1

iTrader: (30)

Where's Doorz gone?

RETRO R/C

iTrader: (57)

You asked for proposals......that was one................

We are talking about 4 FULL race meetings - not one race meeting.

In other words: The series should be decided in FULL meeting terms. If 3 meetings have completed successfully and the last cannot be completed because of weather or other significant reason - then the result should be declared on the results of the best three - just like a single race meeting? You get my drift?

At the absolute most - the results of the "effected" meeting should be given half points - or none at all - just like my above suggestion.

Cheers

Darryn

RETRO R/C

iTrader: (57)

Not the point is it. Meeting was called was it not?

Can only go by the conversations I have had.

Cheers

Darryn

Radio Active

iTrader: (2)

We have rules about what constitutes a meeting. We asked the Series organiser what we required, and we were told 2 full rounds of qualifying. The same thing happens at State Titles. As a competitor you have to be prepared for the possibility that the meeting might be curtailed and plan and race accordingly.

Half points would make a mockery of the whole thing. The club with the half point home meeting would be severely disadvantaged (clubs usually win their home round).

If you want to make a case for increasing the portion of the meeting that has to be run for it to be declared I think that's valid. However, that would force us to come back for a re-run (nothing short of that would be fair), but that adds another meeting you don't want.

If you're suggesting the half round should have counted for the classes it was completed for, then I agree with you. That's always been my interpretation of the rule as well (and the one TJ used at Edgeworth this year). But the Head Timekeeper and Series organiser went with the other interpretation, which is that the full round for all classes needed to be completed for it to count for any of them. I've seen it applied like this before too, but I still don't think that's correct.

RETRO R/C

iTrader: (57)

Not talking about a re-run - what's done is done.

Nothing saying it cant be done right next year though.

Cheers

Darryn

RETRO R/C

iTrader: (57)

Yeah - I keep digging the same FREAKING hole too - year after year, meeting after meeting!!



Jeez - I'd look like a freaking huge canary - or worse - a Balmain/Tigers supporter!!

Cheers

Darryn

Radio Active

iTrader: (2)

RETRO R/C

iTrader: (57)

Its getting late - and I am getting to the point where I cant really be arsed anymore.

*** EDIT: Misread your post - thought you were suggesting a re-run of this years last CC round at Maitland***

My last statement was in reference to the fact that we could perhaps look into a better solution for next year should an "unforeseen circumstance" cut the final meeting short again next year and into future years.

Full points for less than half a meeting in a four round series is pretty shabby and in fact GIVES AN ADVANTAGE to the host club in this rather specific case from this year..............they know the track and tend to be higher up the qualifying order while others learn the track before the finals..................

cheers

Darryn

1

iTrader: (30)

Yeah, sometimes these things aren't pretty when they end. Lets keep it positive, what is done is done. All conflicts over titles need to happen before or during the conclusion. If things go a way you don't feel is right. Tough, swallow it, settle it next year with a clean slate.

I had to learn this lesson.

Rain is a bitch.

1

iTrader: (30)

Now how can I get baggz and I suspended to delay his 3000 post milestone?

RETRO R/C

iTrader: (57)

Honestly not trying to be negative at all - just love to see that things are fair for everyone. Pretty sure most of you know that.

We all have to learn from experience - I am sure there are more than a few racers on here that can attest to that fact.

Cheers

Darryn

RETRO R/C

iTrader: (57)

Keep posting on the Ryde thread - Nick well eventually pop a valve - surely??

Cheers

Darryn

Radio Active

iTrader: (2)

In general a curtailed meeting does give a slight advantage to the host club, not as much of a disadvantage as half points would be IMO, but no one plans to have it raining at their meeting, sometimes these things just happen.

I don't think we got an advantage this year though. The State Titles were run on the same track only 1 month previous. There'd been 1 club meeting in between. Everyone was fairly familiar with the track.

I was there for the entire practice day Saturday and put only 1 pack through each car, there just wasn't much more I could learn from additional practice, and I haven't been able to do a club meeting there since April; I only got the State Titles practice days like the Sydney guys.

Fordy

iTrader: (28)

I understand the point your making and don't disagree...but let me give you another example. I live on the North Coast, with Taree being my closest track, so thats where I do my club racing. But they are not part of the RC Aust Body, so I needed to join Maitland to run the big events.

Using your example I guess I would not be aloud to race the Club Series, I'm not an A Main racer so people probably would not care. Just trying to show how implementing one rule to exclude unfair practises would also restrict other drivers.

doorz

iTrader: (2)

Fair call,,its just that I thought the idea of a club challenge was just that ,,club members racing against other club members,[definition;members that race at club meets regulary,members that help out with the club all year with working bees track maintinence,being involved in the club all year,not just for 4 meets a year,,it turns the newer racer away,knowing that they are racing against a ringin,where without the ringins they win races,]

There is always going to be special situations like yourself,we understand that,,,
we're just discussing ways to improve the cc,,,
no offence meant,,