THSCC Forums

(this seemed like an important enough topic to have its own thread.)



My opinion is that we should keep it like it is. (And I was a "victim" of a first run DNF myself.)

The original concept is still valid: protecting the timing equipment by making people take the finish cones seriously.

Additionally, I think it compliments the "endurance" nature of rallycross, which rewards a full day of trading off kamakazi runs for consistant, moderated speed.

What are other folks' thoughts?

Cheers,
Anders

_________________
Lina Racing: As Seen On Radio

I think it's harsh too, but I'm not sure it's a bad idea in and of itself. For one thing, I really don't see much difference between a DNF from hitting the finish cone to a DNF from missing a gate, so I'm a little skeptical about treating them differently. Plus, the concept is to protect our timing equipment, and I think that is a goal worthy of our harshest penalty.

That said, it's true that, due to the cumulative scoring, one DNF kills your entire event, whereas it doesn't in autocross. Consequently, I would be receptive to a debate about using bogey times vs. time penalties instead of DNFs, as many other clubs do it.

Of course none of this relieves me and Kevin of responsibility for approving a course that put a finish cone in such a bad spot. First, it was in the middle of the final corner; second, the corner was severely off camber. A warning in the drivers meeting is not, IMO, sufficient to cover for bad course design.

_________________
Carl Fisher

Be Cool to the Pizza Dude:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=4651531

I was going to say something like that, but I wanted to be more gentle to the two folks who put in the most work. Hindsight is 20/20.

Designing a safe easy finish (read: straight-line) on any course RX or AX seems to be more prudent than making a penalty for a badly designed element.

More times than not, an element designed to slow you at the finish ends up making a dangerous spot (if only so for the timing equipment) because folks try to get that last "little bit* at the end.

A finish with straight line braking and lots of run off room is best, though Saturday we didn't really have the later option.

_________________
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)

I have to disagree with that statement - on two levels.

1 - I don't think it was a bad course design. I loved it, it was a tricky corner & if you didn't watch your speed you'd be all over the finish cone. I even tried something a little different to see if I could accelerate hard through the finish, but had to back off when I realized it wouldn't work.

2 - walking the course & seeing it with your own eyes should've been enough warning of what could happen there; the additional warning during the driver's meeting emphasized the point & should've made people very cautious.

I really don't think it was a bad design, and I feel that if you hit the cone, you deserved a penalty. If I had hit it, I wouldn't blame the cone, I would've blamed myself for not being cautious enough. It would've sucked, but it would've been nobody else's fault.

BUT... I'm kinda not liking the DNF/bogey time system that's currently used. It is true that one DNF = done. I think we should use a smaller penalty, maybe a 5 or 10 second penalty for hitting the finish cone; hit it twice & you're done, sortof like the 2-off rule at track schools.

What was the bogey time for this event, btw? I wasn't paying attention.

edit: just wanted to add that for those who DNF a gate (or whole section) or break down on course, DNF should = bogey time, imo. How exactly that bogey time is determined is something we should discuss, too.

It's hard to say what I would pull for. Whatever is decided I'll stand behind (or beside for those who are self-conscious). I do feel that an automatic 90 sec boogey time is harsh. Like Mike said, one DNF and you're finished. But it should be something more than the standard 2 seconds. 10-15 seconds should suffice. It cripples you, but if you are persistant and good enough, you can get back to your original standing.

Here's another possibility for you. Throw in some aspect of the Autocross and instead of cumilative 6 times, drop your worst time. Just an idea, it may have already been beat to death, but I figured that I would throw it out there for you.

Coz

Oooh, me, me! Pick me!

OK, until I stop hitting the damn finish cone (only one time in this last event) I vote for a change.

I vote no for the drop-worst time - it would have helped me and others last Saturday but with the constantly changing couse conditions it's not a fair solution.

I think we're choosing a bogey time that's just too high. Maybe it should be a factor of the average time (approx.) Perhaps 1.2 x the average run. With our current 90 second bogey time it was nearly twice the average run time of 50-54 seconds. If we choose a 1.2 factor for example we'd be looking at 60 to 65 seconds. Almost enough to scrape back to a reasonable total time.

Simon (who vows never to hit the "Simon" cone again.

The final corner was great, and I had no problem with it. It was the fact that the track-out cone was also one of the DNF cones that was the bad feature. If we'd been able to move the finish 20 or 30 feet further down you'd at least have a kinda straight approach. I don't have any problem receiving a 0:02 penalty for hitting that track-out cone, but not a 0:40 one.

And of course the corner I drove was not the one I walked. The passage of the previous run group had scraped off the grass and now in addition to being off-camber it was a slick, snotty mess. Not that that's an excuse- I had a plenty good look at it on my approach. But I was "going for it" a bit - just as you did - and misjudged the grip/entry-speed balance. Aggressive and competitive drivers are going to push the limits, that's why we like to race.


The concept of a "bogey time" comes from stage rally, and it is an approximation of the time that a very slow, but not broken, car will take to complete the stage. Something has definitely gone wrong if you are over bogey time on a stage. In our case (modeling our system on autocross) we needed something to use for a DNF, since we need 6 times to add and make the final score, so I thought a bogey time would fit the bill perfectly.

We could make the bogey time something a lot smaller, but I'd be concerned about T&S errors if we now had a lot of people who should be getting the "kinder gentler" bogey time instead of their actual times. Last weekend we had a good handful of folks with apparently legitimate runs in the 70+ second range. If they were smart they should bring along a rider who would time them and advise them whether to mow down the finish cone or not.

_________________
Carl Fisher

Be Cool to the Pizza Dude:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=4651531

Well just think about how brutal the finish would've been if we hadn't moved the left side cone 6 feet to the left after I slid through it during testing...



I agree that it would've been better to have a "normal" cone there & move the finish about 30 ft farther down. But that wouldn't have left much stopping room before you're in the drainage gulley.


So... are we going to change the penalty for finish cones, or is it still a DNF? My vote is for +5 sec the first time, bogey for each time afterward (yes, that's aimed at you, Simon ), and if you hit the timing equipment, your day is over. In addition, all finishes will be preceded by a straight of NLT 25 paces. Sound like a plan?

I'm behind you on the requirement for a straight to the finish. But dude, if you're going to try to create variable penalties for hitting finish cones, we're going to make you work T&S for all 4 heats! We need something simple and consistent.

So what about missing a gate? Time penalty or bogey time? Clearly we still need bogey times to handle cars that break down and limp off course or don't finish at all.

_________________
Carl Fisher

Be Cool to the Pizza Dude:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=4651531

These are good ideas which I think we ought to consider.

I would just like to say that my hitting the finish cone on my third run was totally my fault. I don't in the least blame it on the track design. Matter of fact, it never even crossed my mind.

I knew how the corner was. I had been through twice already. It might have been a little slicker than I was expecting but the fact is I just went into that last corner too hot. There is no one to blame but myself.

IMO, I do think a smaller finish cone penalty might be good idea though. I mean, just 10 or 15 seconds is about impossible to make up when we are sometimes running laps that are seperated by a few hundreths of a second.

I had a great time Saturday, even with my bad runs. I was just ribbing some people with that other post.

_________________
Common sense is NOT so common. ...Voltaire.

Well since I started this mess Let me add a few insights and a proposal to the VPs...

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that if you DNF on course you can FIX it! The bogey time is fine for a course F up since people are encouraged to (however how difficult and embarrasing) STOP, reverse, and find the correct path. This is a behavior worth encouraging, since it complements the "be conservative" lesson that a cumulative event is all about. So a "fixed" DNF on course is really what, a 5-10 second penalty?

The finish cone DNF, by contrast, can be caused by a simple small mistake and there is no way to fix it.

So the proposal...

For simplicity and ease of T&S I'd suggest that a finish cone penalty be recorded as "+5" in the computer. That would add 10 seconds. All the other DNFs stay the same. Don't bother with the "do it twice" rule, since it's too hard to track.

BUT - continue to remind people that if they hit a reflector, they get charged for a replacement ($30?) and if they hit a laser head, the fee is $400. That *should* be incentive to stay away.

_________________
Mike Whitney
whit32@gmail.com, 919-454-5445
V10, V8, V8t, I6, I6, V6, F4t, I4, I4, I4, I4, I2, 1, 1

Those proposals sound pretty good to me.

_________________
Common sense is NOT so common. ...Voltaire.

I'm good with that.

I'm still not convinced that we should treat a missed gate and hitting the finish cone differently. Yeah, you can go back and (at some pain) go through a missed gate again, but if you don't (and don't realize it) do you really deserve to blow your entire event? That's quite a potential penalty for someone who may only get one course walk in. And how many novices are not coming back because they see their names on the last line of the results due to a DNF on their first run?

_________________
Carl Fisher

Be Cool to the Pizza Dude:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=4651531

If we make the "off course" penalty too small, I WILL start skipping sections of the course. I'm serious. Other would and should too.

_________________
Mike Whitney
whit32@gmail.com, 919-454-5445
V10, V8, V8t, I6, I6, V6, F4t, I4, I4, I4, I4, I2, 1, 1