace practice. Neither does a similar track replace testing at the actual track of interest. You dont see Nascar teams practicing at Daytona in preparation for Talladega even though the tracks are similar.

What is the pros to publishing it early? You're lap sims etc can all be ran the two days before dynamic events none the less.

Clarify TLDR Poor/Rich, Organized/Disbanded, simulation/no simulation. Doesnt matter a team that test on an identical track will perform significantly better testing on the track of interest in it's full.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoyt H

You dont see Nascar teams practicing at Daytona in preparation for Talladega even though the tracks are similar.

---

I don't have time to respond to your other misguided opinions yet, but I can tell you for a fact that this is just straight up not true.

Quote:

---

I can be prepared for a test without practicing on an identical test in school cant I?

---

Yep.

Quote:

---

pick out the tricky sections of the track and set them up in your local parking lot.

---

Connect the dots.

Quote:

---

Doesnt matter a team that test on an identical track will perform significantly better testing on the track of interest in it's full.

---

100% correct. Is there anything you can do to stop other teams from being as prepared as possible? Is it "fair"? Nah, so try not to get too worked up about it and prepare yourself the best you can. It's all you can do.

If I recall, the organizers started posting the track maps early to try and level the playing field and reduce the impact that an ace driver has. We can argue all day about whether or not it was effective, but I'll put some trust in the course designers who have been running SCCA events for decades. This isn't a bad discussion to have, I just feel there's probably bigger fish regarding performance inequality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theTTshark

I don't have time to respond to your other misguided opinions yet, but I can tell you for a fact that this is just straight up not true.

---

Lol sorry to waste your time. Bless me with your words of wisdom oh holy one.

Oh wait we should be probably be a little more professional...

Let's just keep on the topic, you can disagree without trying to throw an insult.

Thanks in advance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Owen Thomas

Yep.

Connect the dots.

100% correct. Is there anything you can do to stop other teams from being as prepared as possible? Is it "fair"? Nah, so try not to get too worked up about it and prepare yourself the best you can. It's all you can do.

If I recall, the organizers started posting the track maps early to try and level the playing field and reduce the impact that an ace driver has. We can argue all day about whether or not it was effective, but I'll put some trust in the course designers who have been running SCCA events for decades. This isn't a bad discussion to have, I just feel there's probably bigger fish regarding performance inequality.

---

I'm going to go through the auto x times and enduro times and see if there is a consistent difference in times between drivers first and second attempt.

I agree with you on all levels. Posting the maps should flatten the field. Just out of all the teams I have spoken too have a hard time finding an area to reach the speeds that Michigan is. Trying to hit 70 in a parking lot isnt very feasible nor is any of the faster offset gates where a lot of time can be lost.

There is also much more to a track than just the birds eye view.
Surface conditions make dramatic changes.
I would also suggest that total seat time matters more than practicing on the exact track.
Just be safe out there!

-William

Eh...

If you are looking to reduce the advantage 'top' teams have then I'd start somewhere else... Like removing loopholes in the Cost event (buying better carbon -> using less of it -> Better cost score because all carbon is the same price)

I'd suggest that publishing track maps allows teams to simulate their performance and check different setups, which costs nothing (MATLAB is free for teams, everyone has Excel, IPG have a sponsorship deal, Optimum lap is also free)

It encourages both being prepared -> more testing/driver training, and also better engineering (simulations as above).

Have you considered training your drivers to be fast on an unknown track? Set up a bunch of random tracks in a parking lot, see who's quickest to adapt and put them in for Autocross.
The best drivers on raw pace, you put in for Endurance because relatively speaking, the penalty for learning the track as you go is a lot lower (13 laps instead of 2)

There is still 'room' to modify top team scores:

1) So it's an "Impact Attenuator" ? OK, drop the car from an overhead fixture (crane) and see how well a nose down punch really does. Criteria ought to be in place to have crash-worthyness. So let's see the reality.

2) if this causes too much anxiety. Do a quasi-static crush (hydraulic) and study the actual deformation versus the team's simulated crush.

3) Top 5 teams get real engineering handling tests. What gains and bandwidths and max lat did you say your car has ? Open this up to teams submitted by Design Judges who use merit and effort to get simulation correlation.

4) Besides the hair-up-your-pin, add rumble strip detours on the durability and auto-cross courses. Strength versus agility. F1 cars don't seem to mind.

5) Pit stops for a mandatory tire change. It's a Team sport. There is no " I " in Team.

6) Hand out basic DJ questions while teams are next in line. This gives them some breathing room to reduce anxiety. Submitting written answers to a few core questions will help judging, too. All this would normalize the vast difference between the pretend DJ and those with sisu.

7) Crush winning cars so that they can't be reused next year. Save the motor, but the rest is history.

8) Do some "walk around the pit" homework. I saw some great 'engineering' going on the fly by a few teams as a result of "unanticipated consequences". (That's a famous Law, you know.)

9) I like the idea of alternate track surface regions. A soapy water solution rewards traction control systems.

10) I'd love to see a Figure 8 event just for kicks. "Go ahead, hit me. I'm here for the extra 1000 points and I can run on 3 wheels." This is Engineering, not a science project. There's a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoyt H

What is the pros to publishing it early?

---

We started pre-publishing the tracks for the Lincoln Comp pretty much right out of the gate. I think the benefits far outweigh what you are seeing as a negative with the funding advantage point. (Which you can add me to the list that doesn't agree).

The biggest positive I had in mind when pushing to release courses early was just creating a reasonably well-defined grading rubric for what this competition is asking of your design from a dynamics standpoint. It really isn't to anyone's benefit to have teams start their design process with a misunderstanding of what their car is expected to do. I see this as an easy barrier to remove for young teams and people new to the comp.

Following to the next logical step, the courses serve as detail data for design inputs. You can pull all the track dimensions; radii, straight length, slalom spacing, etc from the course maps. Then you have a real nice guide for the majority of your design decisions. As a competitor, I recall detailed track data was some hard info to come by. Maybe that info is a more freely available with the expanded access to data logging systems, I dunno.

Now, for the actual comp, I’m gonna say, having the pre-published tracks helps all teams that actually look at the info available.

I’ll parrot what others have said, and agree that the most organized/prepared teams will always be able to do more with this information. Funding, doesn’t have much to do with it in this case. Who even has huge open parking lots open for rent anyway? If you want test track access, visit a local SCCA AutoX, even if you must take your daily driver. I know a lot of regions let the FSAE cars run for free. You’ll get all the highspeed time you want.

FOR FREE!

Back to the FSAE comps. Look at the flip side to your argument. How much do you think the pre-published courses help less competitive teams? Let’s say it’s a team that, for any number of reasons, doesn’t have a well-tested car. Instead of learning their car and a new course at the same time, now they have ability to focus more on managing the car……….and by extension getting the most they can out of the car at that point in time. I think this really aligns with the ‘spirit of the competition’, in the sense we are trying to evaluate designs to the max of their dynamic capabilities.

Personally, from the dynamics evaluation standpoint, I have zero interest in efforts to ‘flatten the playing field’. For course designs, I’m shooting for the exact opposite.


Edit: Forgot my final point. Safety. A field of cars that has a X% better idea of where they are supposed to be driving, makes the events A LOT safer. Though you still would never believe how lost some people get......aka full course direction reversals -> insert jackie chan 'WHY?' meme here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raitinger

We started pre-publishing the tracks for the Lincoln Comp pretty much right out of the gate. I think the benefits far outweigh what you are seeing as a negative with the funding advantage point. (Which you can add me to the list that doesn't agree).

The biggest positive I had in mind when pushing to release courses early was just creating a reasonably well-defined grading rubric for what this competition is asking of your design from a dynamics standpoint. It really isn't to anyone's benefit to have teams start their design process with a misunderstanding of what their car is expected to do. I see this as an easy barrier to remove for young teams and people new to the comp.

Following to the next logical step, the courses serve as detail data for design inputs. You can pull all the track dimensions; radii, straight length, slalom spacing, etc from the course maps. Then you have a real nice guide for the majority of your design decisions. As a competitor, I recall detailed track data was some hard info to come by. Maybe that info is a more freely available with the expanded access to data logging systems, I dunno.

Now, for the actual comp, I’m gonna say, having the pre-published tracks helps all teams that actually look at the info available.

I’ll parrot what others have said, and agree that the most organized/prepared teams will always be able to do more with this information. Funding, doesn’t have much to do with it in this case. Who even has huge open parking lots open for rent anyway? If you want test track access, visit a local SCCA AutoX, even if you must take your daily driver. I know a lot of regions let the FSAE cars run for free. You’ll get all the highspeed time you want.

FOR FREE!

Back to the FSAE comps. Look at the flip side to your argument. How much do you think the pre-published courses help less competitive teams? Let’s say it’s a team that, for any number of reasons, doesn’t have a well-tested car. Instead of learning their car and a new course at the same time, now they have ability to focus more on managing the car……….and by extension getting the most they can out of the car at that point in time. I think this really aligns with the ‘spirit of the competition’, in the sense we are trying to evaluate designs to the max of their dynamic capabilities.

Personally, from the dynamics evaluation standpoint, I have zero interest in efforts to ‘flatten the playing field’. For course designs, I’m shooting for the exact opposite.


Edit: Forgot my final point. Safety. A field of cars that has a X% better idea of where they are supposed to be driving, makes the events A LOT safer. Though you still would never believe how lost some people get......aka full course direction reversals -> insert jackie chan 'WHY?' meme here

---

Agreed on the flip side of the argument!

Releasing the tracks early helped my team arguably perform well above expectations in Michigan 2016 and Lincoln 2017.


So when are we going to get the 2018 track :) , or should we just be using 2014 for now?

I just discussed this issue with a good friend of mine (John Carriere - SCCA Nationals Autocrosser). He has also been a Design Judge at MIS in past years.

John suggests that FSAE release a 'Track Map' to all teams a few weeks before competition so they get an idea of what is coming at them. But, it's NOT and exact to scale drawing. Pretty close but not exact. And, its not so far in advance that really serious simulations, tests and practice runs can be made.

This allows teams to evaluate their steering, gearing, swinging and swearing at their designs, gets a driver some idea what's in store and lets the team calculate what final design alterations might be needed.

Meanwhile, teams with high end assistance will/may be off a bit because their sims and practice runs are going to be different enough that their learnings are not so overwhelming. Besides, you don't really know what the car does on the track surface is like until you get their and grind it out.

So: Here's a 'proposed' track map, a few cones and radii will be different, do your lap sims and parking lot tests with it in mind, but what you find at the event venue will be a bit different.

That's all folks !

I think the rules have an ample description of what the tracks may look like. Really anyone should be able to set up a section of a course that meets any specification in this list to identify how their car will perform. Linking the sections is then up to the driver.

D7.2.1 The following standard specifications will suggest the maximum speeds that will be encountered onthe course.

Average speeds should be 40 km/hr (25 mph) to 48 km/hr (30 mph).

NOTE: the actual average speed for any track will depend on the prevailing conditions and the areaavailable to the organizers in which the track is setup, therefore the quoted speeds are intended as arough guide only.

Straights: No longer than 60 m (200 feet) with hairpins at both ends (or) no longer than 45 m(150 feet) with wide turns on the ends.

Constant Turns: 23 m (75 feet) to 45 m (148 feet) diameter.

Hairpin Turns: Minimum of 9 m (29.5 feet) outside diameter (of the turn).

Slaloms: Cones in a straight line with 7.62 m (25 feet) to 12.19 m (40 feet) spacing.

Miscellaneous: Chicanes, multiple turns, decreasing radius turns, etc. The minimum trackwidth will be 3.5 m (11.5 feet).

Watching that onboard video of Stuttgart running lap after lap on a practice version of the MIS track before comp, I can't help from thinking "all hope is lost...".

But that said, if you've ever read Mark Donohue's memoir "The Unfair Advantage", you'll understand this is always going to be a part of motorsports. Every team strives to take advantage of their unfair advantages to get ahead. Some teams have access to an autoclave, others have a base of wealthy alumni, maybe you have 24/7 access to a CNC shop, or a killer driver that just enrolled at your school, or have none of those but lots of open space to setup mock endurance tracks.

I feel that for most of the U.S. teams, this sort of ends in a draw, although being able to memorize and test on a mockup endurance track is a huge one, since Endurance/Efficiency is most of your score...maybe taking away the exact track map would level this out a little bit, but probably not much. The juggernaut teams are so dominant because seemingly they are able to stack up every advantage possible, including the testing and seat time ones.

Oh give me a break with this level playing field BS. Do you really think a 15-20 place team would have swooped in and stolen a victory if the top teams weren't able to set up a full practice track identical to Michigan?

What about FSG? They have been using nearly the same endurance and auto cross track since 2012? So all the teams who have competed there in the last 6 years aren't allowed to use their track data to recreate that track at their own facility??

The top teams are the top teams for many reasons. And the ability to setup a recreation of a competition course is not one of them.

Quit complaining about better teams being better, and work harder to find ways to build a faster car to beat them.