2. Kart Course Design
For SCCA® Youth Stewards, Solo® Safety Stewards, and Course Designers
Doug Gill
SCCA® Solo® Competition Manager

3. Ad Hoc Committee on Kart Safety
Kart Course Design
Ad Hoc Committee on Kart Safety
Steve Hudson (SEB), chair
Kathy Barnes (SSC), Paul Russell (KAC), and Dan Cyr (KAC)
Doug Gill (Liaison)

4. Kart Course Design
Roger Johnson and Karen Babb were consulted on course design for karts and a curriculum was developed with their input. All Solo® Safety Stewards (SSS) and Youth Stewards will receive this training.

5. Kart Course Design
The Solo® Rules have several sections on course design relating to karts in Section 2.2 and Appendix G.
From Solo® Rules section 2.2:
The course as laid out shall be on a paved surface which contains no dangerous holes, loose gravel, gratings, oily spots, or other hazardous features. Surface features (e.g., dips, crowns) which could cause a car to become airborne shall be avoided.
The course boundary shall not normally pass closer than 25 ft. from solid objects.

6. Kart Course Design
The Solo® Safety Steward (SSS) shall have the authority to disapprove a course or site for karts only, when there are upright solid objects (e.g., light poles, fence posts, etc.) on the site within 50 ft. of the actual course. This does not include curbs. While safety systems for karts provide acceptable driver protection for most incidents, upright solid objects present potential hazard for which kart safety systems are not well suited.

7. Kart Course Design
The Solo® Safety Steward (SSS) shall have the authority to disapprove a course or site for karts only, when there are upright solid objects (e.g., light poles, fence posts, etc.) on the site within 50 ft. of the actual course. This does not include curbs. While safety systems for karts provide acceptable driver protection for most incidents, upright solid objects present potential hazard for which kart safety systems are not well suited. All hazards to karts around the perimeter of the course shall be clearly marked and visible to kart drivers. Examples include: light poles, fences, low hanging obstacles or cables, and trees with low hanging limbs. 

8. Kart Course Design
This gives the SSS the option of excluding karts without having to declare the site unsafe for eligible automobiles. It is up to the judgment of the SSS whether the course design, surface, solid objects, and type of karts running present an unsafe mix. In most cases, the situation can be resolved by a change of the course in the area of concern.
Factors to be considered when designing a course for karts include:

9. Kart Course Design Surface Irregularities
This includes similar concerns for Modified classes but taken further. On asphalt lots, these can be holes or even patches filling a hole. With concrete lots, the edges that butt up to each section may not be smooth due to movement of each pad. Approaching perpendicular to a raised edge could be a concern. Ways to resolve that is to approach from an angle or move the course path to an edge that is not raised as high. This is done in conjunction with the course designer, who understands the intent of the section, the Safety Steward, and the Youth Steward, who understands the limitations and …

10. Kart Course Design Surface Irregularities
… safety needs of a kart. The “cross at an angle” guideline can be useful in this context but sometimes only reduces the effect; it doesn’t eliminate it. Seams (like those between the concrete sections at Lincoln) can be more of a factor since they can “grab” those small tires; you don’t want kart tires on a driving line parallel or nearly parallel to them. It can also be the similar for the little “steps” between sections. Holes can be a major concern for karts; they may not affect a car because the tire doesn’t “fall into” them. Karts have no suspension and could get out of control. 

11. Kart Course Design Surface Irregularities
Also, be aware of surface weak points. Those may be acceptable at the start of an event but won’t hold up but after CP, ESP, SSP, etc. classes drive over it. At concrete sites, these would be areas that have cracks and/or are hollow underneath. On asphalt lots, these could be areas where the asphalt is cracked or so thin that dirt is showing through. It could also be where solvents such as gasoline have been spilled and are found in a high g-force portion of the course. 
In an ideal universe, every course designer would drive their course in a kart before deciding it’s done.

12. Kart Course Design Lot Elevation Changes
Some thought should be given to whether a driver in a kart close to the ground can see over a rise to the next portion of the course. This is not usually a big concern but something to consider. If a section of the course could be prone to cars spinning just over the crest of a hill, an approaching kart driver may be totally unaware of the car and/or corner workers out of their normal position.

13. Kart Course Design Sea of Cones
Unnecessary cones can be a concern for kart drivers. From their viewpoint and the speed at which they approach each section, what may be clear to a driver in a car can be just a “sea of cones” at ground level. Confused drivers could find their way well off-course when trying to navigate.

16. Kart Course Design Speeds
Speeds for a kart can be significantly higher due to typical maneuvers slowing them down much less because they are small and very capable. Higher input density, which the big car guys don’t like, can help with this somewhat. Karts can do 0-60 mph in 3-4 seconds and pull 2.5 lateral g or more. Check the Course Design Seminar speed charts to see what those numbers can mean. While they can stop faster, there’s also less protection around the driver.

17. Kart Course Design SCCA® Solo® Class 2018 PAX/RTP Index AM 1.000 FSAE
0.958 BM
0.956
*KM*
0.928 FM
0.904 DM
0.895 EM
0.894

18. Kart Course Design SCCA® Solo® Class 2018 PAX/RTP Index DP 0.858 CSP
0.857
*JA*
0.855 SM
0.853
SSP
0.852
SSR
0.838
CAMS
0.831

19. Kart Course Design SCCA® Solo® Class 2018 PAX/RTP Index CAMS 0.831 ESP
0.828
*JB*
0.825
STU
0.824
STR
0.823 SS
0.817
CAMC
0.816

20. Kart Course Design SCCA® Solo® Class 2017 PAX/RTP Index FS 0.797 DS
0.794
HCS
0.791 ES
0.787 GS
0.786 HS
0.781
*JC*
0.718

23. Kart Course Design Obstacles
Boundaries and what they’re made of (e.g., benign grassy runoff at an airport runway vs. a jersey barrier or fence around a parking lot) need a close look at the distances to real solid objects (50 ft. takes about seconds to cover at 60 mph) and the nature of those objects. You can see a light pole or a jersey barrier coming and dodge it, but a horizontal fence beam, a low hanging wire or cable, or a tree limb maybe not so much. Also, hitting a parked car with a kart could be as bad as hitting a light pole.

24. Kart Course Design Finish
The end of a finish chute should be clearly defined, not just open up out into space (if there are boundary and/or proximity concerns). The classic cone-wall 90° at the end of a finish chute is an example of this.
Timing equipment enclosures (e.g., JACircuits box), weights, and/or large tripods, especially at the finish, need to be positioned well away from where a vehicle, particularly a kart, might spin.

25. Kart Course Design
Thanks! Questions?

26. Doug Gill SCCA® Solo® Competition Manager 1-800-770-2055 785-357-7222 dgill@scca.com