Croft Sprint

[George Hardman]

Mark, You have clarified my point better than I could myself .

The time keeping was not up to standard, as I mentioned in my previous two posts. My concern was that if a multitude of criticism was construed as directed at the meeting as as a whole, it may have a discouraging effect on future volunteers which would be in no bodies interest.

[stu.graham]

Darlington & Dist MC have provided excellent events for many years and are possibly as embarrassed about the situation as much as the drivers are frustrated    

Totally agree!!!! Had some cracking events there, well run and co-ordinated.

[Mark Stanton]

Surely there is no harm in drivers preparing a well constructed factual letter copied to both organisers and MSA outlining the timing issues   in order to avoid same mistakes being made in the future and perhaps address the matters and concerns arising    

[Bananaman]

If anyone has a copy of times - it may be an interesting observation to see where and and what time during the events proceedings the NTR's ocurred           and what championships and classes were mostly affected      

Mark, from what i could gather it appeared a bit random...

[Mark Stanton]

Were there any sections totally unaffected by NTR's    

[tex]

speaking as a long term member of ddmc and have been a marshal at this event i can sympathise with the drivers and organisers (who will of paid to hire the circuit too), but marshalling at croft is very inhospitable at times - especially at this time of year - it is very very bleak stood out there and sprinting to a marshal is a very slow affair - unless thats your bag.. thats probably the reason why many stayed away - its really memories of barcroft and sideways rain / sleet that haunt many..  

in regards to ddmc organising events - i gotta hand it to stevie gibson - if he didnt get off his @rse no one would - i have never met a guy who puts more into motorsport than he does - and - knows exactly how to do it too - i cant for one think why they used the timing company they did and why it went so wrong?

personally i think all those times up there should be void completly - every last one - yes yours too mark... how can you trust them?? if they are so wrong can you be sure they ALL arent? it should be void and re-run again.

but as mark says - to the MSA

what timing company is usually used in previous years there? why did it change? cost?

[MartinH]

the organising club have met their responsibility for the provision of an approved and licensed MSA Timing Official - that is all that is required by the organising club (officially)

I was not at Croft but have been following this thread with interest and I've just recieved the Regs for the Borough 19  Lydden Sprint.  Para 30 of which reads as follows:

"Timing Discrepancies: No competitor may consult the Timkeeper during the meeting.  All queries must be passed through the Secretary of the Meeting.  Failure to observe this regulation may result in in the competitor being excluded from the meeting forthwith"

Clearly, Borough 19 seem to think they have a part to play in this (unofficially?) or perhaps they've had problems before.

[Blatman]

Quite apart from the apparently below standard time keeping, another reason for writing to the DDMC and advising them of the situation is that the DDMC may then be encouraged to ask the timing company in question for a refund, or partial refund of the fees paid. Under the trades description act, the service paid for has not been adequately provided, and apparently no appropriate resolution was offered on the day.

IF I had been there and had been as badly affected as those who have contributed here were, my letter to the DDMC and the MSA would already be in the post. I agree that volunteers should be allowed some leeway, but there is no excuse for not complaining about a shoddy service that has been paid for.

[Mark Stanton]

Martin

B19 are clearly identifying the correct "route" for any matters a driver may have    

Similarly, it is not uncommon for drivers to approach timekeepers direct and try to blag or even harrass another run      

For drivers, any matters arising should always be in first instance towards Sec of Meeting and or CoC   who will make the necessary decisions based on facts obtained independently from various other officials, judges of fact with any objections in consultation with stewards  

Complicated perhaps - but it's always best to use the correct procedures.  

[davidgh]

Mark

"Facts" will be best viewed in the context of the official results. Despite the fact that Guy and I were much less badly served by the timekeepers than most (our lulus came in practice), I will happily provide you with what we have if the results are published in time (we didn't take a sheet with us).

However, I can certainly corroborate Emma's point. I followed Emma on the run concerned and was credited with a lap of 95.xx seconds (confirmed by our own on board equipment). I failed to catch Emma, yet her time was recorded as over 170 seconds. Unless she was hiding in the bushes, this was obviously an error. Emma protested (to DDMC) but was told (I believe after DDMC had consulted with the timekeepers) that timekeepers were judges of fact, and not to be questioned.  

David

[MartinH]

For drivers, any matters arising should always be in first instance towards Sec of Meeting and or CoC   who will make the necessary decisions based on facts obtained independently from various other officials, judges of fact with any objections in consultation with stewards  

Absolutely Mark, you have virtually quoted the relevant part of Section C of the Blue Book. in fact the Secretary is just a conduit to the CoC who has the overall responsibility for appeals.

[Mark Stanton]

David - that doesn't sound good or right - a bl**** shame and a very sad introduction for Emma in her first event      

A formal correspondence needs to be submitted to MSA and organisers within 7 days of event - would be best from one of the drivers - else all will be lost without any investigation of matters - with due respect to DDMC - this is perhaps not their fault and they may have been somewhat at the mercy of the timekeepers

Sorry Martin     I've been doing my homework for my Asst CoC licence      

Did you get my e-mail re shirt

[Mark Stanton]

Emma protested (to DDMC) but was told (I believe after DDMC had consulted with the timekeepers) that timekeepers were judges of fact, and not to be questioned.

Anyone can be questioned and the meeting stewards could have been called in - if needs be with your goodselves as witness and on board equipment as a point of guidance      

[cast iron]

apparently we the competitors need to put a complaint in to the MSA about Malvern timing - Why DDMC dont do it or even take some of the responsibility is beyond me - I was kicked off the comittee years ago for proffering such a responsibility when the RX meetings used to go  bits up

After all the to and froing this post still counts - write to the MSA the timing company were Malvern Timing

Over the past couple of years the companies used by DDMC could only manage 3 or 4 cars on track at once, Malvern offered to be able to manage 6 cars and hence be able to run through the competitors quicker, however on the day we all know what happened.

Im not happy with my times as someone watching the clock on my last run said it stopped at 94.6 and on the print out I received 96.5. But even so I dont believe either of those times more like 100 would be believeable!

[Mark Stanton]

and on that point Mark........ it could easily affect someones novice or expert status within any championship if they received a time which gave them an incorrect class win      

I'm not sure on this one and would need to check matters fully - but if all drivers who entered Croft agree in writing and presented it to the SS organising team - it might be possible to remove the event from our 2006 championship points tally dunno, maybe a bit OTT     and perhaps a knee jerk reaction - but it might be an option if all drivers agree and are of same opinion