This is getting funny.

I don't think so

Does this revelation mean there is going to be a positive or a negative effect on clubs, will clubs update to a current program or will they try and struggle on with a redundant version? maybe its time for people with the rights to the various other programs to come to the rescue, with discounted license rates etc.

Ken my thoughts are with you, and anyone else that is having personal problems.

Trev - it would be ignorant to boycott a race meeting based solely on the system being used, there just arent that many big meetings in Australia to pick and choose.

Its amusing how everyone has gone personal, i believe Mackem created the thread to talk about ways of improving meetings, being from a program point of view, hardware, or just the general knowledge of the user. IMO if a club puts their hand up for a major meeting then they should have a current lap scoring program, an up to date hardware setup, the knowledge to operate it effectively, and most of all that all the components when combined operate effectively.

In the last few meetings i can think of the following issues:

Tamworth - Power spikes, to my knowledge they were not running a UPS or a surge protector.
Wodonga - a borrowed system incorrectly set up.
ACT - according to Steve, a new PC not proven.

This info is from memory so if it is incorrect please advise, but they all relate to a lack of preparation on the clubs behalf, most of the discussion to now has been on the software alone, while it has been pointed out that the program has been at the centre of a number of issues, the whole system needs to be investigated. I would like to see all major meeting attain a ARCMACCA's approval under which things like track condition, and lapscoring systems are meant to be up to scratch. But for whatever reason this was not upheld in relation to Wodonga.

While RC in Aus is such a small market i dont see it getting any bigger if we continue to put up with less than professional meetings, my thanks go out to those that put the required effort into running meetings, but misdirected effort is no help to us either.

Maybe the step after that is to withdraw it from the world. As for your personal issues. If you get so tied up in this forum re alycat you should consider counselling.

And Trev you should stop getting so defensive it isnt the best program weather it be its complexity or whatever it is. the meets that its been run at have generally had an issue the meets without Moorebank EC are generally flawelesly run meetings why?

Cause they dont use Alycat.

Another thing to look at Steve has only been running meets for 2 years and i recall 1 problem with the system where as others with Alycat have been running it for 5 + years and seem to have problems regardless.

This is a problem where experincing with Alycat not you Trev so stop getting worked up

as i had mention more testing should be conducted but individual clubs. If all runs well at a club day dont change things before a big meeting. the quirky timing issues seems to happen at several big meetings, would be nice to know what causes it.

Like at ACT on the weekend... super quick lap times and exagerated race times and cars not counting at all. Not the first meeting to have these exact problems.

Timing system has nothing to do with what meeting i choose to attend or the result, if we have major pain in the butt issues though its fair game to cry out for a solution.

There are certainly more than two or three people complaining, majority choose to not publicly say anything though. Alycat may not always be the issue but there are problems and its a common factor. Maybe a new back to basics system would be an improvment.

If clubs are running old versions they should be told and not given big meetings unless the timing system is proven to work properly. All clubs can afford to upgrade to the lastest version i'm sure.

Why? They represent well over 75% of the Alycat user base and have less than 5% of the problems, etc..

Some common sense at last. The purpose of this thread was absolutely not to bash the software or the race officials. It seems from the discussion, no matter how rational, or irrational it has been, that the problem may well be that the version of the software and the hardware used are not compatable, especially when the resources are a little stretched with a large field.

If this is the case, are the users just ignoring the requirements of the software or is there a lack of communication regarding system requirements?

If we need a new computer, say held by ARCMACC, which will run big meetings, then surely those funds could easily be raised. There must have been close to 200 entries for last weekend. How difficult would it be to put a $5.00 levy on all ARCMACC affilliated events for the rest of the year. That should raise more than enough funds to slove the problem. Or am I wrong.

You could do worse then revert to the way it used to be with ROORDA, etc, (and which is the way it is done in some overseas places I am aware of and have been involved with) with one PC used to run all major meetings (would have the advantage of having most entries already in the database), and with one person charged with attending those meetings and running the events. Needless to say, entry prior to race day should be mandatory (there are several free online systems available so there should never be a need for on the day entries) - this would give the race director the ability to do what I always did in this circumstance the night before, set up the meeting and let it run through on automatic, this of course doesn't eliminate all possible problems but it is a big help. AMBrc's should also be mandatory. If the (major) version of the software remains the same, any problems experienced at one meeting could be fixed and tested before the next such meeting, rather than it seems to continue to run old copies of software with various PCs and OSes and various varieties of transponders.

To those who think I am getting personal yes I am. For a long time Ken and I have been friends and he is going though very difficult time I know I've been there, and when people that have really know idea what happened on the weekend bag a program and a friend ( yes it is the same) like that I do get personal, you would do the same if the rolls were reversed.
I know the MM start this thread in a different direct and if it would have stayed in that direction I would not have had a problem.
I hate to say it though but I do agree with what Brad said and it seem that thread has turn so we can get back to the matter at hand.

This has been previously been raised to me for consideration. It is a good idea, however along with the positives there are negatives.

1. Who pays for postage
2. Who pays for damage, loss - "It was in perfect order / It was all there when I sent it to you..."
3. Club - Why should I have to use your computer, etc when mine works perfectly?
4. Which software to use? No matter which one we pick there is a good chance that people won't know or have a very limited knowledge of how to use it so we are back to square one.


What we have to remember is that we are trying to get high quality timing on dodgy build quality, electrically noisy computers, which run dodgy operating systems, which are running on dodgy power (due to all of our power supplies plugged in on the same circuit). If that's not enough it relies on electric induction / radio waves just to get the signal from the transponder. That's a whole another science in itself...

Perhaps we had better go back to manual timing. that would reduce the transponder problem. I don't see the Tourers or F1 having the same problems.

If the power supply is a problem, then clubs should have a dedicated outlet for the computer system. With facilities like Tamworth and Wodonga, these issues are a small fraction of the cost of setting up the facility in the first place.

Hmmm multi million dollar events compared to our $2 events.
Maybe we should raise the entry fees to cover the costs the clubs will have to foot.
I still don't see a problem with $60 to $100 per class entry fee, considering the thousands of dollars most racers spend on their equipment

I actually know one of the guys who runs the computer system at the Australian tracks, and have been to the track - compared to RC racing, there was an awful lot of running around in the computer area, heaps of manual adjustments and there are about 6 people involved. But at least, unlike RC, they generally have "real" transponders, with a rising/falling signal to have a better idea when a car actually crossed the line. It has always amazed me how in RC we assume transponders create some huge sense of accuracy, but at the end of the day we are just averaging the time in and out of the loop, could well be quite a few metres so we are assuming a uniform speed in all of that distance.

Point 1, we use the same gear that big events do, AMB is used in alot of motosport.

Point 2, I also don't see that given the amount of money clubs must make from large meets (at current entry fee) that they can't upgrade the 286 computer that they have run for the last 10 years with and buy proven race software.

Also I don't see why clubs should have to supply a transponder. If you want to race then supply your own personal tranny. I don't own one because I don't have to, but I would at the drop of a hat if I had to. This would also save club money and hopefully upgrade the timing system.

Coxy.