BCMA Championship Event #3 discussion

[Guest]

I wasn't to impressed by that today.
I know it's a logistic problem but i would have been willing to stay late to get an extra run in and i'm sure there are MANY other people that share my opinion and some that do not.

but i'd like to heard what some of the rest of you think.....

[edit: changed topic heading]

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: fc-racer ]</p>

[Yarko]

like johnny said it was like back to the old days. :P i didn't hang around t&s so i don't really know how everything was going on the technical and logistical side but i think the course was a tad long considering the amount of competitors and that's what seemed to really hold us back. i have to say i enjoyed the course though and found the longer run times a fun and interesting change from the courses we've had so far (which have been great btw). in a single day format it may simply be unreasonable now to have a 50+ second course due to competitor turnout. kudos on getting the results up so quick!

[Miata Girl]

Actually I think we are all just spoiled from short courses and super efficient events (although today's event was pretty efficient!).

Almost all the championship events last year we only got 3 runs!

My only qualm is that we can't use umbrellas when we are course working! That means that even if it rains, there can't be any umbrellas boys and girls!

[PDM]

I discussed this issue immediately with some senior club members and "other" officials, and voiced my discontent about the MANNER in which Event Organizers went about making the decision on shortening the event from 4 to 3 runs.

I'm kinda upset that the organizers mentions the 4 runs in the driver's meeting and then re-neg on it based on how the event was running. If I'm not mistaken, in order to change items as important as this, a meeting must be called with all competitors present and a change of this magnitude must be discussed and voted or agreed upon by all. Sure the change in format is needed for time reasons, but still, every paying competitor has the right to know and or have the CHOICE to choose 3 or 4 runs.

To me, this is no different than somebody stating the rules of a game, and people will plan their strategy based on those rules. Then halfway through the game, the rules change...... - not very fair if someone bases their entire strategy or day on the rules stated in the morning.

It was evident IMMEDIATELY that for 4 runs to happen, with the number of competitors present, and the course length, that to run 4 timed runs would have run the event late.

HOWEVER, if most competitors realized this, why could the organizers not spot this ?

This was not a closed club event, or fun event, but a Regional event, where planning and course design and numbers of runs is a pretty crucial element.

Course designers have to run the course from start to finish, and put a stopwatch to it to check the time required to run..... and with pre-registration numbers known, most clubs can extrapolate how many extra people they expect to register on the day, and allow for XX minutes for each worker switch....and determine whether or not the course they have for the day will allow 3 or 4 runs.

At the same time, event organizers know how critical areas like start times, driver's meetings, worker turnaround etc. can be, and must strictly enforce their structure. We as a club have collectively discussed our events thoroughly after they have run, and critiqued them to constantly improve them, and to attempt to structure our events to be able to avoid and or solve problems BEFORE they occur.


(Has anyone ever put a stopwatch on certain aspects of a race day ? How long does registration take from start to finish in minutes ? How long does tech take ? How long is each worker turn-around ? How long is the driver's meeting ?

I GUARANTEE, you put some large visible clocks up around the site, and you will have MUCH faster running events. You have a count down timer with say 10 minutes MAX for worker turnaround, and people will move their butts a lot faster to get going. Have an air horn signalling 5 minutes or 2 minutes to the course being hot, and people will hussle a lot more. Have decent speakers in the Pit area so that competitors are aware of where the run groups are, and the status of the events - so that there is no second guessing.)

I may be nit picking, and some may criticize me for being harsh, and honest, but in reality, people are paying money, large money to run these events, and events like Regionals are important to many. I'm sure I was not the only dissapointed person that there was only 3 runs today, after being told that there would be 4. When you spend an entire day from daybreak to sundown at an event, not to mention your hard earned dollars on tires, shocks, and more, it's somewhat disheartening to have your already limited run time sliced down by 25% WITHOUT being discussed and agreed upon in a democratic way.

Possibly the biggest mistake is promising a certain number of runs - much like promising a finish date for a project, when you don't have 100% control over all variables.

If 3 runs were promised in the morning with the possibility of a 4th IF the event was ahead of schedule is a lot more "sellable" than stating 4 runs, and then pulling back the last run. If "customers" are not expecting the world, at least if you don't "give them the world", they won't be as upset.

But at the same time, keep your "customer" informed as the the status of things, so that there are no surprises. Communication is a key element in keeping people happy.

Making changes without informing people creates confusion, and distrust in your organization or company. And if you have unhappy customers, eventually you will lose these "customers". In our case, these customers are racers, and if the bs to satisfaction ratio get's too high, then people will be disgruntled and leave the sport.

don

[Yarko]

yes i agree that some sort of vote or discussion was warranted before reducing the number of runs. i wouldn't have minded as much at say a closed club or practice event but at a regional i think it's important to know at the onset how many tries at the course you will get be it 3, 4 etc. having something like that change half-way can defititely effect a drivers mind set not to mention upsetting plans regarding how you intend to execute your runs.

[Cliffy]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by PDM:
Has anyone ever put a stopwatch on certain aspects of a race day ? How long does registration take from start to finish in minutes ? How long does tech take ? How long is each worker turn-around ? How long is the driver's meeting ?

I GUARANTEE, you put some large visible clocks up around the site, and you will have MUCH faster running events. You have a count down timer with say 10 minutes MAX for worker turnaround, and people will move their butts a lot faster to get going. Have an air horn signalling 5 minutes or 2 minutes to the course being hot, and people will hussle a lot more. Have decent speakers in the Pit area so that competitors are aware of where the run groups are, and the status of the events - so that there is no second guessing.)
<hr></blockquote>

At some events I've been to, there have been "shot clocks" between heats indicating how much time you have to either grid your car or report for your work shift. The P.A. gives notice at the '5' and '2' minute marks. If you are late, you don't get to run or you're marked 'absent' for your worker assignement. When big digital numbers are on display, you're amazed at how promptly people respond. I'm pretty sure that in the future, some of the clubs will upgrade the timing systems to have this feature.

In the meantime, putting a stopwatch to informally track things like changeovers and drivers meetings is a good thing and will only help us be a bit more efficient in small areas..all of which adds up to big savings in total time.

-c.

-c.

[bcrx7]

I do not care about 4 runs or 3 runs. But this sucked as nobody knew that there was only 1 run in the afternoon till we actually grided. I'm sure I would have a different strategy in the morning if i knew I had only 1 run left in the afternoon.

I was sure not happy about this as I hit too many cones in the morning with an ok scrath time and I was hoping to get a clean run in the afternoon. But it was kinda hard to achieve that with one run.

[Iron Chef]

event #3 was a complete writeoff for me

[SkinnyG]

Lots of criticism about the course. Why? Are we unhappy about our results? Whether a course is "nice" or not should not matter - it is a driving skill event, and sometimes a course may be dull, fast, slow, technical, fluid, choppy, what-have-you... It's still your driving that will make the difference. If the course didn't "work" for you, perhaps it is showing you areas in which your driving can improve.

Lots of misery about the number of runs. Bummer indeed, but remember that the event SupRegs (G.2) clearly stated that a minimum of three (3) timed runs will be ofered to each driver. Anything more than that can be considered a bonus to you. To paraphrase The Learned Joe Cheng, the only run that matters is the one you're running right now.

Personally, I liked the opportunity to work on my slalom skills - I haven't been able to "dance" a slalom since I got the car. Since we've had so many events chock full of sweepers, I'm starting the get the sweeper thing under control.

Speaking of control - sorry about hitting work station #4. (sheepish grin)

Have fun at the 20th anniversary event, I won't be going - my allergies required a trip to the doctor's, and a wack of medications, so I won't be down for a couple of weeks - my eyes have got to heal. The drive home was absolutely torturous.

[Audi200tq]

I can understand having only 3 runs. There were a lot of cars and some people always complain if the event runs late (can't please all the people, all the time, right?).

OK, yes, from a strategic approach point-of-view it might be nice to know in the morning. Or at least that it could go either way depending on how long the morning run groups take.

The thing is though, some of us went for lunch during our break (the first run group of the afternoon). We didn't dawdle. But when we got back, the run group had ended, and our own run group was just starting. We nearly missed our afternoon run. We had budgeted our time away based on 2 runs. It would have been nice to know before we left that there was only 1 run in the afternoon.

Still, it was a fun event and a challenging course. I wish I had my tire pressures figured out earlier, though.

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: Audi200tq ]</p>

[VR6TURBO]

I agree with what don had to say.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> I'm kinda upset that the organizers mentions the 4 runs in the driver's meeting and then re-neg on it based on how the event was running. If I'm not mistaken, in order to change
items as important as this, a meeting must be called with all competitors present and a change of this magnitude must be discussed and voted or agreed upon by all. Sure the change in format is needed for time reasons, but still, every paying competitor has the right to know and or have the CHOICE to choose 3 or 4 runs. <hr></blockquote>


Some of my competitors didn't arrive back till our run group had already started running. I
believe that they thought they had 90 minutes to go and come back. With only one run in the afternoon, this means they only had 45 minutes to go and come back. If this was in the old system with the paper on the windshield, this will be a mess again!!!


This also reminds me of a past UBC event with Campbell in charge. They also cut down the runs half way in the event. Most people didn't know it was changed. Because of that most people didn't get back in time for their afternoon runs and this created a big confusion with Campbell yelling at everyone.


I also think people should not screw up their own times because of other's incompetence. Once the first run group was done, it was already 11:00 AM. Just by that I already realized their is little chance for 4 runs to be squeezed into the event. I just imagined their was only 3 runs. Even if their was 4 runs, it will be a bonus for me. I didn't give myself any expectation of 4 runs, therefore I'm fine with my 3 runs.


BCMA should at least organized a meeting to let everyone know about the changes made.

[Mase]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by G Wellwood:
Lots of criticism about the course. Why?
<hr></blockquote>

Here's one good reason why:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by G Wellwood:
...Speaking of control - sorry about hitting work station #4. (sheepish grin)
<hr></blockquote>


Worker safety was an issue as well. I worked at station 5 in the afternoon and noticed that every car came out of the sweeper at full throttle..directly towards our station. Then they'd turn right into that single offset gate. Some cars, especially the ESP guys, would zip by our work station within 10-15 feet of us.


As for the slaloms, I know I suck at them. Sure, it was a good course to practice my slaloming, but don't you think that a course like this would be better suited as a closed club rather than a regional?

Great job on the win Greg...Bringing it home for the B13s

[VR6TURBO]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Son Of Skyline:

Worker safety was an issue as well. I worked at station 5 in the afternoon and noticed that every car came out of the sweeper at full throttle..directly towards our station. Then they'd turn right into that single offset gate. Some cars, especially the ESP guys, would zip by our work station within 10-15 feet of us.
<hr></blockquote>


I second this!

Although Station #4 was the one that got hit, I think Station #5 was more dangerous.

I was working at Station #5. Our station had to constantly move around so the car will not get to close to us. It was especially stressful when the ESP mustangs came. We had to move all the way back to prevent them from hitting us if there was an accident.

[RATED_SiR]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef:
event #3 was a complete writeoff for me<hr></blockquote>
AMEN brother! Ditto for me!

[ken seto]

Excellent point PDM.

I felt a bit uneasy about the safety of the workers at work station #4 and #5. My apologies for not mentioning this during the drivers meeting - fortunately, there was no major incident.

I personally would have felt uncomfortable working at work station #4, where the cars are speeding directly towards the work station before turning off (right - 1st lap and left - 2nd lap). This work station would only be suitable for senior driver if anyone at all. Not implying that a novice driver is incapable of moving out of the way but that a senior driver having seen/done enough spins to move in the right direction to avoid being struck.

Station #4 Workers: Where you comfortable working at this station or am I out to space - it certainly looked freaky from work station #3 where I was standing?

I would encourage novice drivers to request for a change in work stations if they feel uncomfortable with the work station assigned.

My two bits.