NASA Contender #3 course layout poll

[rpoz27]

It looks like we have 3 realistic options for April. We can run the 1.8 CW, 1.8 CCW, and 2.9 CW.

Word is that NASA TX was hoping for the 3.1 using Nascar turns 3 & 4. Rusty cautioned them about the dangers, and I include the same warning here to explain why it is not included in this poll.
The 3.1 or anything involving turns on the oval would be fun, but incredibly dangerous. The oval is bumpy and bounces cars upward coming out of turns. Exit a turn too high and you'll bounce like a basketball right into a wall at very high speeds. Not only that, but the oval track acts like a razor blade on tires.

[CMC17]

2.9 CW is a lot of fun too!!

[Nick]

Top speed on the main straight will be higher running CW.
I shifted to 4th gear before the transition to the banking in the LS1 car, coming out of turn 1.
2.9 CW gets my vote!

[rpoz27]

BTW, I was serious about running the same config the week before with MSC. My guys really want to run 2.9 CW, anyway, and I've been telling them "most likely in April" for the last couple of months, so this might work out nicely for everyone.

Any of y'all who want to come out and run with MSC the weekend before to get in some practice are welcome. Those of you who have experience instructing are welcome to sign up to instruct that weekend and drive for free. Know, though, that I will give instructing preference to those that have helped us before and, subsequently, in the order in which you've signed up. If you want to pay and drive that is fine, as well.

Is anyone interested in this? We can firm up closer to the actual date, but if there is enough interest now, I'll plan to give AI/CMC their own run session and will need to make adjustments in the schedule.

Also, there is nothing at the track in the week between these two events, so leaving cars and trailers in the paddock for that week should not be an issue.

[drierson]

According to the NASA Tx website the 1.8 was picked :( The track selection this year just keeps getting worse.

[jeffburch]

Oooo, maybe I WILL attend.

jb

[oz98cobra]

According to the NASA Tx website the 1.8 was picked :( The track selection this year just keeps getting worse.

Oh crap, the 1.8 reminds me of the infield at TMS - gets boring in a hurry.

You gotta wonder why - it costs exactly the same amount to rent the track? Are they trying to save a dollar or two on corner worker costs?? It could be a self fulfilling prophecy kinda deal - if they ran the 2.9 CW, everyone would be there and costs wouldn't be an issue - but run the 1.8 and many racers may not bother making the effort to be there?

[donovan]

My understanding is that the 2.9 CW has some areas that make it very dangerous, and that is the reason it has not been races in that direction.

DD

[Wirtz]

If people are just looking for something different, the 1.8 can be run backwards as well. I ran that 2 years ago with SCCA and it was fun. Maybe another option since the worker count would be the same and I do not believe there to be any danger issues.

Jeff

[mitchntx]

My understanding is that the 2.9 CW has some areas that make it very dangerous, and that is the reason it has not been races in that direction.

DD

When I ran it with MSC, I found that terminal velocity entering 6 was about like it was on the front straight. Exit of 8 and the T7 banking aided in the high speeds. But there is a lot of runoff, but not enough for 120, 130 or 140 ...

A lot of folks were intimidated by the exit of 4 and the exit of 3. The armco gets mighty close ...

Finally, with high HP cars, exiting 2 requires a little throttle modulation to maintain rear grip. If you get a little squirrelly, the end of the pit road wall is a very blunt object.

Having said that ... I'd run TWS CW any day, but not MSR-H. I run street Vettes w/o a cage at TMS on the roval, but I won't do Houston.

At ANY track, accidents happen. I accept that. At the Mercedes Monster Jam, "accidents" are inevitable.

[TEXAST1]

Your Turn references are CCW vs CW but as CCW. Example Turn 3-4 armco is in reference to Turn 3 CCW not Turn 3 CW.

[mitchntx]

You understand that and I understand that. But I was afraid that those who never have run TWS CW wouldn't. So, I used the most common turn reference in order to keep it simple.

Sorry for the confusion. I'll try and complicate things more in the future ...

[CMC17]

I prefer keeping the turn numbers the same for CW and CCW. Less confusion for me.