The DNFs in the afternoon were very interesting from a course design perspective. They far outweighed those in the morning, and there were far more novices in the morning which one would think should have weighted DNFs much more in those groups.
I have a theory. Walking during the lunch break was hampered by the wind. It is very hard to focus on your line and more importantly your visual cues when you are leaning into the wind and shielding your face and eyes from the onslaught.
In addition, the morning group was spread over an hour + vs. 1/2 an hour for the afternoon which makes the course more congested with walkers further reducing visibility and visual cues.
In hindsight, I probably should have made that chicane more visually clear. It was not an issue Saturday, and I did make changes related to that area and the change in direction, but I did not actually put a wall in place to prevent the incorrect line as I had done elsewhere.
As you may know, I am not a big fan of walls of cones, and I was had to use far more than I usually do this weekend due to the close proximity of sections of the course.
I was very happy with how the "open" crossover worked with very minimal cones. I personally find the classic "+" (plus shape) of cone walls for crossovers visually cluttered and often distracting from elements before and after in both directions. The crossover slalom from the second to last event last year was another example of my attempt to find alternatives.
For those of you who dislike slaloms, I apologize. I find them one of the most challenging of Solo elements and I like to be challenged.
I only think I nailed it once and that was a run I made a mistake in the aforementioned chicane. I was so late on my third run that I over rotated and hit the gate after the slalom with my rear bumper.
Somebody thought it might actually have been with my exhaust tip.
