looking back at the 2007 CSC

[bbqman]

I am curious to hear input from observers and participants of this years CSC.
I am interested in knowing the official number of participants for the event too.
As an observer ( I showed up at 12pm Sunday) I heard and witnessed all sort of things that I thought couldn't happen.
Issues dealing with run groups, tech and car classification, rookie drivers at Mosport etc.

While I heard soley competitor sides of the stories (mainly from Quebec) I am curious to hear all GOOD and BAD issues.

The reason I ask this is because I probably will volunteer to help organise the 2008 CSC effort and I would like to apply things that went well and avoid things that went wrong.

This is not a pointing fingers post but moreover a learning process post.

I have linked this post to the main FSAQ forum to get their input too.

http://cadl.qc.ca/portail/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=17139#17139

Thanks

[jonweir]

I think the initial organization prior to the event was good. Everything was quite smooth up until the weather got wet. I think some further consideration to run order should have been made before proceeding with the runs after the rain break. Although nobody can predict the weather, I think that it would have been better to allow Z group a run later in the day, just in case the track dried up. Sending them out in the rain immediately after their previous session was also wet didn't even give them a hope of a dry run. I suppose the argument is that nobody knew that the track would dry out later on - and the counterpoint is that we should at least give them a hope. Running later when it may dry up is better than running now when it is wet for sure.

Anyways, after the fact, there is nothing we can do.

For next time, can we make it a consideration to prioritize run order so that each run group gets an opportunity for at least one dry run? I think it is desirable both from a scoring perspective and a fun-per-dollar perspective.

That being said, Sunday ran quite smooth. I was particularly impressed that we got all 4 runs in, the last few sessions ran like clockwork.

[shawn cormier]

This might seem petty....... but after paying 350 bucks and driving my butt off to place third in my class I didn't even get a mention let alone a trophy.(in Quebec we got trophy's but they were blank) I think if we want to attract new participants, We should get something for our accomplishments (and 300 to 350 bucks)for 1st 2nd and 3rd like in all other motorsports....petty maybe but Id like to show something in my old age to my grandchildren.:(

[pigeon]

The event was organized well. The run-group issue was my only concern, but considering the amount of things that happened that weekend, everything was handled well. Especially sunday, I was only expecting 2 runs so I was very happy when I realized we were going to be able to squeeze in 4.

This might seem petty....... but after paying 350 bucks and driving my butt off to place third in my class I didn't even get a mention let alone a trophy.(in Quebec we got trophy's but they were blank) I think if we want to attract new participants, We should get something for our accomplishments (and 300 to 350 bucks)for 1st 2nd and 3rd like in all other motorsports....petty maybe but Id like to show something in my old age to my grandchildren.:(
My dads a secret fan of your car, whenever I come home he always asks me how the red Trans-am did! He has a red WS6 as well, but his is a 98. I snapped a pic of your car at one of the earlier events and he seen it, and since then he's always been interested in how it does. This time I was able to say you placed 3rd in class, and I even took a video clip of you flying by the pit area to show him :p

[Slowpoke]

This might seem petty....... but after paying 350 bucks and driving my butt off to place third in my class I didn't even get a mention let alone a trophy

I'm pretty sure that I recall them mentioning your name specifically. Top three in each class were mentioned at the driver's meeting and we were told to come up for hats at the end.

It's no secret what Chuck has mentioned in previous posts about the Keg raffle and such... Solosprint lost money this year. The lack of T-Shirts or a reduced number of trophies was not the fault of the organizing club, it was just not a good year.

[bbqman]

Correct me if I am wrong, I thought I counted only 25 cars on Sunday afternoon. Many of which were getting rerun laps. Why did most people leave before the end of the event?
Is this why 4 runs were possible instead of 2?

Again, not looking to blame anybody but if the CSC is to survive into 2008, corrective measures are needed.

[Slowpoke]

There were times from 48 cars in the results on Sunday vs. 51 on Saturday, if you check. Some cars were broken by the afternoon, as always. (Wall, wheel bearing, and tranny among the SPDA camp.) Some folks packed up early to have Thanksgiving dinner with their families, so you can opt to have it on a non-Holiday weekend if you prefer.

Mainly, because there wasn't rain and there were no red flags, things ran faster. And TAC was on the ball calling run groups to the grid in advance. The Presswoods did a good job pushing people on the grid.

They said at the driver's meeting on Sunday morning that they would try for four sessions, and if they couldn't do it, they would finish at a complete session and then give lapping. Well, the fourth wrapped up around 5pm and there was no lapping. I don't understand the inquiry... Were the Quebec folks complaining to you that there were four sessions on the Sunday? It's not impossible to get four runs on the big track when things run without red flags.

In 2006 there were 55 cars at Mosport in sunny weather and two red flags (including one of the longest oil clean-ups we've ever had) and TAC managed three complete sessions.

In 2005 there were 70 cars in sunny weather and a red flag and they managed 3.5 sessions.

[thgear]

Carl, i dont understand the point of your initial post, and the tone of your latest post

even though i wasnt at this years nationals, i can say with confidence that the event ran like any other event.

with the exception of that one time the timing equipment was left at the CASC office, all of the events i have ever been to, including the one that i organized myself, had on average the same amount of screwups and suprises, yet everyone pulled together and had a great event.

unless you are trying to voice the complains of our eastern brethren, i dont understand what it is that you are trying to dig at?

[ScotcH]

You get reruns when you get a yellow flag, or timing feels that you were held up somehow (even if no flag is thrown). I assure you noone got extra laps because they bought us beer the previous night.

As for the Saturday run group order, it was NOT changed, and that is perhaps the issue the Z group has. Personally, I feel it was the right decision ... the run order was posted, and the organizer stuck to it, instead of changing at the last minute. If it HAD changed, maybe the X or Y group would be the ones complaining, and saying "why was the order changed from what was posted?"

Saturday was a crappy day ... no doubt about it. It was however, no worse than our DDT event, where weather also wrecked havoc with our runs. It happens ... not much we can do about it. Sunday was a great day on the other hand, and I think everyone had a great time.

The tech inspections (I assume you mean impound) were simply a spot check of car classifications, and were performed by me personally. I don't think anything unfair was done here ... most cars checked were fine, and others that were not were cleared up. if there was an issue with this, I'd like to know what it was.

[Slowpoke]

BTW, it's normal for us in the Ontario series to NOT do the same run order on Saturday as Sunday because of complaints of benefit to one run group over another. The rain could just of easily hit harder in the later day than earlier and X Group would have gotten hosed. The slightly randomized order TAC created for Saturday gave mixed breaks to minimize grid changes.

Once a run order is posted, it should stay that way unless there is a safety or unanimous reason for change, which there wasn't.

[bbqman]

Some folks packed up early to have Thanksgiving dinner with their families, so you can opt to have it on a non-Holiday weekend if you prefer.

I don't understand the inquiry... Were the Quebec folks complaining to you that there were four sessions on the Sunday? It's not impossible to get four runs on the big track when things run without red flags.



I am not too good at double quoting, so I will do it 1 at a time.

What I am trying to accomplish in this thread is finding solutions so that CSC in 2008 exists or is even worth considering holding. You must agree that 51 entries for a national is not what this event is suppose to be about.

Before assuming anything, I am asking questions. We agree 51 is low for a nationals right? Why?
Is it because of the holiday weekend? Is it becuase it is late in the season.
May be a combination of both.

My inquiry has nothing to do with what the CADL contingent may have expected. 4 sessions is great, I was just commenting that it is easy to run 4 sessions when half the field is packed up. Nothing more. I also realize that red flags play a big part in the lost time.

[thgear]

I am not too good at double quoting, so I will do it 1 at a time.

What I am trying to accomplish in this thread is finding solutions so that CSC in 2008 exists or is even worth considering holding. You must agree that 51 entries for a national is not what this event is suppose to be about.

Before assuming anything, I am asking questions. We agree 51 is low for a nationals right? Why?
Is it because of the holiday weekend? Is it becuase it is late in the season.
May be a combination of both.

My inquiry has nothing to do with what the CADL contingent may have expected. 4 sessions is great, I was just commenting that it is easy to run 4 sessions when half the field is packed up. Nothing more. I also realize that red flags play a big part in the lost time.

keep in mind Mosport is not shannonville, and Mosport is not St.Eustache

i was not at the event because i do not have a car worthy enough to drive it, and personaly, i dont want to run mosport in a unprepared car.

i'm sure there are enough competitiors that just dont want to be there.


also, why is 51 a low number? "nationals" is supposed to be the best from the best, not random riff raff comming out to test their new shiny ferrari or whatever.

did we lose money on the nationals, last i checked the accounting was not in the read for this event.

[bbqman]

Carl, i dont understand the point of your initial post, and the tone of your latest post

even though i wasnt at this years nationals, i can say with confidence that the event ran like any other event.

with the exception of that one time the timing equipment was left at the CASC office, all of the events i have ever been to, including the one that i organized myself, had on average the same amount of screwups and suprises, yet everyone pulled together and had a great event.

unless you are trying to voice the complains of our eastern brethren, i dont understand what it is that you are trying to dig at?

I explained the point of my original post in the post itself. Serge- if it is still not clear, please call me or PM me and I will re-explain it.

Unlike you Serge, I have been to past nationals and I DID observe this last one too.

What I am trying to get to is the plain facts about the event.
Again, I feel that a CSC should be more than a glorified regional event and I want to be part of a successful 2008 CSC. In order to accomplish this, we need to fix mistakes and amplify the successes.
No where in my comments am I trying to belittle the event organisers, in fact I have no problem giving credit where credit is due.

Serge- If it helps you understand my motives, pretend that we are organising another event similar to this one in 2008- but we want it to be bigger and better- and I am one of the volunteers organising.....

cheers

[thgear]

Again, I feel that a CSC should be more than a glorified regional event and I

Serge- If it helps you understand my motives, pretend that we are organising another event similar to this one in 2008- but we want it to be bigger and better- and I am one of the volunteers organising.....

cheers

much better!

[bbqman]

You get reruns when you get a yellow flag, or timing feels that you were held up somehow (even if no flag is thrown). I assure you noone got extra laps because they bought us beer the previous night.

As for the Saturday run group order, it was NOT changed, and that is perhaps the issue the Z group has. Personally, I feel it was the right decision ... the run order was posted, and the organizer stuck to it, instead of changing at the last minute. If it HAD changed, maybe the X or Y group would be the ones complaining, and saying "why was the order changed from what was posted?"

Saturday was a crappy day ... no doubt about it. It was however, no worse than our DDT event, where weather also wrecked havoc with our runs. It happens ... not much we can do about it. Sunday was a great day on the other hand, and I think everyone had a great time.

The tech inspections (I assume you mean impound) were simply a spot check of car classifications, and were performed by me personally. I don't think anything unfair was done here ... most cars checked were fine, and others that were not were cleared up. if there was an issue with this, I'd like to know what it was.

For the run order, I agree what is posted in the sups or on the morning of the first day, are what should be used, no matter the conditions.

I was told that organisers pushed to the front of the line all cars that were on rain tires, when the conditions got wet. I was told that several cars that were scheduled to run, but were on dry tires, were sent to the back of the line for later runs.... If this is true, it is not right.

As for tech inspection, once the event has ended, or started for that matter, the only inspection for compliance can be made by a competitor verifying that a car is classes properly.
It is not up to the organisers (even less the ASN) to spot check cars for legality, this is the sole responsibility of the competitors. The tech inspector CAN disqualify a car that shows up to grid,with an obvious rules" violation...ie Race slicks on a non mod car, aftermarket-turbo on a car carrying no pips...etc.

If this is not the way everyone percieves the rules, they need to be clarified.

[thgear]

For the run order, I agree what is posted in the sups or on the morning of the first day, are what should be used, no matter the conditions.

I was told that organisers pushed to the front of the line all cars that were on rain tires, when the conditions got wet. I was told that several cars that were scheduled to run, but were on dry tires, were sent to the back of the line for later runs.... If this is true, it is not right.

As for tech inspection, once the event has ended, or started for that matter, the only inspection for compliance can be made by a competitor verifying that a car is classes properly.
It is not up to the organisers (even less the ASN) to spot check cars for legality, this is the sole responsibility of the competitors. The tech inspector CAN disqualify a car that shows up to grid,with an obvious rules" violation...ie Race slicks on a non mod car, aftermarket-turbo on a car carrying no pips...etc.

If this is not the way everyone percieves the rules, they need to be clarified.


you'll be suprised how many people actualy read the rules, and read deep.

[bbqman]

keep in mind Mosport is not shannonville, and Mosport is not St.Eustache

i was not at the event because i do not have a car worthy enough to drive it, and personaly, i dont want to run mosport in a unprepared car.

i'm sure there are enough competitiors that just dont want to be there.


also, why is 51 a low number? "nationals" is supposed to be the best from the best, not random riff raff comming out to test their new shiny ferrari or whatever.

did we lose money on the nationals, last i checked the accounting was not in the read for this event.


I agree that the tracks are not the same, however the typical costs to run the event are.
You are right that the nationals should be the best of the best, but until our competitor pool triples, we will have to accomodate the new and up-and-coming drivers.
Some people that I have spoke to said that they didnt go because there was not allure.....not sure if they meant competition wise or # wise...

I can tell you for sure that one of the reasons I have not driven to the west coast for a CAC is for the lack of numbers and competition.

[thgear]

others have disagreed with me but i believe that the nature of Solosprint organization in terms of actual "on track" time (ie, the "solo timed runs") prohibits the accomodation of large groups of people

the more people show up, the more people have to pray that no one crashes or anything of the sort.

if this was formula 1 where when soemone crashes their car and there are no debris on the road, the race goes on! we usualy stop the event for until stuff gets cleared up.

honestly Carl, you organized the St.Eustache event, would you really want 100 people to show up and race? i know i had shaky feet at the TMP event, and it didnt even rain that day.

[bbqman]

others have disagreed with me but i believe that the nature of Solosprint organization in terms of actual "on track" time (ie, the "solo timed runs") prohibits the accomodation of large groups of people

the more people show up, the more people have to pray that no one crashes or anything of the sort.

if this was formula 1 where when soemone crashes their car and there are no debris on the road, the race goes on! we usualy stop the event for until stuff gets cleared up.

honestly Carl, you organized the St.Eustache event, would you really want 100 people to show up and race? i know i had shaky feet at the TMP event, and it didnt even rain that day.

Well Serge, I always believe bigger is better as far as Solo events are concerned. Proper preparation and enough experienced staff is key in pulling off a big event.

I cant remember off hand in 2005 with HADA, but 75 comes to mind and the CSC at ASE was well into the 70s too.

Things that we cannot control are crashes and I agree they affect the outcome of an event, but as a competitor it is hard to criticize , if it is the competitors slowing the event.

Food for thought, TLC ran an event in 2007 @ ASE. 53 actual competitors, 3 times runs of 4 laps, 2 -20 minute warm ups for each competitor in the AM, finished by 4:30pm....this was a club event running transponders.
Imagine what 6 clubs pooling the resources can accomplish?

[thgear]

Food for thought, TLC ran an event in 2007 @ ASE. 53 actual competitors, 3 times runs of 4 laps, 2 -20 minute warm ups for each competitor in the AM, finished by 4:30pm....this was a club event running transponders.
Imagine what 6 clubs pooling the resources can accomplish?

socialism! alas we live in north america :(

transponders are good
also updating our timing system FROM ****ING DOS would be an improvement! (altho hopefuly steps area already in place to have windows based system for next year)
analgomation (spelling?) i think would be a great idea

but we need a committee to come together and try and work all this out.

but finding the right people is going to be hard, alot of the experienced solosprint competitiors are leaving the field, we're going through some hard times right now :) :) :)

[gkierst]

I was told that organisers pushed to the front of the line all cars that were on rain tires, when the conditions got wet. I was told that several cars that were scheduled to run, but were on dry tires, were sent to the back of the line for later runs.... If this is true, it is not right.


I was always gridded according to my best lap time, as were those around me. I think you are getting and redistributing misinformation. If you know of any competitor who wasn't satisfied with something at the event, it would be best for you to direct them to the organizers.

As for the impound, I would support random impound checks at every Regional event. A competitor's self declared classification may never be verified otherwise. To me it would be worthwhile to have each competitor's interpretation of the rules subject to scrutiny. This approach could allow that in a manageable way as most regular competitors would be covered over the course of a season.

Greg

[dubya_rx]

I am curious to hear input from observers and participants of this years CSC.
I am interested in knowing the official number of participants for the event too.
As an observer ( I showed up at 12pm Sunday) I heard and witnessed all sort of things that I thought couldn't happen.
Issues dealing with run groups, tech and car classification, rookie drivers at Mosport etc.

While I heard soley competitor sides of the stories (mainly from Quebec) I am curious to hear all GOOD and BAD issues.

The reason I ask this is because I probably will volunteer to help organise the 2008 CSC effort and I would like to apply things that went well and avoid things that went wrong.

This is not a pointing fingers post but moreover a learning process post.

I have linked this post to the main FSAQ forum to get their input too.

http://cadl.qc.ca/portail/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=17139#17139

Thanks

I'm also not clear on what the issues were. What mistakes were made?

The run groups were posted at the start of the day and never changed. Those are the rules correct?

The grid list is not an official document but a method to help with avoiding yellow flags and those slowing down the event. If it is raining, and a car does not have rain tires, it makes sense to me to grid them behind someone with rain tires. Is there a problem with that? Is there an advantage to being at the start or end of a grid?

I did not see any issues with timing over the weekend. It's not the slickest system out there, but it works. Can you point out deficiencies in the timing system?

The parke ferme system was set up according to the national rules. Was there a problem with that?

There were rookies at the event. Did that cause a problem for the event? I don't think so.

I think if you have specific issues, they need to be clearly stated otherwise they cannot be resolved. I saw your post on the FSAQ site, but have seen very little response. Was there any major issues, really?

Not trying to provoke anyone, but just trying to get everything in the open so any issues can be resolved.

[thgear]

Nancy says, babel fish translates


voici mes points :

- Comme c'est un championnat Canadien, il faudrait utiliser les règlements Canadiens.
- Le run order ne doit pas être modifié selon la température
- Pas nécessaire d'avoir des instructeurs lors d'un CSC, ce sont généralement des participants d'expérience
- Ne pas faire de différences entre les Québécois et les Ontariens, nottament pour le marshalling...
- Lorsqu'une annonce est fait dans les paddock, s'assurer que tous les compétiteurs l'ont compris...

En gros, ce sont mes points.

Babel Fish Translation Help

In English:

here my points:

- As it is a Canadian championship, it would be necessary to use the Canadian payments.
- the run order should not be modified according to the temperature
- Not necessary to have instructors at the time of a CSC, they are generally participants of experiment
- not to make differences between the Inhabitants of Quebec and the Ontarians, nottament for the marshalling...
- When an advertisement is made in the bed, to make sure that all the candidates included/understood it... Approximately, they are my points.


1. - no idea,
2. - as was said, the run orders are mixed around when the experience of the organizers leads them to believe that at a current run order some cars WILL be faster, which WILL cause yellow flags, which WILL cause a slowdown in the event.
3. - this is something that was of the discussion during a solosprint meeting, do we or do we not allow newbies (and subsequently a need for instructors), i guess that could be a point for debate at a later time
4. - no idea
5. - i'm assuming this is with regards to the drivers meeting during the event? i believe that the standard phrase all organizers have concluded with, atleast i know i have, is "If you have any questions PLEASE COME and ask us for clarification", atleast at TMP this seemed to work as i had a ton of people asking for the explanation of various little things.

[JoeT]

Translations in Italics

voici mes points : Here are my points:

- Comme c'est un championnat Canadien, il faudrait utiliser les règlements Canadiens.
Since it's a Canadian Championship, it should use the Canadian Rules

- Le run order ne doit pas être modifié selon la température
Run orders should not be modified based on temperature

- Pas nécessaire d'avoir des instructeurs lors d'un CSC, ce sont généralement des participants d'expérience
Instructors should not be necessary since most competitors are experienced.

- Ne pas faire de différences entre les Québécois et les Ontariens, nottament pour le marshalling...
Dont make any difference between Quebecers and Ontarians, specifically for Marshalling.

- Lorsqu'une annonce est fait dans les paddock, s'assurer que tous les compétiteurs l'ont compris...
Announcements in the paddocks, this assures all the competitors understand.

En gros, ce sont mes points.
On a high level, those are my points.

[thgear]

- Comme c'est un championnat Canadien, il faudrait utiliser les règlements Canadiens.
Since it's a Canadian Championship, it should use the Canadian Rules


as far as i know, the CSC used the "ASN nationals rules", everything is up to standard

- Ne pas faire de différences entre les Québécois et les Ontariens, nottament pour le marshalling...
Dont make any difference between Quebecers and Ontarians, specifically for Marshalling.

marshaling was done by Mosport no?

[jonweir]

- When an advertisement is made in the bed, to make sure that all the candidates included/understood it... Approximately

LOL! :D

I hate it when that happens....

[thgear]

LOL! :D

I hate it when that happens....

i kind of assumed it meant "drivers meeting", babel fish is known to throw out wacky tranlsations :D

[pigeon]

- Ne pas faire de différences entre les Québécois et les Ontariens, nottament pour le marshalling...
Dont make any difference between Quebecers and Ontarians, specifically for Marshalling.

marshaling was done by Mosport no?
There were still some duties, like lap timer and little stuff like that. They said that the QC competitors didn't have to, since they travelled so far to race with us, they weren't required to marshall.

I thought that was a very nice gesture! Im shocked that member sees this as a problem...

[shawn cormier]

Carl, CSC needs to be glorified like Time Attack (and maybe some bikini girls :eek: )

[ScotcH]

(and maybe some bikini girls :eek: )

+1! :D

[thgear]

+1! :D

and beer!~

[djphoebus]

I will post a reply from Marc M. since he doesn`t have access to post on this forum yet.

------------

Since I cannot post on the CASC-OR Forum (yet), I will answer Carl's request on this forum, since I know that CASC-OR members are being refered on this post to get our opinion.

You therefore understand why I am writing in English. I will also mention that I will try to be the voice of Quebec competitors since some that were at the 2007 CSC are very rare posters on this board.

I sincerely hope that no one will be offended by my comments. I know how hard organising these events is. I will post my comments on a plus and minus format:

+ Pre-registration and registration went flawlessly

+ Tech. inspection on Friday and Saturday went flawlessly

+ The organiser, Rob McAuley, is one of the nicest people I have met

+ Mosport is a great track

- The National rules, as they were posted on the ASN website, were changed a few weeks before the event. Prior to this change, these posted rules were the same as last years rules and were the ones used in Quebec for 2006 and 2007. If these were not the national rules, why were they posted as such on the ASN website?

- At the first drivers meeting, a commotion was created by announcing that drivers with no experience at Mosport would need to be signed off before driving solo. Strangely enough, our licences were not checked by anyone. This measure affected mostly Quebec drivers. Most of which who were there, coincidentally, are recognized driving instructors that did not want to carry 200 extra pounds during the timed runs. No instructor was available for about 20 mins as we were waiting in the pits. In the end, we did our own instruction, as we had planned, by following the three Quebec drivers that had previously driven at Mosport.

- "Rules" were applied strangely:
ex. 1- A car was black flagged because: "Your sun roof is popped open" This occured during the "signing off" process and was very frustrating since the ASN rules provide that "[...] The removable sunroof panel" and "removable T-top panels" may be removed." When the undersigned voiced (!) his concern over the fact that the rules do not preclude him from running with the sunroof popped open, he was answered that "It is in the rules, just do it!" Please note that my car has a roll bar!
ex. 2- When the rain storm got serious as Z group cars were gridded for their second timed session, the first seven cars sent out were chosen because they had rain tires on, with no respect to grid order. After that, the next session was black flagged. All Z cars except for the ones with rain tires ended up doing their timed session 1.5 hour latter on a damp track instead of in the middle of a flood.
ex. 3- A Quebec city driver who arrived on Sunday morning was told he could not participate because his helmet is a Snell M. Now, his car does not have a roll cage. Appologies were later given but can you imagine how he felt after having done the whole Quebec season with that helmet and having driven 700km to Mosport? By the way, the guy in question is president of Delta, the most important Quebec city SoloSport club.
ex. 4- A car that was registered in GT2 was latter included in GT1 results after being scrutinized, instead of being disqualified (which it latter was after a formal request for action).

- Quebec drivers did not hear calls for drivers' meetings from their paddock area. When yours truly voiced that concern to one of the organisers, he was answered that: "We're here to race, not for camping." (Thank you very much but it was dark when we arrived and we did not know that we would not hear the PA system.) No sollution was offered.


I know that to some, what you read above are minor concerns. I will admit that some of it is minor, but some is not. Also, imagine that you are going through this on a strange track, and that this goes on in a language that is not your mother tongue.

All of this just makes me wich that in the future, these mega events will be co-hosted by as many clubs as possible, with people from as many areas as possible.

If I have hurt anyones feelings, please accept my sincerest appologies. I did not have the time to reread myself.

_________________
Marc
directeur SoloSprint, CADL
Scirocco 8v no 4 catégorie T2

[djphoebus]

On my side, i think that we need to improved the communication during the CSC. We had access to the speaker of Mosport but we didnt use it enough. One think that the CADL do really well during their event is having an MC that his job is mainly communication...

I think that it will be sweet for everyone to have the best time of everyone at the end of their session. That way you know where you stand or what`s the time to beat. At the same time, he can announce every change to schedule or any information related to the CSC for the competitor and spectator.

Like most of you know, i was steward for this CSC and i was running like crazy because of this lack of communication. Often i was asking question that i received from different competitor becauses no one on the field knew the answer and i was receiving the answer ''It`s obvious''...and than i had to basically ask a couple of time if it was possible to announce the answer on the speaker so every one could know the answer.. i received 2 to 3 times the answer ''you want to do it''...

I will not go further on the communication issue has i think that everyone saw it. For the Next CSC, no matther where is it we definatly need to improved it during the event as it will remove a lot of none needed frustration and will improve the spirit of competition.

-------

Regarding the number of entry for the CSC. As a competitor i don`t think that hoping for 100+ competitor for solosprint event is good for the sport. We often have difficulty to complete 3 run per competitor with 60 or less. Going to a national and being able to complete only 2 runs in an entire day or even 1 full run + half of the second one where you need to cancel the score of the second run...would really suck..

-------

Regarding the rule, it`s comming more and more obvious that the rules are better for Heavy and high powered car than light and all handling car. It was already a little bit in the past but now with the new special Suspension PIP and weight PIP it`s now obvious.

It`s for sure that the National rule needs to be available sooner than August and that waiting the end of each season to start working on the rules of the following year is not working at all. Something that i heard from different people during the CSC is that since we are grassroot, ''could we have a rule for a 2 year period instead of changing it every year?''.
-------

I hope that my point can start a nice discussion about the future of the Solosprint...:)

[ConesRnotEnough]

I agree with almost everything that Guillaume pointed out. Communication was no where good enough and an MC would have helped that a lot.

Group Z on Saturday..... I understand both sides of the coin, but it was still messed up (as were the conditions). If competitors felt their personal safety was at risk, decline to run. If you are going to run, get in line where you should be and run.

Impound..... That is where other competitors go over their competition's vehicles and launch protests. Scrutineering is for safety, impound is for protests from competitors.

Rules NEED to be posted in the spring. ASN needs to get there stuff together. I know everyone are volunteers, but you can not properly prep for a national competition with rules released a month or so before the event (or in the case of CAC major changes the week leading up the the event with no advance notification)

This was a national level event, there should be no need for instructors to "sign off" inexperienced competitors. This is a national level event!

Having this thread is a good idea, having excessively defensive people defending every action taken, is not. Sure there is no need to be nasty in your comments or suggestions, but let those that have a concern voice their opinions. If people that didn't run or weren't even there start criticizing the event, well that's a different story, but let those that ran the event voice their observations and concerns.

[ScotcH]

I will post a reply from Marc M. since he doesn`t have access to post on this forum yet.

------------

Since I cannot post on the CASC-OR Forum (yet), I will answer Carl's request on this forum, since I know that CASC-OR members are being refered on this post to get our opinion.

You therefore understand why I am writing in English. I will also mention that I will try to be the voice of Quebec competitors since some that were at the 2007 CSC are very rare posters on this board.

I sincerely hope that no one will be offended by my comments. I know how hard organising these events is. I will post my comments on a plus and minus format:

+ Pre-registration and registration went flawlessly

+ Tech. inspection on Friday and Saturday went flawlessly

+ The organiser, Rob McAuley, is one of the nicest people I have met

+ Mosport is a great track

- The National rules, as they were posted on the ASN website, were changed a few weeks before the event. Prior to this change, these posted rules were the same as last years rules and were the ones used in Quebec for 2006 and 2007. If these were not the national rules, why were they posted as such on the ASN website?

- At the first drivers meeting, a commotion was created by announcing that drivers with no experience at Mosport would need to be signed off before driving solo. Strangely enough, our licences were not checked by anyone. This measure affected mostly Quebec drivers. Most of which who were there, coincidentally, are recognized driving instructors that did not want to carry 200 extra pounds during the timed runs. No instructor was available for about 20 mins as we were waiting in the pits. In the end, we did our own instruction, as we had planned, by following the three Quebec drivers that had previously driven at Mosport.

- "Rules" were applied strangely:
ex. 1- A car was black flagged because: "Your sun roof is popped open" This occured during the "signing off" process and was very frustrating since the ASN rules provide that "[...] The removable sunroof panel" and "removable T-top panels" may be removed." When the undersigned voiced (!) his concern over the fact that the rules do not preclude him from running with the sunroof popped open, he was answered that "It is in the rules, just do it!" Please note that my car has a roll bar!
ex. 2- When the rain storm got serious as Z group cars were gridded for their second timed session, the first seven cars sent out were chosen because they had rain tires on, with no respect to grid order. After that, the next session was black flagged. All Z cars except for the ones with rain tires ended up doing their timed session 1.5 hour latter on a damp track instead of in the middle of a flood.
ex. 3- A Quebec city driver who arrived on Sunday morning was told he could not participate because his helmet is a Snell M. Now, his car does not have a roll cage. Appologies were later given but can you imagine how he felt after having done the whole Quebec season with that helmet and having driven 700km to Mosport? By the way, the guy in question is president of Delta, the most important Quebec city SoloSport club.
ex. 4- A car that was registered in GT2 was latter included in GT1 results after being scrutinized, instead of being disqualified (which it latter was after a formal request for action).

- Quebec drivers did not hear calls for drivers' meetings from their paddock area. When yours truly voiced that concern to one of the organisers, he was answered that: "We're here to race, not for camping." (Thank you very much but it was dark when we arrived and we did not know that we would not hear the PA system.) No sollution was offered.


I know that to some, what you read above are minor concerns. I will admit that some of it is minor, but some is not. Also, imagine that you are going through this on a strange track, and that this goes on in a language that is not your mother tongue.

All of this just makes me wich that in the future, these mega events will be co-hosted by as many clubs as possible, with people from as many areas as possible.

If I have hurt anyones feelings, please accept my sincerest appologies. I did not have the time to reread myself.

_________________
Marc
directeur SoloSprint, CADL
Scirocco 8v no 4 catégorie T2

Good feedback ... thanks! Here is my (personal!) take on your points:

Agreed on all your + points ... the things that worked, worked VERY well. TAC and Rob did a great despite some of the issues (like weather!). As for your - points:

- The posting of the National Rules was not under our control, as far as I know ... ASN was sitting on them (they were available in the spring I believe!) This was definitely a problem, and I agree with your frustration here. Rules need to be known as early as possible.

- The need for an instructor is a saftey measure, and is common place in all the Ontario series events (new competitors get signed off). The execution of this seems to have perhaps been lacking. The intent is good, but perhaps it needs to be streamlined so that time is not wasted, and also needs to be CLEARLY spelled out in the supp regs as to what is expected.

- Black flagged for open sun roof is BS (my opinion!). It should not have happened. Perhaps the Mosport marshals are not used to seeing this, so they black flagged the car? The clerk cannot see the cars except on the front straight, so we rely on the marshals to call it in.

- Grid order is never set in stone, so moving people around WILL happen in order to avoid yellows and improve event flow. Cars on rain tires will clearly be faster, so it does not make sense to put them out on the tail of a car on slicks ... it will just slow down the event. This has been pointed out before. I understand the issue, but in this case, what was done was the correct action. The grid order is in fact changing all the time, as people get faster, or conditions change. It is entirely up to the grid marshal and the clerk/timers to set the grid order. The RUN order (as in Z group, then X, etc.) should NOT be changed ad-hoc, and again, it was not changed (correctly) on Staurday.

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

- The moving of the car from GT2 to GT1 was simply a classification correction. In lieu of a proper rule for this case (we need to address this for 2008!), we felt that was the easiest way to handle it. The protest was voiced, and the organizers made a decision to disqualify. I'm not sure how better we could have handled the situation (again, no rules on the subject at all!).

- Driver's meeting times should have been posted in the Sup regs. I believe all of them were, except for the lunch meeting on Saturday. The schedule is also posted in the sup regs. While it is the resposibility of the competitor to know where and when to go, I can understand the frustration here. Communication is VERY important, and needs to be priority #1 before and during the event.

Again, the above is my personal take on the points you raised :)

[ScotcH]

Group Z on Saturday..... I understand both sides of the coin, but it was still messed up (as were the conditions). If competitors felt their personal safety was at risk, decline to run. If you are going to run, get in line where you should be and run.

This was not really a competitor's call, so much as a griding call. See above for my comment on this.

Impound..... That is where other competitors go over their competition's vehicles and launch protests. Scrutineering is for safety, impound is for protests from competitors.

Actually, Impound is for checking cars for complience during an event. In regional racing for example, after the race, cars come into impound, and some or all cars are checked. Non-complience leads to disqualification. We did a similar thing, though I agree that it should have been in the rules that it would be happening. it was news to much as much as you guys :)

Rules NEED to be posted in the spring. ASN needs to get there stuff together. I know everyone are volunteers, but you can not properly prep for a national competition with rules released a month or so before the event (or in the case of CAC major changes the week leading up the the event with no advance notification)

Agree completely!

This was a national level event, there should be no need for instructors to "sign off" inexperienced competitors. This is a national level event!

Saftey is still our #1 priority ... I'm not sure how to better address this ... maybe a 3 lap follow the leader or something to see the layout, then off you go? I dunno .... Mosport is a track that can bite hard, and we want to avoid this if possible.

[CobraStang]

Actually, Impound is for checking cars for complience during an event. In regional racing for example, after the race, cars come into impound, and some or all cars are checked. Non-complience leads to disqualification. We did a similar thing, though I agree that it should have been in the rules that it would be happening. it was news to much as much as you guys :)Terry Epp, the ASN Director responsible for SoloSports, was in attendance at the event. It was Terry who instructed that impounding would be performed. As Arek says, it was unexpected, or I'm sure it would have been mentioned in advance. The fact that it resulted in at least one significant change suggests that it was a good instruction by Terry. He happened to tell a story about how impounding was done at this year's Targa Newfoundland, one result changing a competitor from finishing very high, to way down in the order.

[craig]

So, Carl, my take is what you will want are essentially improvements in communications:

1. to and from ASN Canada FIA, the Nat'l Solo Ctee., and Mr. Epp; and
2. timely and more complete (and accurate) communication to competitors (and other clubs/territories).

At least, that's what I'm reading.

[Slowpoke]

This was a national level event, there should be no need for instructors to "sign off" inexperienced competitors. This is a national level event! Saftey is still our #1 priority ... I'm not sure how to better address this ... maybe a 3 lap follow the leader or something to see the layout, then off you go? I dunno .... Mosport is a track that can bite hard, and we want to avoid this if possible.

We had a lot of rookies this year who had not run the big track before who signed up for the Nationals. In fact, the rookies were essential for financial viability of the event.

That track is not very forgiving to people who go in too fast to a corner, panic, lift throttle and brake. Less so in the rain. It's not ASE. We thought it prudent to put an instructor with people NEW to the track to show them around the first time to keep THEM and fellow competitors safe, not to make instructors and organizers feel self-important. Once they were comfortable on their own and lapping safely they were fine to lap on their own. (five laps with me driving the new person when practice opened, after that a five lap session with them driving, all during practice was all that this person and I thought was necessary) I'm sure that some were signed off faster than that. One thing that would have helped here though, was for people who were instructors to have known it BEFORE lapping opened rather than after marshaling assignments were given out. I didn't realize I was charged with instructing and just stepped in to help.

Although this was a National event, there was no qualifying procedure. You could have registered for this event if it was your first time on a track. (Should that change?) The decision of the organizer was for one instructor to get a person comfortable with the track. For some people, that meant an instructor in the car, for others there were no instructors available, and they had to try and follow and keep up on an unfamiliar and challenging track, or wait for an in car instructor.

The Ontario series policy, as it was announced in driver's meeting minutes during the year, was that TWO instructors must sign a person new to Ontario Solosprint off as a novice. (I mistakenly thought it was in our ruleset, but it was only in the drivers meeting minutes.) As you mentioned, many of these people at the Nationals were not novices, so that policy was not applied.

Did the host club of the Nationals at ASE in 2006 not put cones on the front straight in the rain? Did that not take track space away from National level competitors? Did anyone really complain about that safety measure though?

If it was their first morning on the big track, one might think that most competitors would be faster WITH an instructor for a session or two than without.

As for the sunroof thing... it is a typical lapping rule with different organizations I've lapped with and something that you expect. Window policy is something that an experienced competitor asks about. There's nothing in the rules about car windows needing to be all the way down, or all the way up either, though that is enforced in Solosprint. Others allow you to lap with windows half-way up or all the way up, but not all the way down without a window net.

Should window and sunroof policy end up in the rulebook?

[shawn cormier]

- 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)

[ScotcH]

- 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.

[bbqman]

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!

[djphoebus]

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

[thgear]

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.

[Slowpoke]

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.

[thgear]

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.

[Anamaria]

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!
:cool:

[bbqman]

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.

[bbqman]

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.

[John P]

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

[Slowpoke]

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.

[ScotcH]

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.

[craig]

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.

[John P]

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

[dubya_rx]

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

I don't believe this is correct. There was a lot of discussion about whether the run order should be changed to try to accommodate the Z group but it was decided that it would not be changed.

The original run order XYZ ZYX is used to maximize the track time and minimize the movement of cars on and off the grid. In fair weather this works without problem. In wet weather (which of course cannot be predicted) cars will run on different track conditions but that cannot be helped. Even if the run order was XYZ XYZ there could still be a weather change within the X or Y or Z runs which cannot be predicted. Since we run rain or shine, that's what we have to live with.

Also, since propositioning is turned off during wet weather, you do not need to worry if another run group ran on a track drier or wetter than you did.

Overall, I think it was a very difficult day for the organizers, and they did as best a job as could be expected.

[Slowpoke]

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.

Actually, I think it should be X Y Z on one day, then Z Y X on the other, and then viceversa for the next event. Or completely random determined at the beginning of the year. And I recall the situation that Walter did. Emails sent to the organizer from a competitor before the event certainly can't be counted as "official".

Small detail, but SOMEONE from X will complain that they always get the colder morning sessions, and someone from Z will complain that X always gets to pack up early.

And should co-driven cars not be allowed at National events? Or forced into the same run group to stop the inevitable arguments? We typically put the co-driven car into a separate run group, but that second run group can get significantly different weather conditions than the primary driver and screw up the class. In the case of SGT2 on Saturday, that was Gerry who was 48 seconds slower than the class winner. Can you imagine the arguments if it was the other way around? With 9 competitors in the 1:40's and Gerry sitting pretty with a 1:02?

[bbqman]

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.

Stephen, you bring to light an important fact. If there is no such rule about when cars run once called to the grid, in all fairness ( when weather conditions are changing) there should be one.
I know that in Quebec and most regions running Solo events, cars leave the grid in timed order.
Something to think about for sure.

[jonweir]

Actually, I think it should be X Y Z on one day, then Z Y X on the other, and then viceversa for the next event. Or completely random determined at the beginning of the year. And I recall the situation that Walter did. Emails sent to the organizer from a competitor before the event certainly can't be counted as "official".

Small detail, but SOMEONE from X will complain that they always get the colder morning sessions, and someone from Z will complain that X always gets to pack up early.

My argument for the XYZ,XYZ or ZYX,ZYX run order is that each group's runs are separated equally by 2 runs. 2ndrun=1strun+2.
Assuming the run order for the event is determined early enough in advance (more than 1 week) weather is completely random throughout the day. So all groups have the same probability of a change in conditions. But if one group runs back to back, there is less probability that the weather will change in such a short time.
It happened to work out bad for X, but it could have been the other way around too. Basically X was forced to put all their eggs in one basket (the midday basket)

[djphoebus]

Do we really need group? From what i see, running by group only slow the event more than anything else. It happen quite often during the CSC that we had to run 4 cars or less at a time because we didn't want to mix group...This has slow down the event quite a bit...

I think that classifying cars by their fastest time instead of class and sending the next 7 cars even if they are not in the same class/group will make the event run smoother for sure.

What's the reason being running group? and not mixing them if needed? from other comments it seems to have run like that for quite some time in Ontario...

[ScotcH]

Do we really need group? From what i see, running by group only slow the event more than anything else. It happen quite often during the CSC that we had to run 4 cars or less at a time because we didn't want to mix group...This has slow down the event quite a bit...

I think that classifying cars by their fastest time instead of class and sending the next 7 cars even if they are not in the same class/group will make the event run smoother for sure.

What's the reason being running group? and not mixing them if needed? from other comments it seems to have run like that for quite some time in Ontario...

The reason for the groups is Marshal assignments. We need people to know what group they run in so that they can marshal in the other groups. It would be great is we didn't have to marshal, but the reality is that it's a neccessary task unless we all want to add $50 to the entry fees

[shawn cormier]

I still think thing will run smoother with bikini girls:p

[STIgma]

I still think thing will run smoother with bikini girls:p

+1

[Slowpoke]

I still think thing will run smoother with bikini girls:p

Maybe if we had bikini girls in pit lane, more drivers would show up early to the grid and stay by their cars instead of wandering off?

My only concern is that someone like ... oh I don't know... Dave Pratte is going to want to reciprocate for the lady drivers... :eek: ;)

[thgear]

The reason for the groups is Marshal assignments. We need people to know what group they run in so that they can marshal in the other groups. It would be great is we didn't have to marshal, but the reality is that it's a neccessary task unless we all want to add $50 to the entry fees

i thought mosport forces on us their own marshals...

[thgear]

Maybe if we had bikini girls in pit lane, more drivers would show up early to the grid and stay by their cars instead of wandering off?

My only concern is that someone like ... oh I don't know... Dave Pratte is going to want to reciprocate for the lady drivers... :eek: ;)

simple solutions, ban dave pratte! :)

[JoeT]

Dave Pratte is going to want to reciprocate for the lady drivers... :eek: ;)

Um.. Ok, if Bikini girls are in the pits, Dave can walk around in his bikini "speedo's" for the girls.

[ScotcH]

i thought mosport forces on us their own marshals...

There is more to marshal duties than just waving flags ... most people had assignments at the Nationals (timers, clerks, grid, etc.)

[shawn cormier]

Um.. Ok, if Bikini girls are in the pits, Dave can walk around in his bikini "speedo's" for the girls.

Tough call.................nope can t let it happen....sorry Dave Serge wins.............your banned!:p

[CobraStang]

What's the reason being running group? and not mixing them if needed?
You would then have people in the same class running is possibly different track & weather conditions, moreso that when everyone in a class is in the same run group. With the exception of co-drivers.

If the run order was not changed, you could have a sensible dry order, which later changes to alternating fast/slow cars/drivers on the grid due to a change in track conditions. You could not run even three cars on the track, because the third car would be significantly faster than the second car, and we get perpetual yellow flags. As it was, some drivers were so much faster than the driver gridded ahead of them, that they were yellow flagged until the track was clear, then given their three hot laps. I think John P almost ended up like this.

Now Carl, if your understanding is that people with rain tires from one run group (say X) were moved up to run with people from another run group (say Z), then I think the point is well made. Otherwise, I think a lot more competitors would have been frustrated at seeing just two cars on the track, than were frustrated by the change of grid order.