June 2nd Championship post event discussion

[G Wellwood]

Still waiting for a seconder to my motion that all non-green cars run at half-throttle only. (That would make the course more fair to me....)

Greg "Sentrifugal Sentra" Wellwood

[Mase]

I personally did not like the soft start.

The argument seems to be safety and fairness related, but honestly...has rocks flying into cars from spinning tires really been a concern? If so, then why did it take until now to fix it? I've attended all closed clubs this year and we've never had this soft start. How many cars have been damaged this year due to flying pebbles?

As far as fairness is concerned, the soft start doesn't make slow cars faster off the start, it makes fast cars slower. I don't believe that a course should be made to deliberately handicap a certain type of car. We all drive the car we have and we need to accept the fact that if our cars are slower off the start than the next guy's, then we've gotta make it up somewhere else. All cars are better or worse at different parts of the course...My car sucks in the sweepers, why can't we make a course with two 90 degree hard corners instead so that it's more fair for me?

Personally, I've never heard anybody say "This course is not fair, I'm going to complain that the cars with more power are beating me off the line!"

[Terence]

If the chief of course deceided to line up car square to the start line(which I remember he did at the driver meeting), then I think it's better to put some cones perpendicular to the start line(on the right side of the car) so that every car will have the same reference position to start. This will save a lot more time for the starter to tell drivers to backup and reposition the car.

Also, yesterday setup will easily block the driver's view of the inside cones(on the left side of the turn right after start) by the starter. On my 1st run, it was completely blocked by the starter.

Terence

[fc-racer]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Radio Flyer:
Farzaan:

I am impressed with the innovations made to the registration and the staging process.

We do inspections but don't record the cars that fail or have equipment that's questionable. This information would be useful to tech inspectors to make sure a problem is repaired.

snip...snip...snip

I wrote a paragraph about adding some tech inspection requirements to the registration system but, after re-reading and thinking about this some more, it seems like a lot of work and expense to support tech inspections for a tiny minority of cars that don't pass or where there is questionable equipment. Also, I suspect your db is oriented around the driver and not the car.

Maybe we would be better off to have a Tech Inspection Log book to record things. Any comments? Good ... bad or otherwise.<hr></blockquote>

Hi Rod, it's great to get this kind of feedback from the Chief of Tech. I really like the idea of a logbook as it's still very important to have a safe event with safe vehicles. We'll try and have something ready for the next event.

Having been the COT for a few events, how do you feel about moving tech to a monthly inspection instead of a per event inspection?

Ed Smart also reminded us that the new Fastrack system eliminates the driver signature on the entry form so a new document (similar to our waiver) will be created for drivers to sign when they register.

The next event should be pretty much paperless with no run cards and no printing required at registration. The only paper used will be for results after each group has completed a run. I wonder how many trees we'll save over the duration of a year or over several years? One hundred twenty-two competitors x 18 events = 2196 sheets of paper saved and that's only one year of VCMC events.

fc-racer

[Sead]

There is nothing in the rules about lining up at the start. It is a part of the course and the course designer and chief of course make the decision. I personally think it just adds to the course's design and difficulty and should be used sometimes. Doing the course well isn't only the slaloms and the crossovers, but all components like how to line up(within the rules) and how to get out of the start gate. It's just like knowing how to do a great drag launch.

I think we mixed thngs up with yesterday's course. It was good to see a diferent design and how people adapt to it. Too often we get the same courses over and over. I have a big pile of papers from last 2 yrs course maps and they all look the same. Take a look at how much they vary the courses at Bremerton and you'll know what I mean. No, we don't have the space that they have, but yesterday was different and challenging. Exactly what a Regional event should be.

[alex chiu]

Race Miata said <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Regarding fairness, keep in mind that horsepower and launching capability of a certain car has been already taken into account in car classing <hr></blockquote>

Not entirely true. Definitely hp and weight play a part but the launch capability does not. Pro Solo(where the launch is a BIG part) uses a different index than Solo 2. Also cars can be more competive in Pro Solo than Solo2. Some examples that come to mind are the Subaru WRX and the 2nd gen MR2T. They are winning in Pro's but not the "car de jour" for Solo 2.

I think in order to minimize cries of fairness etc, we allow competitors to line up however they want as long as we are consistent with either tire or bodywork on the line. If you dictate that you have to be square on the line, you will invite people who will push the rules to gain some advantage and how far they are allowed to push will depend on the starter.

This is good feedback and is exactly the kind of stuff that course designers and event organizers look for. Keep them coming.

Alex

[Race Miata]

I think I heard yesterday to line up cars square. You heard the same right, Terence? Neil? Other starters? Competitors?

Regarding fairness, keep in mind that horsepower and launching capability of a certain car has been already taken into account in car classing.

[fc-racer]

I'd prefer a hard start

fc-racer
91 Talon ALL WHEEL DRIVE

While there are various opinions on soft vs hard starts, as a starter you don't have to make sure everyone lines up the same way. Reading the on-line CACC rules, there's nothing saying a car MUST be square to the start line. Conceivably a car can line up any way they choose as long as they don't break the starting beam. My point is that competitors are free to exploit any advantage (or perceived advantage) that is not expressly forbidden, subject to protest from fellow drivers.

Safety is one thing, fairness is in the eye of the beholder if there isn't a rule against it. Ideally you try to be fair to all, it isn't always the case. That's why some courses are Miata courses and others are Corvette courses. A course design can be changed prior to the start of an event if it is deemed unsafe, but otherwise you take it as is. A soft start is suggested in the course designer's handbook actually, to minimize drivetrain wear and tear from hard launches.

[Race Miata]

First I need to clarify that I'm not taking credits away from the well-done course setup job and I'm not putting an excuse to my result which nobody would like to hear. I raised this from my job of starter point of view. I've been reluctant to put forward my opinion but I did...
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Cliffy:
Actually there is a safety aspect to the 'soft' start. Rocks don't get blasted back towards the next car in line and/or spectators in the area.<hr></blockquote>
I don't quite buy this. I worked the start in the afternoon and have seen quite aggressive starts. It's much easier to get a RWD sideways on an angled-start than on a straight start. If flying rocks is the concern, then angled-start would just make it worse because rocks don't fly out towards the back of the car any more where it should've been wide open all the times anyways. The next car in line should never line-up right behind the car on the starting line anyways. Furthermore, if rocks fly out from an angled-start, they would fly towards the right side of the track where spectators are.
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>WRT fairness - the soft start prevented those who attended "drag day" from getting a better start after practicing their launches.<hr></blockquote>
My exact prediction... Anyways, I just don't buy the "drag day" thing. What if it had a Porsche club event the day before. Do you set up a course to hinder all Porsche's? If you want a fair course, then don't make it hinder any specific groups.

Keep in mind it has nothing to do with whether I can launch well at the start. In fact, My setup and I make a bad launcher. I have no problem with the angled-start for my car yesterday. It actually helps me more than it hurts. In fact it favors my car better than many others because of the RWD and quick steering ratio. I'm sure many people like it which helps them. My point is first safety which I mentioned and second fairness which I'm going to mention and third PITA to line up cars. If you haven't worked the starter, you probably haven't seeen the problem.
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The slow speed of the launch also equalizes those cars which are able to launch well (like AWD) so in that respect, it is more fair for everyone.<hr></blockquote>
I don't buy this. For cars with not-so-good launching capability, that's why we have H stock (sorry H-stock folks).
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Monkey-see-monkey-do... Just because everyone is doing it, doesn't mean it's the right approach. A full course de-briefing will be held tomorrow night at the VCMC meeting.
<hr></blockquote>
Whether to practice the approach is not up to the starter, but the PITA job to ask people to line up square is. Ask Neil why he swapped me in for his starter job in the afternoon.

I admit I let quite some cars line up at an angle yesterday. As I mentioned before, since every car lines up a little more angled than the previous one, when should I say "NO"? There's always a disadvantage to the 1st car I said "NO" and an advantage to the car just made it to the cutoff.

OTOH, a wide-open straight-line start is fair because you can line-up whichever way you want and get negligible advantage. It's 10 times easier for the starter to line up cars that way and no competitors would potentially blame on the starter.

So this is my opinion and please look at it from a constructive point of view.

[ June 03, 2002: Message edited by: Race Miata ]

[ June 03, 2002: Message edited by: Race Miata ]</p>

[B2L2]

I agree with Chris that the start line gave the start person a tough job. Being starters, they tried to be fair for everyone but the start box made their job harder. Also, the yellow chalk line on the ground wasn't straight to begin with.

Question: is there a width limit on the start line? If it is a narrow start box, would it solve the angle-start problem?

Last thing, could we practice this soft start again in our next close club?

[Yarko]

I really liked the course yesterday, it seemed technical at first but with the correct line it flowed just beautifully..i like the angled start as well because i found that it somewhat equalized the 5.0's and 1.6's and helped build a rhythm for the slalom immediately afterwards(as long as you lined up square to the cones -NOT-angled cuz that would've screwed you up). I made a couple of silly mistakes in my afternoon runs that prevented me from going faster but overall i was happy with my best time . kudos to the course designer and event staff you guys did a great job!!! i can't believe how fast the transitions went i think it was some kind of record!and a big thankyou to the weather gods for allowing us to play in the sun!

-ps..i was running kumhos (V700) not hoosiers at this past event and will be doing so for the rest of the season...how do i change that for my results/can somebody set that for me?

[ June 03, 2002: Message edited by: Yarko ]</p>

[thatVWguy]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Race Miata:
As I talked to a few people today, it seems like the angled-start was not favored at all. I don't think it's any safer nor did it provide any means of fair start for everybody. Forcing each car to line up square was PITA for the starter.<hr></blockquote>

Actually there is a safety aspect to the 'soft' start. Rocks don't get blasted back towards the next car in line and/or spectators in the area.

WRT fairness - the soft start prevented those who attended "drag day" from getting a better start after practicing their launches. The slow speed of the launch also equalizes those cars which are able to launch well (like AWD) so in that respect, it is more fair for everyone.

It's natural for each driver to see how the previous car angled and do it with a bit more.

Monkey-see-monkey-do... Just because everyone is doing it, doesn't mean it's the right approach. A full course de-briefing will be held tomorrow night at the VCMC meeting.

As for creativity in course design, I agree that more creative designs are always welcome. Currently, there are mainly three people who do course design for our events. Sometimes we run out of ideas to make things fun and interesting for our members. I know there are other members who've been around long enough to know how to plot out a decent course so it would be great to see them volunteer for course designs duties. Everyone has their own 'character' that is expressed in course designs. I think it probably a good time to develop a course design tech night.

I'll admit that yesterday's course was my first design in a long while so I was a bit out of practice.

-c.

[ June 03, 2002: Message edited by: Cliffy ]</p>

Farzaan:

I am impressed with the innovations made to the registration and the staging process.

We do inspections but don't record the cars that fail or have equipment that's questionable. This information would be useful to tech inspectors to make sure a problem is repaired.

snip...snip...snip

I wrote a paragraph about adding some tech inspection requirements to the registration system but, after re-reading and thinking about this some more, it seems like a lot of work and expense to support tech inspections for a tiny minority of cars that don't pass or where there is questionable equipment. Also, I suspect your db is oriented around the driver and not the car.

Maybe we would be better off to have a Tech Inspection Log book to record things. Any comments? Good ... bad or otherwise.

[Race Miata]

As I talked to a few people today, it seems like the angled-start was not favored at all. I don't think it's any safer nor did it provide any means of fair start for everybody. Forcing each car to line up square was PITA for the starter. It's natural for each driver to see how the previous car angled and do it with a bit more. So, what's the threshold angle to say *NO* to the driver?

Someone might suggest putting some cones on the right side to prevent angled line-up. Combining enforcement of the "no-backup" rule, it might work well. But my suggestion is don't do angle-start in the 1st place. As I said, it's not any safer (could be more dangerous indeed) nor does it provide a fair game. A wide start-line like all other starts we used earlier in the season are safe and fair. I think we should keep the creative and challenging parts of a course between the start and stop boxes.