Besides holding the start many times, we often did not have a car ready to
go because we were struggling to read the barcodes and communicate between
the barcode guy and the trailer. We had issues with people who were running
in the wrong group and did not indicate so. All of which are problems we
can easily solve and should not take away from our awesome new T&S system.
All I'm saying is why don't we give it more time before we push the panic
button? There is no doubt the 8 run group system is a better system for
events with over 250 participants, but the reason we went to 6 run groups
was because we were not seeing those kind of numbers at our events. The 6
run group format may or may not work for us anyway, but we need to give it a
fighting chance.
--Navid
>
> So I've been quiet. :) There is no going back and redoing anything on
> Boondoggle. We all knew it would have a large turnout, fortunately not 341
> as once happened. On that event, with 8 heats and cards the last car made
> its final run just as the sun set.
> Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and if we use it as a tool to learn
> from, it is even useful. But if we sit around and verbally clobber each
> other, nothing is gained except hard feelings.
> Two long delays happened with mechanical failures and getting two very
> nice cars off the site without doing any more damage to them. What, about
> a
> half-hour each? That's an hour, which, if they hadn't happened, would have
> had the event finishing at 6 instead of 7.
> I don't know if the new T&S program slowed us down very much, I've
> heard
> "hold that car" just about as frequently at previous events where we used
> the cards. Those problems, either with paper of electronic, have to do
> with
> the inability to know what number & class the car about to run was going
> to
> use. Either way, it drives T&S folks nuts.
> So why did an event with about 265 last at least an hour and a half
> longer (discounting the two broken cars) than the one with 341?
> Hey Buehler, got an answer? :)
> We should look at the cause of that, please. There are so many
> analytical type folks on this list, I'm sure we'll get a thoughtful
> answer.
> --Pat Kelly
|