This could be a good thing

Warren,

As you know, at the JAG slalom a couple of weeks ago, I did break 45 (did a 44.89). Unfortunately, I didn't get the car stopped in time and tapped the end cone in the stop box, earning myself a DQ. I am convinced it is not the reflexes, it's the line. I started swinging the turns a little wider and steering in a little sooner, thus not having to brake as much and carrying more momentum through the turns. Smoothing the run out, not turning more quickly, seems to have gotten me a few more tenths. I'm looking forward to running up at Stowe in September to try my theory out again, this time in the Ser. II E. Look out, class D, here I come!!

Steve Weinstein, JTC-NJ
'72 E-type 2+2
'70 XKE FHC

Steve,

I've been at it longer than you, and I'm still not bored! But I think your idea of alternating the two patterns from year to year is a very good idea. It will keep it more interesting and challenging for everyone. Like you, I would LOVE to break 45 this year. I seem to have hit a plateau; maybe my reflexes are too conditioned to the standard course. Maybe the shock of having to master new patterns would shock me out of my rut!

Warren Hansen
70 E-Type FHC "Silver Bolide"
96 X300

Warren,

I agree. That's why I'm enthusiastic about the proposal. While I still find challenges (I'm DETERMINED to break the 45 second barrier this year), I can see that the same thing year after year can get boring. By alternating courses from year to year, we can keep the challenge in it and also the interest. I'd really be interested in hearing if anyone has any negatives about the idea of running the new proposed pattern on alternate years with the old pattern.

Steve Weinstein, JTC-NJ
JCNA Slalom Committee Chairman
JTC Slalom Chair

Stevo's proposed course has the advantage of equalizing the number of right and left turns and putting the car through the same patterns for both turn directions. It also has the feature of requiring much more concentration, since the brain can no longer rely on the symmetry of the "patterns" to stay on course. This makes it more like a conventional autocross course, albeit in the same tight area that JCNA has been using.
(Which is also a good thing, as it doesn't make it necessary to find ever larger venues to run in. The only drawback I see is that it will require very careful scrutineering to catch cars that do go off course, requiring as much concentration of the monitors as it does of the drivers! Now that we seem to have the automatic timing under control, perhaps we would need to have designated monitors (one at each end of the course?) to make sure that each driver completes the course correctly. Other than that, I think it breathes new life into the Slalom, which should keep those of us who are already hooked, hooked even longer!

Warren
70 E-Type FHC "Silver Bolide"
96 X300

Ahhhh.... I think I get it now....

We did it this way:

start
1/2 hour glass
cross-over
1/2 hour glass
cross over
full oval
finish

If I understand your proposal now, Stevo, we should have done:

start
1/2 hour glass
cross-over
2nd 1/2 hour glass
1/2 oval
cross-over
2nd 1/2 oval
finish

For ease of remembering, I like the way you described it -- two laps (hour glass and oval) with a cross-over in the middle of each.

The way we were doing it was interesting, and fairly easy to follow. But I don't think it equalizes things like Stevo's proposal. We'll have to try it again at the JTC slalom in October. I'd like to try it at the slalom at British Invasion, but it will depend on how many cars sign up for the event.

Personally, I'm in favor of having an alternate course, to be used in alternate years with the "standard" course. I think that will help keep interest in the program, so we are not doing the same thing year after year. I think we need to test it a little more, but I'm all for the proposal right now (personal opinion, not an official endorsement yet -- needs to be presented to the full committee).

Steve Weinstein, JTC-NJ
JCNA Slalom Committee Chairman
JTC Slalom Chair

Mike, your example is drawn correctly...just as I described it. Two laps (hour glass and oval) with crossovers in the middle of each of the laps. All the same elements and turns as the current pattern, except the rights and lefts are completely equalized, thereby equalizing tire wear on the left and right side tires.

Stevo

Steve:

Okeydoke. Let's hope I have this right the first time:

http://www.jcna.com/library/news/2003/images/slalom2.gif

Let us know.

Mike Frank

I think you should grab a piece of paper and draw it out. Post it so that we can see it. The verbal descriptions are confusing.At least if we can see a map, we can develop better terminology.

Mike Frank

Sorry guys, but you seem to have a problem counting 'turns'. Unless you think that the turns at the ends of the course somehow represent TWO turns each, there are a TOTAL of 6 turns in the current and my proposed pattern.

The CURRENT pattern starts with not a FULL turn, but a right turn for half of the 'southern' end, followed by two FULL rights, a FULL left, then two more FULL rights, then a final 1/2 Right to the finish line. This adds up to 5 FULL rights and 1 FULL left.

My proposed pattern absolutely equalizes this, starting with the initial 1/2 right, followed by a FULL right, then 3 successive FULL lefts and finishing up with a FULL right and then the same final 1/2 right to the finish line. This adds up to 3 FULL rights and 3 FULL lefts.

Furthermore, the pattern has ALL the same elements as the current pattern...there are no skipped parts. You make TWO jigs for the hour glass, TWO passes through the oval gates, and TWO crosses through the figure eight (plus all the turns, of course). Nothing is missed or bypassed. In fact, the current pattern causes you to do a R-L-R jig for each of the hour glass legs, while my pattern requires a R-L-R jig going up the left side of the hour glass, and an opposite L-R-L jig going up the right side of the hour glass. This equalizes the 'slalom' maneuver. Total distance traveled is the SAME for the current and proposed patterns.

The easiest way (at least for me) to think about and describe the proposed pattern is that there are now TWO laps (hour glass followed by the oval), with a crossover required in the niddle of each (don't even think about the figure 8). So, you do the first half of the hour glass, crossover, do the second half of the hour glass, do the first half of the oval, crossover, then do the second half of the oval to the finish line. So, instead of 3 distinct laps as we have now, we are down to two laps which have crossovers, thereby eliminating the figure 8 as a distinct, separate element (it's built in to the hour glass and oval laps.

Stevo

Mike,

When I ran the proposed format, I did the second crossover. However, in reviewing Steve Gallant's description in the Alternate Run Patten Tested forum, with the course ending with the half over, I find that the rights and lefts will be more equalized. Try it our on paper.

Anyway, we'll give it a run next time out.

If you really want to spice up things, design 5 different formats, one for each of the 5 allotted runs, and add the 5 times together for a Final Run Time.

-Paul

Paul:
I think we just omitted a step. Just to fill everyone in, what we were doing was as follows:

Start as usual.
1/2 dog leg, come around
1/2 crossover, come around.
second 1/2 dog leg, come around.
1/2 crossover, come around.
Full oval
Finish

Different from Steve's propsed course, in that we didn't have the second crossover. Advantage is that the course is the same length, but the objective of equalizing turns isn't met. I think the oval is faster without the interruption of a crossover. This pattern doesn't lengthen the course, so times may end up being comparable from year to year.

We should try the full proposed course in October.

Definitely better, either way. The old course is getting bor-ing.

Mike Frank

Steve,

There seems to be 2 "proposed" new formats. ( See Steve Gallant's description in previous forum thread.) One ends with a complete oval, the other with a partial oval.

The standard course has 10 rights and 4 lefts. The proposed format that ends with a complete oval has 9 rights and 5 lefts. The one proposed by Steve Gallant that ends with half the oval has 8 rights and 7 lefts - one extra turn.(Please verify my count.) Let's plan on testing the various formats at our next event.

Either way, changing the course next year will add some interest.

-Paul

Bob,

Glad to hear your slalom was a success!! That's what the program is all about -- having FUN.

We did try the "proposed" new format at our slalom several weeks ago. Very interesting. I like the idea that it equalizes both right and left hand turns. Perhaps we should consider doing this in alternate years, to keep it "fresh". Some people feel that running the exact same course year after year gets a bit boring. I found Steve Gallant's proposed course sequence easy to follow yet challenging. I'm definitely giving this some serious thought.

Steve Weinstein, JTC-NJ
JCNA Slalom Committee Chairman
JTC Slalom Chair
'72 E-type 2+2
'70 XKE FHC