Gotta ask...

[cfossum]

That's too bad.
I thought it was a worthwhile question, especially if you have a possible improvement in mind.
I'm no efficiency expert, but usually it pays to evaluate a given method in order to streamline a process.
Believe me, I know all about putting in tons of time as a volunteer for the club. But at the same time, I'm always looking for easier ways to get it all done.
Jeff, if you are raising a hand to help out, then thank you. You should contact the folks who currently do it and see how you can help.
-Carl

[timmmy]

This is not going in the right direction... The idea was to open dialog as to how things could be improved for everyone, including those generous folks volunteering their time. Defense of their efforts is not necessary. Futhermore, just because things have improved from the darkages doesn't mean they are being done in the best manner possible.

I'll drop this agenda item as it seems that rather than taking a critical look at the process with an eye toward improvement, folks seem to be entrenched in defense of what seems to be a flawed (yet admittedly vastly improved) process.

It seems that some small process changes would benefit all, oh well. Thanks for the feedback and I apologize for wasting y'all's time.

Jeff

Hey Jeff,

Carl is right, please dont get the wrong end of the stick here. if you can help come up with any improvements that would be great .

I was just buttering Raj up as he can be moody (ROFLAO), and trust me you dont want to see him wiht his wig on.

Timmmy

[rajito]

Ha! I don't know which caused more pain/hilarity - the mohawk or the wig.

I agree with Carl - if improvements can be done, they should be. Your areas of concern seem to be:
1. Announce the times as they occur during time trials (like at Auto-X)
1.5. Improve tech'ing process for potential class record setters
2. Get the results posted sooner, even if they are preliminary

I don't want to babble up a storm on the forums, nor do I fully understand the timing process, but if you want to shoot me an email - rajawesome@gmail.com - I can explain what I do know.

Raj

[WillM]

It seems to me that it makes sense to post preliminary results and have them subject to change before finalization. This would allow all club members to see the results in a timely fashion AND it would assist in the verification process. Club members with vested interests in results are likely to pay careful attention to the prelim results. The more eyes the better.

From what I understand, the membership is completely removed from the “verificationâ€

[PaddyMcP]

I think what Jeff is really trying to say is - he wants his $330 back!

IMHO if you take time trials seriously, and you get excited about the competition portion of the weekend you should stay for trophies. If you don't stay for trophies then don't complain.

However, i do agree with you Jeff when you say, "maybe there is a more efficient way to do this with less hassle." All these systems that are in place within the club can be improved upon - not to say that things aren't running well as it is. This can be a touchy subject with the board members and serious volunteers. Mark S. and Carl were telling me just how much time they spend prepping for each event and i got tired just thinking about it.

Regardless, the volunteers are working super hard. It is not going unnoticed - you all do an awesome job.

- Paddy

[Seven]

Raj, I'll send you an email later today...maybe we can do some vulcan mind-meld and drum something up...

Will, in response...

Verification implies (in part) confirmation that results make sense. This is most clearly illustrated by Dan's comment earlier about the winning time being announced as a 1:20.9 when in fact it was a 1:29:x. May have been misread at the awards ceremony, but this is the easiest example of the type of error that would surely have been caught had the results been posted through-out the afternoon. Verification takes many forms, and like I said before, just because things are done differently now doesn't make them optimal.

Regarding the building of anticipation for the awards ceremony, there is certainly a point to be made. However, you may maintain that sense of surprise by choosing not to look at the results before the ceremony. I think it best to provide the membership options rather than to lure folks into staying till the last moment under the promise of revealing results. Those who embrace that aspect of the event will stay anyways...those who don't, won't.

If the onus is placed on the record setter to "prove" compliance, the process should be made a transparent as possible. By witholding the times till the very end of the day you force those who "think" they performed well to waste the time of the stewards by requesting a tech on the off chance they broke the existing record. If people were "in the know" they would request tech after every time trial on the off-chance they happened to break the existing record (I know I will). Better safe than sorry, right? This clearly is not the intent of the rule, but certainly a possible by-product. Furthermore, I know of several track records that are not in the books as the post TT tech requirement is not necessarily widely understood. Your recommendation to publicize this requirement certainly sounds like a good idea.

I'm not sure I understand the following..."it is necessary for the stewards to get together and compare the list of cars eligible for track records against the list of cars teched for track records" Can you clarify???

Will, in all sincerity, thanks for the feedback. It's the only way to better understand the process. Ultimately, the club stands to benefit if by no other means than to increase everyone's overall awareness.

Btw, where/when (time) is the meeting?

Thanks!!!

[Mark Swinehart]

Monthly General and Board Meetings
In addition to track events, COM also has monthly meetings, in which the business of the running the club is attended to by the Officers and Board of Directors.

When COM has a track event, the monthly General Meeting is usually held after one of the day's events, typically the first of the two track days. This gives the club Officers a chance to update the members on what is going on, and solicit input from the membership. When there is no track event scheduled for a particular month, the General Meeting is held one-half-hour before the monthly Board Meeting.

At the monthly Board Meeting, the Officers and Board of Directors gather to conduct the business of running the club. These meetings are open to all members, and the Board Meeting is the official forum in which members may make suggestions, lodge complaints, ask questions, and propose rules changes. The Board Meeting is also the best way to find out about how the club is run, and even volunteer to help with the many tasks that are required to run the club and its events.

The monthly Board Meeting is held on the third Wednesday evening of the month at 7:30pm at The Ground Round, on Route 110 in Chelmsford (exit 34 off 495, near the intersection with Route 3)

[rajito]

i.e., tomorrow

[Seven]

Sweet. Thanks for the logistics info. I'll try to make it for the mtg. Raj, maybe we can chat then...

[rajito]

Jeff, I won't be at the meeting. I've to prep the car for NHIS this weekend. Feel free to shoot me an email.

Raj

[offcamber09]

Jeff, I won't be at the meeting. I've to prep the car for NHIS this weekend. Feel free to shoot me an email.

Raj

Part timer

[WillM]

Will, in response...

Verification implies (in part) confirmation that results make sense.

I am not a part of the timing & scoring team, so I cannot comment on their behalf, but I will share my view from 20,000 feet. From your post, I have yet to understand where verification of results would be more efficiently handled by 550+ active COM members than by the dedicated crew who have this responsibility.

This is most clearly illustrated by Dan's comment earlier about the winning time being announced as a 1:20.9 when in fact it was a 1:29:x. May have been misread at the awards ceremony

That is exactly what happened. The result was read as a "One minute, Twenty, Nine", and then clarified as "One minute, twenty, POINT nine...". The results were correct on paper, and the trophies were correctly awarded.

As far as I am concerned, time trial results should not be open to discussion. We have volunteers that take their responsibility very seriously (and do a good job at it). If more volunteers would like to step up and be a part of that team, then great, but I have yet to understand the benefit of opening up results for the membership to "verify". How would this be more efficient?

Regarding the building of anticipation for the awards ceremony, there is certainly a point to be made. However, you may maintain that sense of surprise by choosing not to look at the results before the ceremony. I think it best to provide the membership options rather than to lure folks into staying till the last moment under the promise of revealing results. Those who embrace that aspect of the event will stay anyways...those who don't, won't.

Note that I never said that the results were held until the award ceremony to lure anyone into attending. As far as I am aware, the award ceremony happens as soon as the results are ready for presentation. I can only assume that it will take more timing and scoring volunteers to release results as soon as cars cross the finish line.

If the onus is placed on the record setter to "prove" compliance, the process should be made a transparent as possible. By witholding the times till the very end of the day you force those who "think" they performed well to waste the time of the stewards by requesting a tech on the off chance they broke the existing record.

I think we should clarify something here. The club does not withhold information or force members to stay until the end of the event. Information is shared as soon as we can make it available. If this thread is about the possibility of improving the processes around posting results, then we should be discussing how to get it done.

If people were "in the know" they would request tech after every time trial on the off-chance they happened to break the existing record (I know I will). Better safe than sorry, right?

While I welcome productive discussions on possible improvements to this process, I would only look down upon anyone who abused the current process just to make a point. As you stated earlier, your thoughts and questions were designed around making the process better for all involved, including the volunteers that actually do the work.

I can tell you that as a steward, I have no problem teching cars that think they bested track records. When I spoke about "people in the know", well, that was a polite way of talking about people who actually take the time to read the COMSCC Rule book. The rules are available at any time for anyone interested in reading up.

You are absolutely correct when you say better safe than sorry, but to that I would add "within reason". As I said earlier, it is up to the competitor to know what the current track record is. I feel that it is also up to the competitor to keep track of their own times, if they are interested in the competition aspect of the club. In the past I have asked people to time my car during time trials, and have never been turned down. I think the same could be said for anyone.

At Tremblant (just recently) several cars within the same classes were teched for the same class record. They all had bested the old record, but at the end of the day, the track record goes to the fastest car that passed technical inspection. In other words, the guy who took 2nd place may get the track record because the 1st place car did not pass tech (or was not teched at all). As I said earlier, there is nothing wrong with asking for a tech if you reasonably believe you had a shot at besting a record.

This clearly is not the intent of the rule, but certainly a possible by-product.

Given the current track record inspection process, I do not think this would be a big issue. At least, I have not been aware of any issues to date.

Furthermore, I know of several track records that are not in the books as the post TT tech requirement is not necessarily widely understood. Your recommendation to publicize this requirement certainly sounds like a good idea.

I agree that the TT tech requirement is not widely understood, and I think it is unfortunate. All of the details pertaining to time trials and track records are within the COMSCC rulebook. Unfortunately, it seems there are many members who are not familiar with the rules.

I'm not sure I understand the following..."it is necessary for the stewards to get together and compare the list of cars eligible for track records against the list of cars teched for track records" Can you clarify???

Our Chief Steward could probably answer this question better than I, but I will tell you what I know. There are approximately 10 COMSCC stewards. Not all stewards are at every event. Each steward that attends an event and techs cars for track records has to provide a list of teched cars to the Chief Steward. The CS compiles the list, and collaborates with the Timing & Scoring folks to match eligible track record holders with teched cars. If there any discrepancies - such as the last event where a handful of potential track record holders did not have their cars teched, the Chief Steward will send out an email to the stewards to double-check that said cars were or were not teched.

I should say that Nate Hine has taken on responsibility of Chief Steward this year, and it seems that he has improved this process significantly.

Will, in all sincerity, thanks for the feedback. It's the only way to better understand the process. Ultimately, the club stands to benefit if by no other means than to increase everyone's overall awareness.

Agreed, and I too appreciate your comments! As a member of the BOD, I have no problem announcing my thoughts on the forum. At the end of the day, I am just a servant to the club's best interest.

I think that Raj's post trimmed down the issues into 3 clear points:

• Announce the times as they occur during time trials (like at Auto-X)

Off hand, I would assume this would not be possible without additional staffing/volunteers and/or equipment. Keep in mind that there are anywhere between 3-5 cars being timed on track at any given time during the time trial. There is also constant communication between Control, Flagging, and Timing. Lots going on spread over few hands. As far as I can see, instantaneously posting times would not streamline the process, it would add to it.

• Improve tech'ing process for potential class record setters

I think the current system works, but would welcome ideas on making it better for all parties involved. Thoughts?

• Get the results posted sooner, even if they are preliminary

I'm not sold on posting preliminary results, but I welcome input from Raj and everyone else involved with this process - as well as questions from Jeff and other members - on the finer points of the current system and how or if it could be made better.

Btw, where/when (time) is the meeting?

COMSCC meetings are held the 3rd Wednesday of each month at the Ground Round in Chelmsford, MA. Meeting attendees usually start to show up by 6PM. We order dinner (or not) and enjoy a frosty beverage while trading race stories and telling other lies. Meeting starts at 7. All members are encouraged to attend!

Cheers

- Will Martins
COMSCC Director, 2006
COMSCC Steward, 2006
COMSCC Instructor
COMSCC Forum Admin

[RyanC]

Will,
just a clarification, but the wrong time from the last NHIS event was NOT misread, nor were the trophies correctly awarded. The printout had a typo whereupon the 9 and 0 were transposed. As badly as our names get mangled (just call me Coochie!), this was not an error made by the guys reading off the results. It wasn't until after the event that the mistake was noticed/corrected.

Ryan Coochie-coochie-Catucci


ps - maybe what we need is someone to write an article for the Drift (not me) that covers how our timing works, how results get posted, etc. I certainly have no idea how a hand timing system is accurate enough to ensure proper placement in classes where positions are tenths or less of a second apart, but I've never seen an official result be more than a couple hundreths off the time from my Ultra-Lap, so for now I chalk it up to lightning fast reflexes on the part of Wendy and Dan. That's gotta be it, right?

[Seven]

I have yet to understand where verification of results would be more efficiently handled by 550+ active COM members than by the dedicated crew who have this responsibility.

Simple example already discussed...an obvious typo such as the 1:20 v. 1:29 would never make it through if the prelim result were published. For that matter, I have yet to hear what is involved in the existing procedure of checks and balances.

That is exactly what happened. The result was read as a "One minute, Twenty, Nine", and then clarified as "One minute, twenty, POINT nine...". The results were correct on paper, and the trophies were correctly awarded.

Given the response to your characterization of this error...it begs the question as to who's representation is accurate. You are not ambiguous in your statement. If, in fact, you are incorrect, at best you have mislead due to your emphatic representation.

As far as I am concerned, time trial results should not be open to discussion.

No one has suggested this. Again, while on one hand you suggest willingness to entertain change, on the other you seem to be reading what you will into this dialog. By all means, disagree with my suggestions. Don't, however, misrepresent my ideas.

Note that I never said that the results were held until the award ceremony to lure anyone into attending.

You didn't...I did.

As far as I am aware, the award ceremony happens as soon as the results are ready for presentation. I can only assume that it will take more timing and scoring volunteers to release results as soon as cars cross the finish line.

Ahh, finally back to the point... I have yet to hear why it takes so long. You have provided much feedback...unfortunately, little of it has shed any light on the existing process and how it may be improved.

I think we should clarify something here. The club does not withhold information or force members to stay until the end of the event.

Certainly not overtly, however, it is arguably a byproduct of the existing methodology.

Information is shared as soon as we can make it available.

You're telling me that the times for those who run @ 1:00 are not "available" till 5:00? Again...how is "available" defined? Who decided the process? What is the process? You have yet to provide insight on the major issue at hand.

If this thread is about the possibility of improving the processes around posting results, then we should be discussing how to get it done.

Exactly.

While I welcome productive discussions on possible improvements to this process, I would only look down upon anyone who abused the current process just to make a point.

Ugh. The current process is flawed. Period. Improve it and we can spend less time defending its integrity.

I can tell you that as a steward, I have no problem teching cars that think they bested track records.

If I have not already directed thanks to you... I do now. I appreciate your efforts for the club and willingness to be available to members throughout the events.

When I spoke about "people in the know", well, that was a polite way of talking about people who actually take the time to read the COMSCC Rule book. The rules are available at any time for anyone interested in reading up.

Pretty lengthy reading, much to take in...particularly for noobies.

As I said earlier, it is up to the competitor to know what the current track record is. I feel that it is also up to the competitor to keep track of their own times, if they are interested in the competition aspect of the club. In the past I have asked people to time my car during time trials, and have never been turned down. I think the same could be said for anyone.

And how many accurate laps did your assistance provide to you on your time trial runs @ Tremblant? The answer is 0. Post the results as they are accumulated, help the members. What's the problem here?

As I said earlier, there is nothing wrong with asking for a tech if you reasonably believe you had a shot at besting a record.

Alternatively, don't waste your time by asking for a post TT tech if they did not actually best the record. Simple solution....post prelim times.

Each steward that attends an event and techs cars for track records has to provide a list of teched cars to the Chief Steward. The CS compiles the list, and collaborates with the Timing & Scoring folks to match eligible track record holders with teched cars. If there any discrepancies - such as the last event where a handful of potential track record holders did not have their cars teched, the Chief Steward will send out an email to the stewards to double-check that said cars were or were not teched.

Thanks for the explaination...seems like opportunity to fold this process into the posting of prelim times... Results could include a column indicating whether time represents a new track record and an additional column indicating whether car has passed post TT tech.

Agreed, and I too appreciate your comments! As a member of the BOD, I have no problem announcing my thoughts on the forum. At the end of the day, I am just a servant to the club's best interest.

I really believe that the "email" medium is to blame here...it is often tough to communicate accurately through posts. I am not offended, and I hope that I do not offend.

Hopefully we can get further insight into the existing processes as well as the misc. limiting factors at the meeting tomorrow.

Take care,

Jeff

[Seven]

Holy crap!!! My bad everyone. I apologize for droning on like a complete idiot. Sorry for the waste of bandwidth. I'll discuss this further at the meeting...where it belongs.

Sorry everyone, particularly to you Will!