Question about Time between Heats

[pack529holycross]

What is the MOST efficient Race Operation you have witnessed in real time? The reason I ask is because in order to gauge the length of an event, the elapsed time between Heats x number of Heats = elapsed time for the racing. I am trying to gauge the number of qualifying cars to allow into the Council Derby, and then extrapolate that to a total race time based on 30 sec , 45 sec, 60 sec, 90 sec intervals betwen heats...

Any input would be greatly appreciated

Additionally, I am going for a target of 6 hours TOTAL for the entire event ( I am the eternal optimist )


nicholas

[Mr. Slick]

The fastest I have seen is 42 seconds average for 125 cars. This was done by a Girl Scout Service Unit (think Boy Scout District) that has been doing races for several years. The GIRLS ran the entire event - everything from picking and staging the cars to the announcing of the racers and the results of the heats.

The limiting factor is really the announcing. If there were no announcing the best I have done is to run a heat every 10 seconds or so. The staging of the cars takes longer then the actual race times. Just remember not to close the gate to start staging the next heat until after the current heat has finished and the times have been sent to the computer!

6 hours = 360 minutes

I would recommend that you limit it to 250 cars unless you have several groups of people to take turns behind the scenes since they will need a couple of breaks in the 6 hours.

BTW, I am assuming that ALL of the check-in is done outside of the 6 hours.

[gpraceman]

Our race crew has averaged as low as 35 secs a heat on a 4 lane track. On a 6 lane track, you'd be doing very good to run 45 secs per heat, since you have two extra cars to load and return for each heat.

Here's a few things that can help reduce the heat turnaround time:

+ Have the race schedule printed off so your crew can have one or even more heats pre-staged. As soon as the last car finished, the next set of cars should start being loaded.
+ Have someone assigned to put returning cars back in their assigned "parking spot". That makes sure the staging crew can pull cars as fast as possible.
+ Have two people loading cars. One actually loads and the other's job is to verify that they are in the correct lanes. This helps from having to re-re-run heats.

[mbb]

the only person to ever touch a childs car after weigh in/check should be the child.

it is their race, it is all for them. the placement of the car on the start line CAN affect race time by .01 sec . This is an active part of racing the car, and is enjoyed by the boys.

It is my belief that using others to stage or handle the cars is a sign of not having the boys interests at heart.

[gpraceman]

the only person to ever touch a childs car after weigh in/check should be the child.

it is their race, it is all for them. the placement of the car on the start line CAN affect race time by .01 sec . This is an active part of racing the car, and is enjoyed by the boys.

It is my belief that using others to stage or handle the cars is a sign of not having the boys interests at heart.

Everyone is due their opinion, but I can see both sides of that argument. When possible, it is preferable to have the kids load their own cars. However, in a large race, like a district or council race, that can become unworkable.

[Mr. Slick]

Having the boys stage their own cars is the best way - if you have the time.

BTW, the track I use for non-league racing is a six lane track, hence the 42 seconds. . .

As far as times when individuals stage their own cars verses having a specific well trained individual staging all of the cars . . . .

At a recent race with 150+ cars the race lasted for over 10 hours with only 5 breaks between the groups. That many cars would have normally been 2.5 hours when we have the single trained stager.

If you have individual racers stage their cars plan on up to a minute per car per heat. This will allow the last person to stage their car to get around to be able to watch the race too!

Someday we might be able to figure out how to have a lot of races quickly without reducing the amount of racer involvement. . . . still looking for ideas on how to do this.

[pack529holycross]

I have monkeyed around with the concept of a finals series after running all the cars within a rank - I.E. run 50 tiger cars on a 6 lane track, take the top 6 after the "prelims" and run a 6 car round to determine final placement. Having the kids involved in that scenario allows them to be on center stage for the most important races, and I think will be at a minimum workable. Perhaps having them up on a platform for starting then allows the awards to be handed to them right then and there, with cars in hand, for a solid photo op and a nice pinacle to their day..


good input from everyone!

nicholas

[gpraceman]

Something else that you might consider. Even if you have a 6 lane track, you do not have to use all of those lanes. Only running 4 lanes will speed up the event and still allow for a reasonable amount of racing for each racer.

[pack529holycross]

Something else that you might consider. Even if you have a 6 lane track, you do not have to use all of those lanes. Only running 4 lanes will speed up the event and still allow for a reasonable amount of racing for each racer.

I concur, but as always, lane equality and avoiding points ties is always in the back of my mind. Keeping the number of heats that any single car as high as possible helps to level those variables and suppress numerical or hardware handicaps.

Nicholas

PS - do you think there would be any protests from the parents of the designated "top 6" about running an additional round to determine placement? I.E. " my son came in first after the prelims but only 2nd in the top 6 round... FOUL!

[gpraceman]

I concur, but as always, lane equality and avoiding points ties is always in the back of my mind. Keeping the number of heats that any single car as high as possible helps to level those variables and suppress numerical or hardware handicaps.

The tie issue I can see. If using the Perfect-N type charts lane equity is not a problem.

PS - do you think there would be any protests from the parents of the designated "top 6" about running an additional round to determine placement? I.E. " my son came in first after the prelims but only 2nd in the top 6 round... FOUL!

With a high number of racers, doing a second round of the fastest cars is recommended. Foul, not at all, since cars would not likely to have gone head to head against all of the other finalists (unless the race group size is quite small).

Anyways, if that is how you explain how the race will be conducted up front, you likely will not get complaints. People should understand that first round performance does not gaurantee that a car will perform the same in a second round. Some cars may get faster, some may get slower. It is all apart of the race dynamics.

[pack529holycross]

Ok... another question... with regards to the District and Council Level....


Beyond a kid becoming the top Rank Champion at the District Level, should there be a runoff series of every Rank Champion to deterimine the top car at the event? I know at the Pack Level, we run that type of Pack Champion Series, but we aren't doing the Prelim/Finalists thing in each rank.


Thoughts? Is crowning Rank Champions sufficient at District and Council, or does there need to be an "EVENT CHAMPION" ?


Nicholas

[Stan Pope]

PS - do you think there would be any protests from the parents of the designated "top 6" about running an additional round to determine placement? I.E. " my son came in first after the prelims but only 2nd in the top 6 round... FOUL!

If the same number of heats is run in the finals as in the prelims, and if the prelim times are tossed, then the finals don't add any accuracy! (You might consider that the contestants would be staging more carefully in the finals, but that was their responsibility all through the prelims, too.)

For the finals to be more accurate, either the final times need to be incorporated with the prelim times, or the finals need more heats per racer.

What I found from simulations with actual live data from district/council race quality cars is that average heat times (and therefore, final placement) become more representative of the car as the number of heats increases. The reason is that there is some randomness in individual heat times. For district-quality cars, the cars tend to be closer together in performance and so the normal run-to-run variation in a car's times has more influence in the final result.

Combining prelim and final times would be contraindicated if there were reason to question the consistency of timings throughout the preliminary competition. But that would raise question about the correct selection of the finalists!

[gpraceman]

If the same number of heats is run in the finals as in the prelims, and if the prelim times are tossed, then the finals don't add any accuracy! (You might consider that the contestants would be staging more carefully in the finals, but that was their responsibility all through the prelims, too.)

For the finals to be more accurate, either the final times need to be incorporated with the prelim times, or the finals need more heats per racer.

That seems a little surprising, since you've before recommended running a prelim round to weed out the slower racers and then a finals round for the trophies.

If the number of racers is small (enough to yield a CPN chart) then I can see skipping the prelim round.

[pack529holycross]

oh god stan.. you're getting into that technical mumbo jumbo that makes my head hurt so bad.....


are you saying that if I have 75 tiger cars and run them perfect N on a 6 lane track..... that taking the top 6 and rerunning them would be LESS if a benefit as far as content for the event than just ranking the top cars from the initial round?

My thoughts thus far on doing a second "top 6" round would allow for an opportunity for those kids to stage their own cars for those 6 races. ( should there be 12 races/ 2 per lane? ). and once they are complete, the rankings can be instantly announced - the kids are all up there, with their cars - group shot, trophy shots, get off the stage, goodbye, thank you for playing... next group..


Comments?

nicholas

[Stan Pope]

Ya gotta remember context!

For points racing, the prelim/finals makes sense, since that allows you to use a CPN chart instead of a PPN chart. A CPN chart is more accurate than a PPN for points racing if the number of heats per racer doesn't change.

For timed racing the CPN chart doesn't add accuracy to the timings. Adding rounds (round, in my usage, is one heat per lane per car) adds accuracy to the average.

If I run a one-round preliminary and a one-round final, neither can be said to be more accurate than the other. They are just possibly different results.

If you believe that the prelim results are representative (i.e. that the stager did consistent quality work in staging), then it is reasonable to include prelim times in the average.

If there is a question about the stager's work quality, then extra cars (maybe twice as many as you have trophies to award) should advance to the finals and the prelim times tossed. In this case, the finals can be considered to be more representative (accurate) even with the owner-driver doing the staging for the same number of heats as in the prelim. But, I'd still run more heats in the finals, because of the closeness of the competitors ... make the run-to-run variance average out!