HPR Aug 10/11 - course options

[Jim 'smooth' Brewer]

At the risk of angering some of my friends, I'd like to open a discussion about the HPR course layout for our August race.

In May, it made sense to use the north config since I understand some repairs were being done to the west loop. But during that weekend, I talked with 3-4 other racers that didn't like the short configuration. I agreed with them.

Right now we have 3 out of our remaining 4 races on short courses (2 at PPIR, 1 on the HPR north config). Given that we're not doing Pueblo again, I'd prefer to run the full course at HPR rather than shortening it 2 of the 4 times were there this year.

Ready for flames .. http://users.frii.com/jjb/emote/popcorn.gif

Update - on suggestion of James W., I added a poll. The definitions of north and west configurations are at http://highplainsraceway.com/images/track-map-large4.gif

[scottg119]

i like long because i dont get lapped every class i run haha

[aspenbum]

Nay

[HAMMER]

I agree .....long course !!!! :D

[Peanut_EOD]

I vote for no more Pueblo. :lol:

[polar x]

since its not a vote.......I will OPINE, leave it short. having some variety is nice. plus it keeps the horsepower edge at bay.

[zyconic17]

i think it would be sweet if we ran what I believe is the West course?? Full track but minus turns 9, 10 and 11. it would make the corkscrew a double corkscrew almost!. why dont we ever run that???

[Peanut_EOD]

It scares Shannon. :oops:

[The GECCO]

i think it would be sweet if we ran what I believe is the West course?? Full track but minus turns 9, 10 and 11. it would make the corkscrew a double corkscrew almost!. why dont we ever run that???

Dunno....I tried to schedule a round on the west course in 2009 and nearly got lynched.

[Jim 'smooth' Brewer]

I tried to schedule a round on the west course in 2009 and nearly got lynched.
I remember that .. which is why I'm puzzled as to why we've decided to run a short course twice.
It's by far the best track we have and we're not using a good portion of it half of the time we're there? http://users.frii.com/jjb/emote/crazy%20cabasa.gif

[gsnyder828]

I didn't like the North Course when we ran it last year - but I got to like it this year and I'm looking forward to running it again. That said, I also think running the West Course could be a lot of fun - I don't understand why some folks are dead set against running it, but want to run the N course again. :?

[rohorn]

No Figure 8 configuration?

[jplracing]

I agree with Jim I think we should run the full course

[The GECCO]

I tried to schedule a round on the west course in 2009 and nearly got lynched.
I remember that .. which is why I'm puzzled as to why we've decided to run a short course twice.
It's by far the best track we have and we're not using a good portion of it half of the time we're there? http://users.frii.com/jjb/emote/crazy%20cabasa.gif

I tried to mix it up just for the sake of variety. The argument you make could also be turned around, though, as in "we've got a track with four different possible configurations, why are we only running one of two of them?"

While I can understand while there wouldn't be a lot of support behind the idea of running the "short" course, I don't think it would be unreasonable to run both the west and north configuration once each per year, and the balance of the events (whatever that may be) on the full course.

Just my opinion, worth exactly what you paid to hear it!

[Fastt Racing]

I think the technical course wealth that we have in Colorado ir really good right now. We are blessed with multiple track layouts, and should take full advantage of that. I would like to see Pueblo used twice, PPIR used twice, HPR Full twice, HPR North once, and HPR West once. Yes this is a total of 8 Rounds. If we insist on a 7 Round season, which for next year might still be a descent idea?......then drop one of the HPR Full course rounds. Variety is an amazing luxury, and I think that is one of Jim's complaints "Too much short course racing", so let's mix it up.

After we have raced HPR North, PPIR, and Pueblo, all with airfence installed. It is pretty hard for me to imagine anyone can come up with an overwhelmingly valid arrguement about HPR West not being "safe enough", even with air fence installed near turn 13.

Alright Tony Baker time to channel your inner dictator, and make the controversial choice that I'm sure will get a lot of praise after the event is complete!

[cjmagnuss]

I thought the north course was a lot of fun. I'd love to try the west configuration out too. I do see Jim's point but I'd rather not do back to back weekends on the same configuration.

[WolFeYeZ]

I would also love to do the West course. It looks like a bunch of fun!

[peteyt328]

I agree variety is nice, and I think running the North course once a season is fine. But I think cutting out 1/3 of the track 2 of the 4 times we race there is silly. That being said, I'm happy to get out and ride either way.

[T Baggins]

We looked at West Course again at Round 1 this year. There are two issues with it, imo...

There is quite a transition/drop/seam from 8 to 13 which may be overly upsetting to the suspension. Maybe Glenn has run it and has better input?

With the addition of the curbing around the track, that puts the curb at what would now be the "outside of 8/13, rider's left" in what I would consider "harm's way".

If you stand the bike up, it is a huge jump. If you low-side - you and your bike are most certainly going to launch off of it. And it's tall enough that it could really cause damage to man and machine.

I was quoted in RRW once as saying "Anything you put in, on, or around a racetrack that causes people to crash is a bad thing." I stand by that statement.

Dennis, as for an 8 Round season, I believe it is possible for there to be a return to that in time. I'd sure like to see us get through a 7 rounder... and at least break even at each of them first before we go back to adding rounds.

Pueblo x2 is a huge risk. Every time we go there, we are staring at a possible "total loss on the event" because we can't race there in the rain. This would be a catastrophic loss for the club, and basically everyone would have to simply forfeit their entry fees. There's no way we could refund everyone and keep the club afloat. This happened at an opening round several years ago... and boy did that go over like a fart in church. If/when they ever address the Turn 10 configuration - then I wholeheartedly agree that we can/should do 2 down there. As the 8th round perhaps?

[Wild Cheetah 612]

I kinda like the north course, the bobsled is so much faster.

Oh yes, I also vote for more Pueblo and less PPIR. PPIR is soooooo short and Pueblo is a fast and flowing course.

[HAMMER]

I LOVE PUEBLO !!!! AND PPIR AND HPR ......... DO IT !!! :D

[DOUBLE A]

:lol: Yeah lets fukkn race! :D

[tecknojoe]

I love full course

In terms of safety, are we ever pointed at anything if we run the West course?

Airfence saves lives but it doesn't stop concrete from being concrete

[TRK]

Didn't we already do this, BEFORE we set the schedule. When it was discussed at a general meeting, almost every person in the room wanted to race the schedule we are racing.

Take a look:
http://forums.mra-racing.org/viewtopic.php?t=15068&highlight=north+course

[Jim 'smooth' Brewer]

Didn't we already do this, BEFORE we set the schedule. When it was discussed at a general meeting, almost every person in the room wanted to race the schedule we are racing.

Take a look:
http://forums.mra-racing.org/viewtopic.php?t=15068&highlight=north+course

Good point. Now that we've run the north course a couple times, it seems opinions may have changed, though. Let's see how the poll goes.

[MadVlad]

Full course vote for me... ran super street for the first time on north course last year and that was fun too, seemed very short fun though lol... plan to sign up for this round.

[Louden]

Didn't we already do this, BEFORE we set the schedule. When it was discussed at a general meeting, almost every person in the room wanted to race the schedule we are racing.

Take a look:
http://forums.mra-racing.org/viewtopic.php?t=15068&highlight=north+course

Exactly what I was thinking. :wink:

[oldtimer]

I like running both North course and Full course for more variety. My .02 different track layouts change things up and make for better racing over the course of the season.

[polar x]

How would you like to run our 4 races a year at HPR?

Full Course ONLY - Always 12% [ 10 ]
Three Full Course - One Alternate Course 20% [ 17 ]
Two Full Course - Two Alternate Course(s) 67% [ 55 ]

Total Votes : 82

You guys have a short memory. :roll:


Why continue to support a track (PMP) that really could care less if we are there, they continue to show that by there lack of inclusion of our needs. We are exposed to a larger than nessacary financial risk if it rains. They have nothing in the way of infratstructure like power, water, shade.

Then we have PPIR, a short track but someone who wants us there and we have ZERO financial risk at. Its closer to most of the riders and great infrastructure like garages, power, showers, shitters.....

Then we have HPR, a 4 tracks in one facility. We have raced 2 out of the 3 and with safety concerns on the West perhaps we miss out on that track. BUT we have carports, power, showers, shitters, and we own it. Why take a one track approach when you can have 2 or 3 at one place?

We bitch about wanting more rounds, but we don't race what we have...

HEY TONY, is the west course 8-13 connect anymore or less dangerous than the armco in 10 at PMP or the wall after you highside your ass through 10 at PMP? Are the speeds similar? Is it protectable by airfence to minimize rider risk? Can it be coned down like 4 and 6 at PMI's water probs? Would it be any more of rodeo ride than PMP's lush greens :roll: I know I have gone off in 6a-6b and made it to the dirt berm at considerable speed on the TZ (left a nice NUT DENT in the tank)and the R1 in years past and dinged 2 rims in the smooth runoff provided. is it any worse than that?

[nobasin]

personally, i don't really see the north course as variety...turn 4 just winds up being a bit earlier and then you are back in the bobsled, just going faster at the bottom of it. don't get me wrong, i enjoy running the north course and hauling arse down the bobsled but i really love the flow from 4-6 along with the passing opportunities and elevation changes through 8 and really miss running that part of the track when we do the north course. i voted for all full course last year and still feel the same. i'm with jim on this one.

[T Baggins]

Chris, I think the comparability is similar to Turn 10 at Pueblo... sort of.

If you crash in 10 at Pueblo, depending on "where" you crash in the turn - you "might" get to the airfence/Armco - and that most always is a bad thing. Thankfully nobody did last time...

If you crash in the 8-13 connect at HPR, it is certain that you will hit the curbing. I am unsure about speed thru there... so whether you tumble or whether you launch I can't comment on confidently.

I also believe there is a cornerworker bunker directly in harms way - and too close to adequately protect with Airfence? I suppose Glenn could move it for the weekend if we asked nicely?

As an aside, the handful of people I have spoken to about running West Course - who actually HAVE RUN WEST COURSE - hated it. They said it didn't flow well, "felt" way too narrow, and the transition was even worse on a bike than it looks standing on the track.

I haven't run it myself, but I would be very reluctant to simply set an event on an untested configuration because some people "think" it might be fun. I'd rather HPR set a day (or even just some sessions during a day) and let us try it out, and IF it is fun, and the safety stuff can be properly mitigated - THEN we would look at adding that into the mix for the NEXT race season.

Let's say we just set a date and ran it, it was plenty safe, but everybody hated it... Or worse, if it wasn't safe, somebody got hurt, and everybody hated it... - that would be worst-case-scenario imo.

As for changing the schedule/configuration for the August Round... NOW, after the MEMBERS voted a year ago to run two and two... The Board of Directors discussed this at the meeting last night, and the simple answer is:

No.

We got hammered last year when we waivered about changing the last PPIR from Double Points to Single Points...

People have set their schedules and programs around the PUBLISHED race schedule, which includes HPR configurations. Changing it now because there is a small contingent who prefer full course would be silly.

There is plenty of time to provide input (including testing the West configuration) between now and the start of the 2014 season. If people are really serious about making changes then now is the time to start PLANNING it for next year - not attempting to change it for this year.

[The GECCO]

If you crash in the 8-13 connect at HPR, it is certain that you will hit the curbing. I am unsure about speed thru there... so whether you tumble or whether you launch I can't comment on confidently.

I also believe there is a cornerworker bunker directly in harms way - and too close to adequately protect with Airfence? I suppose Glenn could move it for the weekend if we asked nicely?

I would say that it's far from certain that you will hit the curbing. The corner bunker is not a hazard.

Here is a satellite photo of the area in question:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v324/TheGECCO/WestCourse.jpg

The green line represents (as best I can with my limited tools and skills) the racing line through that area. The area between the yellow lines is where I feel that a lowside would result in contacting the curbing. Possible? Yes. But as it's essentially exiting the turn and headed into a short straight (represented by the red lines), it's not terribly likely. I have both ridden and driven this configuration since the curbing was put in and my personal opinion is that it represents a rather insignificant hazard.

The T13 bunker is also circled in green. It was intentionally placed further upstream of the turn entrance than it normally would be specifically so that it would not be in the impact zone of the crossover. You'd have to be trying pretty hard in order to hit it.


I haven't run it myself, but I would be very reluctant to simply set an event on an untested configuration because some people "think" it might be fun. I'd rather HPR set a day (or even just some sessions during a day) and let us try it out, and IF it is fun, and the safety stuff can be properly mitigated - THEN we would look at adding that into the mix for the NEXT race season.

Good idea, but better done during an MRA event since the people needing the experience and making the decision are all there, otherwise you're forcing people to attend an HPR lapping day in order to be able to make an informed decision. I would advocate that on the remaining MRA Saturday afternoons, after the SS race, have a 20 minute session on the west course, open to all. In order to encourage participation, the board could also say that only those members whose transponders log a lap during these test sessions get to vote on whether or not to run that configuration. In other words, if you don't at least try it, you don't get to help decide.


As for changing the schedule/configuration for the August Round... NOW, after the MEMBERS voted a year ago to run two and two... The Board of Directors discussed this at the meeting last night, and the simple answer is:

No.

We got hammered last year when we waivered about changing the last PPIR from Double Points to Single Points...

People have set their schedules and programs around the PUBLISHED race schedule, which includes HPR configurations. Changing it now because there is a small contingent who prefer full course would be silly.

There is plenty of time to provide input (including testing the West configuration) between now and the start of the 2014 season. If people are really serious about making changes then now is the time to start PLANNING it for next year - not attempting to change it for this year.

I wholeheartedly agree with all of this. No changes "on the fly" unless absolutely necessary.

[T Baggins]

Thanks for the input Glenn.

As I said, I hadn't ridden it, and just "semi-ripping" thru there on the TTR give the impression that the curbing was a significant concern.

I was trying to push some business your way with the lapping day thing... :wink: but certainly we could do a 20-30 minute session on a Saturday after superstreet.

Your sat photo gives much better views, but now I'm concerned about the box van in the middle of the transition and the Miata (?) in the middle of the corkscrew... Not sure how we'd deploy airfence to mitigate those hazards... :shock: :lol:

[rybo]

Thanks for the input Glenn.


Your sat photo gives much better views, but now I'm concerned about the box van in the middle of the transition and the Miata (?) in the middle of the corkscrew... Not sure how we'd deploy airfence to mitigate those hazards... :shock: :lol:

Funny, I thought EXACTLY the same thing!

[The GECCO]

Thanks for the input Glenn.


Your sat photo gives much better views, but now I'm concerned about the box van in the middle of the transition and the Miata (?) in the middle of the corkscrew... Not sure how we'd deploy airfence to mitigate those hazards... :shock: :lol:

Funny, I thought EXACTLY the same thing!

I swear, you guys have no sense of adventure!

[Jim 'smooth' Brewer]

As for changing the schedule/configuration for the August Round... NOW, after the MEMBERS voted a year ago to run two and two... The Board of Directors discussed this at the meeting last night, and the simple answer is:

No.

We got hammered last year when we waivered about changing the last PPIR from Double Points to Single Points...
I understand the decision and I kinda knew I'd start a 3h1tstorm. Just for the record, I wasn't suggesting changing the race schedule or any points systems.

I thought my suggestion modest by this reasoning: Every weekend we consider changing the track configuration based on existing surface conditions. I'm sure we'll do it this weekend @ PPIR. So my proposal was to reconfigure (to a known config) based on current rider input, instead of the usual water seepage, tar seal, burnout area, deteriorating pavement reasons. I hope during the discussion the board members didn't conflate this suggestion with other more impactful changes!

[T Baggins]

Jimmy, I wouldn't consider this a shitstorm... rather a request from a group of members which was denied by the Board of Directors - and only after careful consideration. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

I don't think we consider it "every weekend" necessarily. It MAY be a consideration, based on unknown or changing conditions... but to say we do it every weekend is a stretch.

That said, we will set PPIR up in it's "now usual and normal configuration" which pre-emptively alters the race-line in anticipation of water seepage. We have paint marks on the track and are able to set it up exactly the same way every time we go there... so I wouldn't consider that "changing the track configuration" but rather "setting it up to our known and approved standards". I don't know what PPIR will do for Friday, but it is my hope they set it up to "our" config.

I'm not sure what you mean by "conflate this suggestion with more impactful changes..." - but I'm pretty sure we didn't in any case. :wink:

[DOUBLE A]

Run PPIR backwards!! :lol:

[T Baggins]

Run PPIR backwards!! :lol:

We're going to test that on Friday after the lapping day is done. Mostly at the request of PPIR and Ricky Orlando... but worth a shot in any event.

Try it before you buy it baby! :lol: