marcus981 wrote:I can understand people hitting some pointer cones (the ones right next to a standing cone), but we intentionally put the directional cones (three laying down) far off-line, so I'm a little surprised that any of those got hit.
jbrennen wrote:Agreed, and especially because folks like me who come from SCCA events may have heard that directional and pointer cones do not count for penalties.
If cones are used to mark the course, the penalty for hitting a cone during a
timed run is an additional two (2) seconds per cone added to the applicable
lap time. If a competitor knocks over a pylon or moves it completely
outside its outline, the penalty will be incurred. All pylons will have the
same penalty. The Event Chairperson is responsible for ensuring that
participants understand what cones are included as course markers. Grid
and pre-grid cones may count if that is announced prior to timed runs.
Four wheels off the designated course will constitute a DNF (did not
finish). Four wheels off in a warm-up or cool-down lap will result in the
first or last timed run being declared a DNF, respectively.
Yes, with the level of competition in most classes, a single cone penalty pretty much destroys your run as far as being competitive. There might be a case where that isn't true, though, so we should clarify this issue for all drivers and apply it consistently.Since the three pointer cones were collected while the car was sideways, it's pretty much academic whether it was a one-cone penalty, a four-cone penalty, or a DNF. That run was a throwaway.
That is exactly the way I would have called it.A car hit one standing cone, and that was all that the car hit. But the standing cone was deflected into another standing cone and knocked it out of its box. I called it as a two cone penalty, which I assume is the correct interpretation.
When they were hit, the car was already out of control from a previous mistake, which was carried further down the course to the boundary cones.marcus981 wrote:Thanks all for the inputs about the directional and pointer cones. I can understand people hitting some pointer cones (the ones right next to a standing cone), but we intentionally put the directional cones (three laying down) far off-line, so I'm a little surprised that any of those got hit.
Calling a DNF for people that hit those or go beyond those may be fine, although I don't know if it's necessary, since the driver would have to be so far off line, they couldn't possibly get a good time. We can discuss and clarify for the future though.
ScandinavianFlick wrote:It took a special kind of idiot
ttweed wrote:If the corner worker is going to have to replace something to restore the course for the next driver passing through, there should be a penalty, by my thinking, so as not to encourage such activity.
cag4 wrote:I'll also point out that CC-09 1st/2nd was separated by 0.01 of a second between Herb Meeder's set-up '99 Boxster and my '70 911 hotrod...
ttweed wrote:cag4 wrote:I'll also point out that CC-09 1st/2nd was separated by 0.01 of a second between Herb Meeder's set-up '99 Boxster and my '70 911 hotrod...
Wow, Charles, that was a close one! BTDT. I lost TTOD to Mark K. in the July event last year by .01 sec. I coned away my best run and had to stand on my second best. Definitely a heartbreaker. Leaves you wondering what you might have done to go just .02 faster...
I saw there was another .01 sec. battle in CC08 for 2nd and 3rd between Jim B. and Bill I. It was nice to see Tami and Bill out at an AX again in their 968!
Tt
Ryan McClune wrote:Speaking of those close calls, Jim Binford is really getting used to that Cayman S and driving it very well.
I really thought he had me on Sunday in CC08 after practice runs.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 216 guests