Can Challenge cones cost 1 second instead of 2?

Make a cone count for +1 seconds on the autocross and +1 seconds in the drag.

Just kidding, obviously, I hope.

As someone who has spent a lot of time in the timing trailer, the software is setup so that the operator just clicks a "+" icon for each cone (adding 2 seconds at every autocross I've ever attended), I'm sure you could go through the software and change the penalty so that each click equals 1 second but bottom line is dirty = bad, might as well a be a DNF form where I sit.

I have to vote 2 seconds as well.That penalty has a long history and is the 'universal standard' there are exceptions as stated, but consistency is good.

I used to run with a club that whacked you one second for the first cone and then two seconds for every subsequent cone. You could recover from a mistake, but if you were just a sloppy driver, you'd be off the podium pretty quickly.

In principle I agree that strategically using additional cones at a 1 second penalty each might be more ideal from a competitor standpoint, but in practice I don't know that the occasional advantages outweigh the constant disadvantages from an organizational standpoint.

Ultimately, if a driver can't put together one clean run, then they should be backing off enough so that they can. Changing the way the penalties get multiplied when cones get hit (1x2 vs 2x1) isn't going to change this fundamental concept.

SVreX wrote:

Keith Tanner wrote: I would personally rather see the cars built with an emphasis on autox instead of drag...

The current scoring system already favors the autox by a factor of 3-5 X (depending on the length of the autox). A slow course biases the scoring more toward the autox (which is kind of backward).

What was the previous name of Grassroots Motorsports again? I forget

In reply to Keith Tanner:

Right. I am well aware (and perfectly comfortable with the emphasis).

This event, however, is not primarily attracting autocrossers. I thought that was, in part, the point.

Maybe the event should be reconfigured to not include drag racing or newbies??

SVreX wrote: In reply to Keith Tanner: Right. I am well aware (and perfectly comfortable with the emphasis). This event, however, is not primarily attracting autocrossers. I thought that was, in part, the point. Maybe the event should be reconfigured to not include drag racing or newbies??

I'd venture a guess and say if you eliminate the drags you lose at least 4 of the top 10 finishers from future competitions.

In reply to patgizz:

I was being sarcastic.

Whenever Tim Suddard describes this event he says it is a Builder's competition, not a driver's competition.

To that point, I don't think this comments in this thread regarding clean runs make much sense.

All a 1 second penalty does is take one bad and slow cone out of the course. Which will have the net result of opening the course up more than it does.

There will be one cone that can cost one second to go around, but not 2.

And that is backwards of making it more of an autocross event.

I wish that the dynamic scoring now was in place back when I ran- I would have finished 8th in 2004 instead of 10th.

SVreX wrote: In reply to patgizz: I was being sarcastic. Whenever Tim Suddard describes this event he says it is a Builder's competition, not a driver's competition. To that point, I don't think this comments in this thread regarding clean runs make much sense.

Gotcha. Sarcasm doesn't relay well online

I actually let a pro drive my car this year. Not because i wanted to, but because he wanted to (john thomas). I figured he campaigns a Z, who better than to tell me how to tweak my setup. Also i was used to the car with the anemic 350, and i had zero seat time with the new engine until my first run(clean though). It was a real handful for me with the crazy jump in power.

In reply to patgizz:

John is a really great guy. I met him at his first autocross in Jackson Mississippi in 1984 I think. He was just a wet-behind-the-ears college student campaigning a bone-stock 260Z. He's come a long way in those 32 years. He was really quick now. How much time did he shave off of your time?

alfadriver wrote: All a 1 second penalty does is take one bad and slow cone out of the course. Which will have the net result of opening the course up more than it does.

I agree that's true, IF a good driver is at the wheel (like you) who makes that choice.

There are almost none.

Amateur drivers like Pat and me, or good drivers in uncontrollable cars (cars doing 360* spin outs on the course this year were driven by pros).

I can count on 1 hand the number of good drivers with a great familiarity with their capable cars who could make a decision like that that I have seen at this event in the past 12 years. (yes, Eric, I'm counting you).

There were dozens of runs this year which took out 6 or more cones. Partly a factor of the course layout, partly a factor of the cars/drivers. Obviously, those are terrible runs. But I've never seen such carnage at a "real" autocross event. This is not the same thing.

Ovid_and_Flem wrote: In reply to patgizz: John is a really great guy. I met him at his first autocross in Jackson Mississippi in 1984 I think. He was just a wet-behind-the-ears college student campaigning a bone-stock 260Z. He's come a long way in those 32 years. He was really quick now. How much time did he shave off of your time?

6 seconds. Embarrassing. (But great fun too!)

SVreX wrote:

Ovid_and_Flem wrote: In reply to patgizz: John is a really great guy. I met him at his first autocross in Jackson Mississippi in 1984 I think. He was just a wet-behind-the-ears college student campaigning a bone-stock 260Z. He's come a long way in those 32 years. He was really quick now. How much time did he shave off of your time?

6 seconds. Embarrassing. (But great fun too!)

If it makes you feel any better I had a improved touring road racing Z car at a fast race track autocross. I was first in my class and ask John to drive my car. On a one and a half minute course John shaved five seconds off of my time. And I have been road racing the car for 6 years. John sees things different than we mere mortals do

SVreX wrote: I agree that's true, IF a good driver is at the wheel (like you) who makes that choice. There are almost none. Amateur drivers like Pat and me, or good drivers in uncontrollable cars (cars doing 360* spin outs on the course this year were driven by pros).

If, as a Challenger, you've built an uncontrollable car, do you think you deserve a top scoring finish? I believe the Challenge is an exercise in building a balanced car that can perform in a few categories, not a drag car that can kind of go around an autox course. Numbing down the autocross scoring is not a good approach, IMO.

In reply to Lof8:

I've never built an uncontrollable car. In fact, every year I get comments to the opposite from the pro drivers.

But uncontrollable cars HAVE made the podium, including this year.

I am simply recognizing what the event actually is, not what it could be theoretically.

At the end of this year's event, I wanted 1 pro to make 1 run in my car- an extremely tame street driver.

I asked all of them. 2 of the pros told me they couldn't, because their arms were so worn out from muscling cars around that were tough to control (and yeah, they also took a lot of runs).

There most definitely are hard-to-drive cars, and they definitely DO make top finishes.

What advantage are you seeing? Every car would be equal, it would just take a slight emphasis off the driving (which isn't what the event is supposed to be about anyway)

SVreX wrote: What advantage are you seeing?

at 1 second per cone, I'm seeing the less-nimble cars with a better autocross score. My opinion is, that if a challenge car can't pull a clean run, it doesn't deserve a good score.

In reply to Lof8:

Cars don't pull clean runs. Drivers do. This is not a driving event.

Some of the top finishers this year were not very nimble. Raw thrust and good fortune with an exceptional driver got them a top finish.

Many of them had never been on an autox course.

Keep in mind- I build nimble cars. It's not really to my advantage to suggest this.

I think it is to the event's advantage.

In reply to SVreX

It seems we disagree :)

...in fact, some of the more nimble cars that were better autocross cars (but had fewer runs, or less driving experience) got penalized worse, because they had a minor cone.

Part of the issue this year was a bit of a mistake which has been corrected- they allowed unlimited runs. THAT is just as much outside of autocross guidelines as 1 second cones.

What ended up happening was that the top finishers started hot lapping toward the end of the day, which capitalized track time and pro driver availability. They were looking for tenths, or that one perfect run.

Some cars made 10 or more runs. That doesn't necessarily mean they got a "clean" run- it may have just been a "lucky" run.

Mid-pack finishers trying to just get in a reasonable run couldn't get on the track, or get the attention of a pro driver.

GRM has fixed this- no more unlimited runs.

But it is important to remember this is NOT an SCCA event. There are a lot of factors that change the equation from what most people who are familiar with autocrossing understand.

It's not a driver's event. Autocrossing is.

SVreX wrote: Some of the top finishers this year were not very nimble. Raw thrust and good fortune with an exceptional driver got them a top finish. Many of them had never been on an autox course.

Again, with a pro driver at the wheel, the advantage that the point and thrust cars would have would get greater- as they can avoid worrying about a cone that costs them more than one second of time.

Hard driving cars get an advantage for lighter penalties.

I don't think that's what you want to see.

Right. But all cars can have a pro, so moot point.

Hard driving cars got the ultimate advantage this year- unlimited runs.

My car had 13th in autocross on 4 runs. One clean by me, one aborted (was at start when svrex had to abort because an uncontrollable car took out the finish line) because i sat in the car for too long and was shaking from the heat, and john thomas took 2. If i had him take 2 more i'm sure he would have got the car into the top 10 (his 2nd run was 8th at the time and I thought it could hold up) but a certain few that didnt follow the "don't be a dick" rule kept getting out there and at that point i was hungry, cranky, and just wanted to park it so i could take a break.

I dont know what john shaved off my time, i never saw it.

Plus, cones have to be 2 seconds, or else my drawing wouldnt be accurate.