ba-autox
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 2000 Winter Slush Series-revised

To: "Talley, Brooks" <brooks@frnk.com>
Subject: Re: 2000 Winter Slush Series-revised
From: Pat Kelly <lollipop@ricochet.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 16:46:54 -0700
The basic problem was we could not start another car until the first was
just about finished...a safety problem with the course; the two sections
came too close together.
--Pat Kelly

"Talley, Brooks" wrote:
> 
> 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?

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>