THSCC Forums

Yeah, I should have added the 3rd option. It certainly seems that Danville and Greenville lend themselves to the AAO.

Sanford and L'burg, not so much.

_________________
02 Focus SVT
STF 9

That's even better, you don't require the time needed to drive to/from the local drive-thru. You have a couple opportunities for lunch with the 2-2 split run groups (which you don't with the AAO 3-group format). Referring to the 'worst case scenario' you posted above (2-2 split run groups, running 2nd & 4th heat, working 3rd heat) - there's plenty of time to eat when 2nd heat B line is running (between your 2nd heat A line runs and 3rd heat work assignment) or while the 4th heat A line is running (between your 3rd heat work assignment and 4th heat B line runs).

_________________
Keith Q.
2008 Top Gun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmX8XuZ_DCo&NR=1

I would suggest we continue to use the A and B grids for the AAO format. That way people with two driver cars and people required to work the next heat would have time to get ready.

_________________
Silver Honda
Green Ford
Blue/White Suzuki
Red Triumph
Grey BMW

"Never let life be shaped by fear of its end"

No, you're a towel!

I suppose someone had to start a forum thread about this. May as well have been Ryan.

First of all, I'd like to thank the membership for their patience while we've tried some different things during our last two events. The all at once format is certainly a big change, as was yesterday's revised grid layout. Debating stuff endlessly on forums is fine, but we don't know how these things will actually work in the real world until we try them. So, thanks for your flexibility.

Anyway, here are my thoughts on the issues at hand.

Personally, for me as a competitor, I prefer the all at once format. I find the format allows me to try things back to back while the course is fresh in my mind. It's more like a track event, where I get lap after lap to try to get faster. For me, something is lost when I have to spend hours not driving between each half of my allotted runs. Everybody is wired a little differently, so this is simply a preference thing, like vanilla or chocolate ice cream...



Brice finds the split run group format suits him better, and I'm sure others feel similarly. That's fair enough.



This is also a fair point. I will counter it by saying the following: No matter how we arrange things, somebody, somewhere, will be disappointed. Using the time for lunch example, the people driving 3/working 1 clearly had the "best" layout for this. I wonder though...how many of those people would rather have driven and worked back to back in 1/2, allowing them to go home early?

My point is that someone, somewhere is probably going to be disappointed.



It can be more hurried, no argument here. There's something I'd like to point out though. The AAO format, coupled with the new grid system we tried yesterday, is no more hurried for drivers of two-driver cars than it is for single-driver cars. I'll explain. Note that this is a description of how it is supposed to work; since it was our first time trying it, I suspect it didn't go perfectly. Which is fine. Anyway...

Rather than an "A" side and a "B" side, there is a single line. Two-driver cars were at the front, nearest to the bus. Single driver cars made up the rest of the grid. The grid was in a single line, two cars deep. The grid is supposed to move as follows:

1. Driver #1 for car X at the top of the two-driver area goes
2. Driver #1 for car Y directly behind the first car goes
3. Repeat until through the first drivers for each two-driver car
4. Now, make your way through all of the single driver cars in the same manner, one run per car, first car in a "column," then the second, then move to the next column
5. Reach 50% of the way through the one-driver portion of grid, then...
6. Return to the top of the two-driver area
7. Release driver #2 for car X
8. Release driver #2 for car Y
9. Return to the single-driver area, and release the final 50% of the single-driver cars

Here's a real world example, using a run group of 24 entrants:

1. 6 two-driver cars
2. 12 one-driver cars, with this part of the grid cut in half, six cars per "half"

In the above-described example, 11 runs pass before the next time a two-driver car is released. With the two drivers in these cars alternating, this gives us a total of 22 runs passing between runs for driver X in any two-driver car. The number of total runs that pass between runs for the single-driver cars? 23. The interval is, essentially, identical.

I'd like to quickly point out one other thing regarding two driver cars. If you need more time, simply ask the grid marshall to skip over you. They'll be happy to give you the time you need.

_________________
Karl S.
2014 Baby, 2014 House, 2013 Ford Focus ST, 2013 BMW 328i, 1994 Mercedes E320
(Insert passive aggressive signature line here)

Hey, we haven't had a hot thread on here in awhile

_________________
02 Focus SVT
STF 9

What he said with a vote for the third option of do both at different events. I used to be strongly in favor of 2/2 but I do like the AAO format almost as well now. THE ONE BIG CAVEAT for me is that I hear a lot of talk about running 3 or 4 AAO runs and then doing fun runs. I would much rather do a greater amount of real runs (5 or whatever like yesterday) and if that impedes into the fun run time - so be it. For those of us who have to change tires running fun runs just takes too much time.

I think we're all in agreement that fun runs are a secondary concern. If we have time to do it, great, but we'll never do it at the expense of competition runs.

This reminds me of another point in favor of the AAO format: length of worker shifts. The number of competition runs is a decision which is nearly always made on the fly. Once we have a feel for launch interval and frequency of cone calls (among other issues), we have a much clearer understanding of how many runs we can get away with on a given day. This means that, by definition, a five-run day will always have longer heats in the second half of the event.

The side effect of this is that third- and fourth-heat workers get shafter into a longer work assignment than their counterparts in heats one and two. The AAO format eliminates this issue.

_________________
Karl S.
2014 Baby, 2014 House, 2013 Ford Focus ST, 2013 BMW 328i, 1994 Mercedes E320
(Insert passive aggressive signature line here)

True, so there will never be a concensus on this issue.

FWIW, I prefer the 2 + 2 format because I feel less rushed, and like Brice said, I have time to think about it in between.

_________________
Vincent Keene
'06 Ford Mustang GT (track rat)
'15 Dodge Charger R/T (yeah, it's got a HEMI!)
'07 Ford Fusion SE (205,000 miles and counting)
'98 Chevy Z-24 (retired)
'93 Acura Integra (Team SWB 24HOL Car)

Since what I said has come up a few times, I want to further clarify my thoughts.

I enjoy the AAO format. as a 2 driver car, Im still not 100% on it, but when I get magnets for numbers, It will be a lot easier.

Here is my concern about lunch as Rodney pointed out. I was 1) about to be marked as MIA for my worker shift because I had no time to get back to my truck, put my helmet down and grab lunch. (I was one of the last to run in my heat). I think the solution to this issue is simple, but it will delay the day by a few. Between the 2nd and 3rd run group, give a 10 - 15min break. This will allow the last few running to get back to their pit, grab and scarf lunch, secure belongs and be attentive on the track while working. Alternatively, we can always just not care about the people working the course eating lunch at the same time. (no one complained when I walked out their with food in hand).

All this said, I think I prefer the AAO format. as time goes on, my mind might change, but that will be due to the 2 driver car thing, not over lunch or worker assignment.

The between-heat breaks yesterday were at least 10-15 minutes each, probably more realistically like 20+ minutes each. May not seem like much, but with a typical 4-heat event, we're talking about adding an hour to the end of the day. The reason it wasn't a problem yesterday is because we had only 90-something drivers and a pretty quick launch interval. If we had 120+ drivers yesterday, I suspect things wouldn't have appeared to run so smoothly.

I think it's a bit unfair to base a poll on one AAO event with so few drivers as it surely skews the opinion poll in favor of the AAO format.

_________________
Keith Q.
2008 Top Gun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmX8XuZ_DCo&NR=1

Karl, when we chatted on this yesterday, I was trying to work through this in my head, but I now understand our disconnect.

While what you are saying is true, I don't think it really applies to the challenge that Chuck states in his post, which I also found to be problematic as a 2-driver car during the joint Triad weekend.

What you state as being "equal" is time between the time driver A runs one run and runs their next run, and I'd agree that this is the same as the other cars when alternated as you state. However, this does not take into account the time between driver A and driver B. When driver A completes a run, the car itself must be "turned around" in half the time as other cars in the Grid. 2 driver cars almost always (at least in the case of sharing within the family) involves interactions and assistance by both drivers. Regardless of how we spin it, it is much more hurried for 2 driver cars than 1 driver cars, and the car is doing it's job with less "cool down" time.

Event/Rungroup size can certainly help to mitigate this. But running 3 run groups (instead of 4) poses it's own challenges for AAO since there's no "off time", at least for some people, as has been stated. I think a 4-group AAO format where you always have a rungroup to "break" between is good, but makes the rungroups smaller and the 2-driver car issue worse.

For what it's worth, Malia and I ran opposite groups yesterday and I had a completely different personal perspective on AAO. I thought it flowed well, was certainly easy to understand, and otherwise went well.

My personal experience with AAO with 2 drivers at the August event was much different though, and when we both ran in the same heat I would say I CLEARLY preferred the 2+2 format.

_________________
Dustin Fredrickson
-- I'm a nobody --

FWIW, we wouldn't need a break with 4 groups, as there is always a break between when you run and work.

Run 1, Work 3, off 2+4.
Run 2, Work 4, off 1+3
Run 3, Work 1, off 2+4
Run 4, Work 2, off 1+3

_________________
Dustin Fredrickson
-- I'm a nobody --

Is there a different (and easy) way to split run groups instead of based on classes? Just put the two driver cars in different run groups and it would get rid of that particular two driver car problem.

_________________
In need of car.

It makes my brain hurt trying to think how we would balance run groups like that.

I think AAO would always work best with 4 run groups - nobody would work/run back-to-back. Even with 3 run groups last weekend, we could have stretched the break between runs if anyone really was rushed. That would have eaten fun runs, but we had 5 runs in no prob.

What if we did it RallyX style and 2-driver cars could always cut in line if needed?

_________________
One of those LeMonHeads...
91/95 Miata, 02 Focus SVT, 01 Ford F250, 09 Suzuki SV650SF
rusty 84 C4 Vette, tiny piece of the General Lei
Irish Sport Horse - 1hp NA!

Actually this was the 2nd in a row this year.

_________________
02 Focus SVT
STF 9