Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

looking back at the 2007 CSC

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • John P
    replied
    Re: looking back at the 2007 CSC

    Arek, On Saturday at lunch the organizer specifically stated at the driver's meeting that the order was changed. Also, in preliminary organizer's E mails the organizer indicated the order was going to be X Y Z for both Saturday and Sunday. Only Sunday used the X Y Z order.

    For the one shot National event the order should always be X Y Z so everyone has an equal chance at good and bad weather. That is fair.

    JohnP

    Leave a comment:


  • craig
    replied
    Re: looking back at the 2007 CSC

    Originally posted by bbqman View Post
    But when i say the run "order" I mean, if we plan to run in <timed< order from the fastest to the slowest, it should stay like that.
    I thought the whole point of the run order (within X, Y, Z, etc., not the order of X, Y, Z) was to minimize yellow flagging. Yes, the major component of that is run time, but I believe the clerk has the right to re-order as he/she sees fit. Similarly, I believe that a competitor does not automatically DNF if they cannot make it to their designated gridding/re-gridding spot, e.g., they are indisposed and start out of order in the run group.

    The rule Steve is quoting refers to 'start position,' not 'grid position.' The 'start position' is the point where the marshal waves you onto the track and you 'start' your timed run. Anything before that is a grid postion, (or a mock grid position), not a start position. You DNF if you can't start, not if you can't make it to the grid.

    Leave a comment:


  • ScotcH
    replied
    Re: looking back at the 2007 CSC

    Originally posted by John P View Post
    On Saturday the preliminary run order was X Y Z, X Y Z ,etc. but was changed to X Y Z in the morning and Z Y X in the afternoon forcing the Z competitors to run both run sessions in the wet while X group ran in the dry.
    John, as far as I know, the order was NOT changed ... it was posted as XYZ ZYX in the morning (before the rains came!), and this how is stayed for Saturday.

    Leave a comment:


  • Slowpoke
    replied
    Re: looking back at the 2007 CSC

    Originally posted by bbqman View Post
    What is wrong is to call a group to the grid and send cars out based on what organisers feel is safe when they look at the cars preparation at that moment.
    Actually, for safety sake, I suppose that the organiser can not allow a car to take to the track in a downpour if the car arrives on slicks. He would be classed DNS and again an arguement can made that the driver has the right to attempt a run in any case.
    Pushing said car back down the list for a later run in the order is just plain wrong.
    First of all, I don't see anything indicated in the rules that says what order anyone should be gridded in out side of run groups. (Correct me if I'm wrong, and I've missed something.) So no rule was violated in pulling rain tire equipped cars to the front. It appears to be fully within the clerk's rights to send cars out in the order they feel best facilitates the running of the event. In our case on Saturday, the challenge was for every competitor to get a second session!

    I don't think that cars were pushed back because they weren't safe, they were pushed back because of their anticipated lap time based on the tires they had. Running slicks in a downpour can put you 15% to 20% off the times of the other cars in your class that are properly prepared. Even if as Marc suggested, they put the three rain prepped cars from the front of the group, and four cars on slicks at the back of the run group, in four laps the lead car would likely STILL catch the end of the unprepped cars and cause yellow flags and delay the event. Alternatively, the clerk would have to send out the four prepped cars for a five lap session, then the three unprepped cars, and STILL we would have a delay to the event.

    It appears to me that from the experience at the DDT in rain at Event #2, allowing cars with proper rain tires to run first facilitated the effective running of that event, and the National event on Day #1. This is not a method of cheating; there is reasonably close to equal chance that the rain will worsen as it will improve by the time the slick-equipped cars are called up to run together. (Approximately two sessions later.)

    Now, if a car at the front turned down the opportunity to run, hesitated, or wasn't in their car when they were called to run, that violates 1.8.5

    "A DNS (Did Not Start) is given if the competitor fails to leave the start position when directed to do so by the Clerk of the Course. All of the laps of that runshall be recorded as a DNS."

    I saw leniency given to at least one competitor during the national event though in this regard, but only on the Sunday. They were not at their car when they were called to the grid due to an emergency rest room break I believe after being with their car on the grid for over an hour. Call it organizers trying to be accomodating to the people who travelled far to be there.

    In a second incident, when I realized that one of my fellow competitors was going to end up missing the last run because he didn't have enough fuel and the pumps were closed early, I offered the fuel I had in the pits so that they could finish all the sessions. I think that person MIGHT have gotten to the grid late, but I don't think they missed their intended run position. Again, no protest from fellow people in the run group.

    Maybe leniency just plain shouldn't happen at Nationals. Organizers will be criticized whether they are or aren't, though.

    Leave a comment:


  • John P
    replied
    Re: looking back at the 2007 CSC

    On Saturday the preliminary run order was X Y Z, X Y Z ,etc. but was changed to X Y Z in the morning and Z Y X in the afternoon forcing the Z competitors to run both run sessions in the wet while X group ran in the dry.

    I submitted a protest about the change of order from X Y Z in the morning but the organizer didn't agree, and the Stewards that are responsible for the fairness of the competition didn't understand their responsibilities and their power to force the organizer to change the run order to improve the fairness per our GCRs.

    We cannot forecast the weather but in a two day event where there are no dropped events and no second chances, the organizer and Stewards priority has to ensure fair competition for all competitors.

    On Sunday the organizer saw the light and ran the X Y Z order all day.

    JohnP

    Leave a comment:


  • bbqman
    replied
    Re: looking back at the 2007 CSC

    Originally posted by thgear View Post
    not many people have the free time to book a 3 day race weekend Carl, this is grassroots, remember.
    You would be surprised at how many requests I recieved this year by Solo national participants that we hold our TLC Mosport lapping day on the Friday prior rather than the Monday after.

    At ASE it was an optional day that no one was forced to be at, however many noobs to the track took advantage to better prepare themselves for competition.

    Leave a comment:


  • bbqman
    replied
    Re: looking back at the 2007 CSC

    Originally posted by thgear View Post
    run orders have always been fluid since day one

    run orders change constantly through out the day,

    run orders typicaly change after the fact, ie, yellow flags, or, weather changing conditions.

    if the grid marshals and timing KNOW IN ADVANCE the probability of a particular car, or a group of cars, running significantly faster than the rest, they will make the call to move them up the grid.

    the result is less time delay, less headaches for the timing guys, the marshals (esp marshals not all that familiar with our system)

    this is how it has always been.
    serge- I agree that the actual order of the cars changes from each heat as cars move up and down the standings...this is normal.
    But when i say the run "order" I mean, if we plan to run in <timed< order from the fastest to the slowest, it should stay like that. If we ever planned to run from the slowest to the fastest, it would stay like that too for the remainder of the day.
    In Ontario, you use heats....X Y Z so if we say that they run X first , then Y and then Z...it should stay like that.
    For example, if hypothetically all X cars were the most modified cars and they all ran dry slicks and their group is called to the line when a downpour begins, the only option for the organisers is to delay the event or run X group as is, regardless of tires ( we need to be prepared for all weather conditions, this is not NASCAR).

    If the Sunday schedule dictates that Z Y X is the new order, that is fine , so long as we know in the sups.

    What is wrong is to call a group to the grid and send cars out based on what organisers feel is safe when they look at the cars preparation at that moment.
    Actually, for safety sake, I suppose that the organiser can not allow a car to take to the track in a downpour if the car arrives on slicks. He would be classed DNS and again an arguement can made that the driver has the right to attempt a run in any case.
    Pushing said car back down the list for a later run in the order is just plain wrong.

    I guess there is a difference between posted "run order" and actual order in which cars run.
    One based on pre set sup rules, the latter based on the actual speed order.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anamaria
    replied
    Re: looking back at the 2007 CSC

    Originally posted by djphoebus View Post
    Here`s some additionnal comments from Marc:

    .... I still wonder how come licences were never checked? Does that mean that an unlicensed driver could have been signed off?

    _________________
    Marc
    directeur SoloSprint
    Scirocco 8v no 4 catégorie T2
    Hi Marc!
    No. Unlicenced competitors are not even allowed to register.
    For Ontario Drivers, the CASC-OR office provide us, periodically, with a list of licenced competitors. I personally check, prior to the event, that all registered participants are indeed licenced. No need for me to confirm with them or see the actuals Plastics at the event, although a lot of drivers present it.
    For Quebec Drivers, they were all asked in the registration form what type of licence they were holding. They all confirmed holding an FSAQ licence of some sort, and those that didn't, were issued one at the track.
    I don't see a reason why I shouldn't have believed them.
    Lesson learned for next year: Ask FSAQ for a list of licenced competitors.
    Thanks!

    Leave a comment:


  • thgear
    replied
    Re: looking back at the 2007 CSC

    Originally posted by bbqman View Post
    With 100 entries, a 3rd day lapping/test day makes sense and allows 2 full days for competition.
    not many people have the free time to book a 3 day race weekend Carl, this is grassroots, remember.

    Leave a comment:


  • Slowpoke
    replied
    Re: looking back at the 2007 CSC

    Signing off process:
    You can agree or disagree with the signing off of new to a track drivers. However, if you decide to do it, it should be put in the supplementary rules. Therefore, there are no surprises, and no one has to run and reinstall the passenger seat right before the first open track session starts. Also, make sure you have enough instructors. I still wonder how come licences were never checked? Does that mean that an unlicensed driver could have been signed off?
    "License held" was on the application form where I listed CASC-OR Class C and the License #, but you're right, it could have been checked at the event because maybe someone put their provincial driver's license #. Agreed on qualifications and # of instructors.

    Sun roof:
    As I stated in my previous post, it is in the rules that the panels can be removed. There is therefore not much room for interpretation. Besides, a car with a roll bar can be run without a roof.
    I think the concern with a part-open sun roof is in line with the part open window; in the event of an impact when the sun roof is not fully closed, nor fully open within the cabin, it is at greater risk of shattering or becoming dislodged in an impact. If it is fully removed, this is no longer an issue.

    In Ontario Solosprint, the window can be fully up (braced against the full frame of the door/roof) or fully down inside the door (so that broken glass would not fly around the cabin.) It's logical that this applies to sun roofs as well; fully braced against the frame, or fully enclosed.

    But you are right that this specific wording is lacking from the rules and Supp Regs. Mind you, we don't have it in the rules that you will be black flagged for using a cellphone on track or having a hand out the window, or if your passenger can't recline the seat fully and rests their feet on the dash either, etc. The difference is that window and sunroof policies vary from one organization to another and affect all intelligent competitors.

    Leave a comment:


  • thgear
    replied
    Re: looking back at the 2007 CSC

    Originally posted by bbqman View Post

    Run orders ARE NOT SUBJECT TO CHANGE once posted. If the weather dictates a safety hazard present, the event can be delayed, but the cars that are on grid must run as they are gridded. If you choose to show up with the incorrect tires on grid for the conditions...TOO BAD, run what you brung or go back to the paddock as DNS.
    If CASC liberally alters the run orders at regional events, that is their choice, but this is the CSC and needs to be run as such. if the rules (CSC) allow this, they need to be re-examined....hell I may never buy a set of rain tires again!!!!
    run orders have always been fluid since day one

    run orders change constantly through out the day,

    run orders typicaly change after the fact, ie, yellow flags, or, weather changing conditions.

    if the grid marshals and timing KNOW IN ADVANCE the probability of a particular car, or a group of cars, running significantly faster than the rest, they will make the call to move them up the grid.

    the result is less time delay, less headaches for the timing guys, the marshals (esp marshals not all that familiar with our system)

    this is how it has always been.

    Leave a comment:


  • djphoebus
    replied
    Re: looking back at the 2007 CSC

    Here`s some additionnal comments from Marc:

    ------

    A few more comments that are meant to be constructive.

    Rain tires issue:
    Because of the decision that was taken, people with rain tires were penalized since their times in heavy rain stood, whereas the rest of the field in Z group got to run in damp conditions. The correct action, in my view, would have been to call drivers in the normal run order. Competitors who refuse to go should loose their turn. When you have 7 cars ready (or whatever the number of cars you are sending out at one time), you put the faster cars up front (the ones with rain tires), like you normally do. Therefore, no one is penalized since, if it rained hard during your run group, it is just bad luck and not a situation were you are taken from the back of the field to be a guinea pig of sorts.

    Signing off process:
    You can agree or disagree with the signing off of new to a track drivers. However, if you decide to do it, it should be put in the supplementary rules. Therefore, there are no surprises, and no one has to run and reinstall the passenger seat right before the first open track session starts. Also, make sure you have enough instructors. I still wonder how come licences were never checked? Does that mean that an unlicensed driver could have been signed off?

    Sun roof:
    As I stated in my previous post, it is in the rules that the panels can be removed. There is therefore not much room for interpretation. Besides, a car with a roll bar can be run without a roof.

    _________________
    Marc
    directeur SoloSprint
    Scirocco 8v no 4 catégorie T2

    Leave a comment:


  • bbqman
    replied
    Re: looking back at the 2007 CSC

    I want to repeat what I said in the first post.
    This thread was not started in order to point fingers at specific people nor the organisers (including ASN).
    We NEED to identify problems and correct them so that people leave the nationals event with a positive feeling.

    We NEED to identify what was done right, to be sure to include that in future planning.

    As a long time racer in this sport and experience in both regions and at a national level, people came to see me to voice their opinion.
    I agree there are always 2 sides to the story and this thread is about bringing the fact to light and clearing any misinformation (as someone put it) on both sides.

    However, IMO, certain things should have happened and certain should not.
    I am well aware of the differences of ASE and Mosport but the bottom lign is....if you can sign up for the national event, you obviously are holding a license that says you can. If the prerequiste is too low, we need to raise it. But once registered for the event, and presenting the required credentials, IT IS NOT UP TO THE ORGANISERS to decide who needs coaching or not.
    In fact, I was told that a certain instructor was called on to instruct at this event, but he had never turned a wheel at this track!

    Run orders ARE NOT SUBJECT TO CHANGE once posted. If the weather dictates a safety hazard present, the event can be delayed, but the cars that are on grid must run as they are gridded. If you choose to show up with the incorrect tires on grid for the conditions...TOO BAD, run what you brung or go back to the paddock as DNS.
    If CASC liberally alters the run orders at regional events, that is their choice, but this is the CSC and needs to be run as such. if the rules (CSC) allow this, they need to be re-examined....hell I may never buy a set of rain tires again!!!!

    Arek- unfortunately roadrace and Solo ( Targa too for that matter) work differently as far as parc ferme is concerned.
    In roadrace, the cars are checked for compliance by the organisers tech people after the races. In Solo, it has always been the exclusive duty of the COMPETITORS to police compliance within a class.
    In the case of non compliance after the fact, there is only one alternative, protest and then disqualification.
    I agree that with the never ending changing rulesets, organisers should be encouraged to help class competitors that are not rules aware. After that the impound can really only deal with obvious violations of the rules.

    BTW, 100 competitors is quite feasible if run properly. The use of major race tracks dictates the need of many more competitors to be viable, so the logic is there. Should novices be allowed, that is to be discussed, but if you attain the required minimum amount of events to be eligible...why not!!
    With 100 entries, a 3rd day lapping/test day makes sense and allows 2 full days for competition.

    CRAIG- you have one thing right for sure ( well maybe more than one...) communication needs to be improved, both on game day and in preparation.

    At the end of the day, we all want the same thing....to go racing!

    Leave a comment:


  • ScotcH
    replied
    Re: looking back at the 2007 CSC

    Originally posted by shawn cormier View Post
    - The Snell M helmet was BS as well. Obviously a mistake, but handled very poorly ... thanks for bringing it up!


    I was the person who told the Quebec driver his helmet was wrong in no way did I tell him he could nt compete I told him he needed a proper helmet to compete,when he protested the helmet rule I told him ill look into it and get back to him,when I found out the proper rule I personally went over to his pit and apologized. a simple mistake,all corrected in under 5 minutes.There is a whole lot of rules to remember.I thought it was handled fast and properly,it should nt of even been brought up as a problem. (just my 2 cent)
    As always, 2 sides to every story. Told this way, it's seems like no big deal, and was handled quickly. Mistakes happen ... we're all human, and erring on the side of caution is always better.

    Leave a comment:


  • shawn cormier
    replied
    Re: looking back at the 2007 CSC

    - The Snell M helmet was BS as well. Obviously a mistake, but handled very poorly ... thanks for bringing it up!


    I was the person who told the Quebec driver his helmet was wrong in no way did I tell him he could nt compete I told him he needed a proper helmet to compete,when he protested the helmet rule I told him ill look into it and get back to him,when I found out the proper rule I personally went over to his pit and apologized. a simple mistake,all corrected in under 5 minutes.There is a whole lot of rules to remember.I thought it was handled fast and properly,it should nt of even been brought up as a problem. (just my 2 cent)

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X