Kevin Stevens wrote:
>I don't understand what you're getting at here, Barry.
>Can you expound?
>IMAE, differences between fast/slow cars are usually
>handled by the starter by changing the overlap point
>a bit. Waiting a few seconds to send a fast car after
>a slow one is offset by being able to start a slow car
>quickly after a fast one.
Sure, I'll expound, but don't call me Barry :)
Adjusting the overlap point may makes sense*, but I haven't really seen it
happen at the events I've been to. Definitely not at GGF this past weekend,
and I'm pretty sure not before... at least in my run groups and the ones I
worked.
I'm sure it depends on the starter person, and their knowledge of the class
they're working, and their experience in judging that kind of thing, but it
means they have to pay attention to the cars finishing as well as
starting... it just seems to be asking a lot for that worker position.
I'm not even suggesting that staggering fast/medium/slow cars is worth
doing, just that in general it would allow cars to run closer together (or
more frequently, really, given your valid point about cone retrieval and
whatnot). The they would be to reduce the number of times that a slow car
takes a long time getting to the overlap point, thereby making the next car
wait longer.
-b
* On second thought, does it really make sense? If you have slow car
followed by a fast car, surely you don't move the overlap point sooner on
the track, right? Unless you're expecting the slower car to suddenly go
faster halfway through... the way I see it, alternating slow and fast cars
will mean a normal (25 second) gap at start after each fast car, and a
longer gap after each slow car. Am I missing something? Are the differences
here too minute to worry about?
|