More Laurinburg (from Lessons)

jimpastorius · **Posted:** Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:15 am

MilesBeam wrote:

4. I would ask T&S how important it is for the starter to keep the running cue of cars on the clipboard. It obviously can be done, but it does distract the starter from his primary job. If it isn't absolutely essential, I would delete this task. If it is absolutely 100% essential, then fine, keep it realize there is a cost to do so. Remember that the starter is now supposed to:

- maintain a consistent and/or safe launch interval
(which varies if Patrice is following a novice for example)
- watch for downed cones immediately in his area
- check drivers for wristbands, helmets, safety belts
- call in car numbers to T&S
- stage the car
- monitor the radio and respond when needed
- watch the car launched to make sure there are no spins or offs prior to the launch point (of which there were many this weekend)
- and lately, to keep a running cue of the cars on the clipboard,
while holding a radio and doing all the other stuff....

Kind of comes back to how important the starter is in running of the event

If T&S can see the course and there is a start grid, then the starter is free to do their job. Yes, eliminate the administrative tasks of the starter.

Also, eliminate the starter calling in who is at the line. With 3 cars on course, a lot of cones, that is just static to me on the raw sheets. Plus with the start grid, I can see them lined up. If I need a number, I call the starter.

I would like to add this to helpful ideas...instruct T&S to acknowledge every cone call and instruct course workers that T&S will acknowledge every cone call. If T&S does not, then they did not hear your cone call.

Les Davis · **Joined:** Fri Aug 29, 2003 2:04 pm **Posts:** 2059

jimpastorius wrote:

Rick Butters wrote:

Course design should consider cone efficiency and our ability to reset the cones after they are hit. Is the cone needed? Can the worker(s) reset the probable coneage within 20 seconds? What are the consequences if he/she can’t?

If for example, a single-worker station near the end of a typical, long Laurinburg layout can’t reset in 20-25 seconds the wall of cones that you chose to use, the result will likely be one driver with a high cone count and two others needing reruns. This same wall near the start would only result in a high cone count and a slightly delayed start of the next driver.

If we want to run the Monster Mile, we need to do it early spring or later fall when the crops are mowed down. If we do not have 130-140 people signed up and a waiting list of 10% of the signed up total , we really have little or no choice but to shorten the course.

1) Does each worker station have 3 or more workers?
2) Can the starter see the entire course? The starter controls the flow of an event. If they can not see the course, they do not know to hold cars and when to release.
3) Can timing and scoring see both the start and finish equally well?
4) What is our overlap as opposed to the total time on course? This should be determined during set up.
5) Objective but can a worker set up the cones and get safely off course before another car approaches.

I love Laurinburg "Monster Mile" courses. They are undoubtedly my favorite and I doubt I'm alone in this feeling. Granted there are logistical problems with them, and hassles that make them go less smoothly than is typical, but its worth it to me, and we always seem to "git er done." These courses are worth the extra hassles involved to me, I just need to remember that the next time I'm working T&S raw sheets at a Laurinburg "Monster Mile" course.

I don't think we need to be making brearucratic decisions that regulate these courses out of existence.

Edit:

I realized that my post was not providing any usefull suggestions and I don't want it to seem purely argumentative. But rules 1-3 above if made "must haves" rather than "nice to haves" would make a "Miles Loop" or "Monster Mile" Laurinburg course impossible and that would be a crying shame for me and to many others I imagine. That is all I wanted to say, and I think it was important to say...

Vincent Keene · **Posted:** Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:19 am

Les Davis wrote:

I don't think we need to be making brearucratic decisions that regulate these courses out of existence.

I agree 100%. I'd rather engineer a T&S solution to work with the course than to engineer the course to suit T&S.

jimpastorius · **Posted:** Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:40 am

edit:
Please see my response to Misters Davis and Keene on the Laurinburg Thoughts topic

THSCC Forums

More Laurinburg (from Lessons)

Who is online