On course, or off course? You decide!

[13inches]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v727/13inches/MAP.jpg

The black lines labeled 1 and 2 are the intended path of the course design for a two lap course.
The cone labeled A is a single cone with a leaner.
The cones labeled B define a gate, with a leaner on one cone.

If the car follows the path of the red line on lap one, is it on-course or off-course?

If the car follows the path of the blue line on lap one, is it on-course or off-course?

[brujack]

Both red and blue lines are on course. You have defined the gate A with only one cone with leaner than any line outside of that cone is fine. It does not matter what other cones are nearby if they do not define that gate or the next gate.

Bruce

[Mr2Rob]

The way the cones are sitting I would agree that it's still on course. However, it probably should have been defined as a gate to avoid confusion, if that was the intended line, since there could be instances where going wide around supposed non-factoring cones could actually improve lines and times (not the case yesterday).

[Ziploc]

In the beginning of the day there was no "A" gate right? I thought I saw a "A" gate added later in the day.

I was wondering about this though, before you added the gate there were leaner cones on the outside of that turn on lap 1. Since leaner cones don't come with a penalty could we have technically been able to run wide, hit the leaner cones, and continue without penalty?

[elementZ]

Gate A was there in the beginning. But after 4 or 5 runs, the 2nd part complimentary side of gate A was added beside gate b.

[smokinfire]

I vote red and blue are off course, they end up going through a gate on a different section of the course...

It's like golfing on the wrong fairway.

[ZOOMiata]

As long as you are on the indicated side of the cone on the first lap, then any line is correct. The driver following the blue line (and the red line, for that matter) are on course, in my opinion.

[13inches]

Elements of the course should be completed in sequence. By adding a gate (red line) to the run, this would be considered off-course.

The blue line is perfectly legal as there are no additional elements completed. The driver just ran realllllllly wide ;)

More opinions please!

[Marsh]

Where are you getting the "elements should be completed in sequence" from? Is this a quote or your own phrasing?

I've had many similar discussions about this on site at events. The rule quoted in one such discussion was in reference to the airport loop. A driver can rejoin the course where they left it. Going through an additional element is rejoining the course in a place different then where you left it and should be judged off course. In that case Red is off course and blue is on course (blue never rejoined the course or "completed the element" as you put it).

BTW I assume that your diagram is not to scale and that on a real course Gate B would be so far off in the other direction that you'd have to be really lost to think you were supposed to go through it? Because my first though when I saw the diagram is that there's no way I wouldn't raise a stink during course walk if I saw that.

[finboy]

IF there are indications clearly illustrating what the path is for the 1st loop and the 2nd loop (whether it's chalked on the pavement, or on a course map)

anything that does not shadow the path and runs outside the two lines is OFF COURSE

eg pic

[finboy]

As long as you are on the indicated side of the cone on the first lap, then any line is correct. The driver following the blue line (and the red line, for that matter) are on course, in my opinion.

i would agree with this if the course was like this

[finboy]

Both red and blue lines are on course. You have defined the gate A with only one cone with leaner than any line outside of that cone is fine. It does not matter what other cones are nearby if they do not define that gate or the next gate.

Bruce

green is OC on all examples (except the above one with no outside post)

everything else would be clean on this example

[TOYSRUS]

7.9.3 Course Deviation
A “DNF”, or a time penalty if so specified in the supplementary
regulations, shall be charged for any uncorrected deviation from the
course, or for unnecessarily delaying the event. A course deviation
shall not be charged if any part of the car hits a marker defining the
limits of the course. A DNF is charged only if part of the course is
omitted. In returning to the course after an off-course excursion, it
is acceptable to drive a part of the course a second time.

In the first example provided it it appears that there is a gate between cones "a" and "b" ....missing this is clearly an off course. However in Dave's final rendition I would have to disagree with the off course designation. The driver has correctly navigated the course having only added an additional gate which appears to be with in the rule stated above.

[finboy]

IF this was the design.. with loop 1 having 2 choices..

and everything else being the same



anything outside of the A:C outside post = OC

[finboy]

7.9.3 Course Deviation
A “DNF”, or a time penalty if so specified in the supplementary
regulations, shall be charged for any uncorrected deviation from the
course, or for unnecessarily delaying the event. A course deviation
shall not be charged if any part of the car hits a marker defining the
limits of the course. A DNF is charged only if part of the course is
omitted. In returning to the course after an off-course excursion, it
is acceptable to drive a part of the course a second time.

In the first example provided it it appears that there is a gate between cones "a" and "b" ....missing this is clearly an off course. However in Dave's final rendition I would have to disagree with the off course designation. The driver has correctly navigated the course having only added an additional gate which appears to be with in the rule stated above.

dude.. just like "the airport loop thing" .. it's cool ONLY IF you don't go through another gate


eg.. a driver gets a bit lost.. goes through a different gate, but then figures out where to go.. then heads back on the path

soon as you enter/hit a gate not part of the section you're supposed to be at = OC

[13inches]

In the first example provided it it appears that there is a gate between cones "a" and "b"

The leaner on cone "b" negates it from being a gate element of "a". It makes a gate with "c" but has no bearing on "a"

[TOYSRUS]

The example you have provided is mis-leading Dave....I can see an off course being charged as you described. You have, however, highlighted the section of the rule I am trying to emphasize....mainly "a dnf is charged only if part of the course is omitted". My contention is you can go thru 10 additional gates as long as you re-enter the course at the correct gate after the last correctly navigated one.

[finboy]

my fault.. i'm bad

I looked at the picture instead of reading what Ryan posted

Brujack is correct



1)read what ryan posted below

2) then look at the picture


I did it the otherway around.. and ended up spinning on my head



sorry folks

[finboy]

The example you have provided is mis-leading Dave....I can see an off course being charged as you described. You have, however, highlighted the section of the rule I am trying to emphasize....mainly "a dnf is charged only if part of the course is omitted". My contention is you can go thru 10 additional gates as long as you re-enter the course at the correct gate after the last correctly navigated one.

1 car at a time.. sure maybe... but with multiple vehicles on course?? nowayjose

[TOYSRUS]

....we agree then:D

[Taylor]

You guys are killing me.

Red is off, Blue is on.

But in the interest of context of the question... the example isn't even drawn properly. Sure at the beginning of the first runs, it was setup this way, then the first loop cone was turned into a gate (and that gate was missed). Beside that, the course was marked in chalk for the course walkthrough what the intended path was.

The ultimate point here should be that the driver entered a gate that is in sequence later in the course layout (loops should not be an issue here, loops are a space constraint issue).. that is off course.

Ultimately it's not in keeping with the intent of the course design.

[TOYSRUS]

So you object to rule 7.9.3 ?

[13inches]

So you object to rule 7.9.3 ?

That's an SCCA rule.

CASC states it:

4.11.15 Did Not Finish (DNF)
Any competitor deviating from the prescribed course shall have that run scored as a DNF (Did Not Finish). An airport loop shall be considered sufficient correction of an off course excursion as long as the competitor enters the course in the same spot as he left the course. An airport loop will only be allowed if executed while the competitor is being timed. A DNF will be scored if a competitor executed an airport loop before his car passes the start line or after he passes the stop line. Should a vehicle reverse (back-up) at any point between the start line and the stop line, this shall be recorded as a DNF.

[finboy]

....we agree then:D


no mang.. your section number doesn't jive

taken from soloontario regs

4.11.15 Did Not Finish (DNF)
Any competitor deviating from the prescribed course shall have that run scored as a DNF (Did Not Finish). An airport loop shall be considered sufficient correction of an off course excursion as long as the competitor enters the course in the same spot as he left the course. An airport loop will only be allowed if executed while the competitor is being timed. A DNF will be scored if a competitor executed an airport loop before his car passes the start line or after he passes the stop line. Should a vehicle reverse (back-up) at any point between the start line and the stop line, this shall be recorded as a DNF.

4.11.16 Airport Loop
An airport loop is considered to have been executed when the vehicle having deviated from the prescribed course, re-enters the course, without reversing, at the point of deviation. .

[TOYSRUS]

no mang.. your section number doesn't jive

taken from soloontario regs

4.11.15 Did Not Finish (DNF)
Any competitor deviating from the prescribed course shall have that run scored as a DNF (Did Not Finish). An airport loop shall be considered sufficient correction of an off course excursion as long as the competitor enters the course in the same spot as he left the course. An airport loop will only be allowed if executed while the competitor is being timed. A DNF will be scored if a competitor executed an airport loop before his car passes the start line or after he passes the stop line. Should a vehicle reverse (back-up) at any point between the start line and the stop line, this shall be recorded as a DNF.

4.11.16 Airport Loop
An airport loop is considered to have been executed when the vehicle having deviated from the prescribed course, re-enters the course, without reversing, at the point of deviation. .


Ryan is correct, 7.9.3 is a SCCA reg, I quoted that one b/c the soloontario leaves plenty of room for interpretation....one could argue that he has entered teh course in teh same spot as he left as indicated in bold

[Taylor]

So you object to rule 7.9.3 ?

Well as mentioned, the layout of the course when you were recorded O/C does not meet the example described. There were 2 gates, therefore you omitted the first gate. And based on that, I'd say case closed.

But I would agree if we followed those rules you could argue (and be rightfully correct in a black and white world) that the course changed, all previous runs be nulled and a new course walk put in so people can see the new change.

Course there really wasn't any actual change to the intended path. Which, again, was marked, in chalk, for the walkthrough. And beyond rules, I, personally, just have an issue with people using words verbatim in a rule book to circumnavigate intent. And on that basis alone, even given the exact example, I would say off-course. But that's me playing god/chief marshal, whatever.

Even beyond all that, this was PITL, we don't use the same rulebook, it's more a guide. And it's been since shown even the CASC rulebook would favor my conclusion.

Perhaps an important discussion for anal regional competition, but not the 9 class PITL system. Again, just speaking in context.

[finboy]

with the airport loop thing.. i have no issues if they don't enter a separate part of the course

but if they do, they're not following the first sentence thingy

4.11.15 Did Not Finish (DNF)
Any competitor deviating from the prescribed course shall have that run scored as a DNF (Did Not Finish).

[TOYSRUS]

And beyond rules, I, personally, just have an issue with people using words verbatim in a rule book to circumnavigate intent. And on that basis alone, even given the exact example, I would say off-course. But that's me playing god/chief marshal, whatever.

Even beyond all that, this was PITL, we don't use the same rulebook, it's more a guide. And it's been since shown even the CASC rulebook would favor my conclusion.

Perhaps an important discussion for anal regional competition, but not the 9 class PITL system. Again, just speaking in context.

I am not sure any of us knows for sure what the intent of the rule is, and in no way am I trying to circumvent it, just attempting to interpret as it is written. And I don't think this discussion is pointing finger at the PITL series, merely an interesting situation that applies to SOLO II in general.

[ZOOMiata]

I don't think we can rely on chalk to guide us to the proper sequence, for two reasons. First, when it's on the intended path it rarely lasts. Second, I'm trying to look far ahead, not read the road in front of me.

The PITL event was great -- I appreciate that the course was modified quickly to correct a confusing sequence of cones. Once that change had been made there were far less OCs at that corner.

[BarbyCar]

Interesting conversation guys. To Zoomiata's point, I don't think there should have been changes made after the event was started. All competitors had equal opportunity to walk and study the course and an OC is as much part of the event as a cone penalty. The only valid reason I can see to change a layout after the start of an event is for safety,

[Marsh]

I don't think we can rely on chalk to guide us to the proper sequence, for two reasons. First, when it's on the intended path it rarely lasts. Second, I'm trying to look far ahead, not read the road in front of me.

The point of chalk marks is for the COURSE WALK! If you need lines on the road to remind you after the walk then you really need to either start making your own maps during the walk or find another hobby.

[nitrowsb]

(scratches head) I didn't even realize the course changed...was this done during lunch?

Now when will the results get posted?:p:p

[DareBee]

Half way through the first run, we added a cone beside cone B to make a gate with cone A.

But even before we did that my opinion is that this deviating from the prescribed course covers the OCs that were handed out.
Either way the red and blue drive lines were WAY longer.

[ZOOMiata]

The point of chalk marks is for the COURSE WALK! If you need lines on the road to remind you after the walk then you really need to either start making your own maps during the walk or find another hobby.

I agree -- but another poster suggested that the course was chalked, so people should know where to go.

And I like this hobby -- almost everyone I've met in it is a class act. Almost everyone.

[finboy]

someone should have said

remove the middle cones and run it like this

(that's it for me on this thing.. promise)

[Taylor]

I am not sure any of us knows for sure what the intent of the rule is, and in no way am I trying to circumvent it, just attempting to interpret as it is written. And I don't think this discussion is pointing finger at the PITL series, merely an interesting situation that applies to SOLO II in general.

I'm not speaking to the rule, I'm speaking to the intent of the course.

And the only reason I'm bringing up PITL and that course is it is the trigger of the whole discussion.

I don't think we can rely on chalk to guide us to the proper sequence, for two reasons. First, when it's on the intended path it rarely lasts. Second, I'm trying to look far ahead, not read the road in front of me.

The chalk is for the course walk. The intent of a course walk is to learn the course before wasting your limited # of driven runs on it. It's a very important and valuable skill in the sport (that does take a bit of time to acquire, but it is the point of a course walk). The chalk is in no way meant to be read while driving. It's to assist the course walk which in turn shows you the path of the course during which drivers are trying to work out their lines and how to negotiate it. Multiple course walks are HIGHLY encouraged, especially for novice drivers. When you're done your course walks, you should (or at least, I think you should) be able to visualize each and every turn/gate on the course with your eyes closed.

Barby: There really wasn't a change, so much as another cone was placed with a leaner on it to help the novices who may not have acquired the skill mentioned above. The only actual technical change that it made was it would have made the blue line off course because it then formed a gate where there was just a course barrier cone. Also I believe it was changed within the first 20 cars. A very minor thing, not a habit but within the spirit of PITL events and our excessive use of leaners. :p

[TOYSRUS]

someone should have said

remove the middle cones and run it like this

(that's it for me on this thing.. promise)

Mr.Mom has spoken.......:D
Are we gonna see you on sunday?

[finboy]

Mr.Mom has spoken.......:D
Are we gonna see you on sunday?

:) first event, and might be the only one for me

[Taylor]

You coming to the tdot? or is there an Ottawa event this sunday?

[finboy]

You coming to the tdot? or is there an Ottawa event this sunday?

ottawa, i haven't touched a GTA cone in two years