Cal Club Autocross Forums

Damm ... JASON has Great Eyes !!!

THE Cone in question ... and then 4 seconds later we see a worker running towards said cone ... Rear Facing Camera WAS worth it!

The cone is upright and looks to still be partially in the zone of the box, thought that wouldn't count as a downed cone?

Arthur Grant wrote:The cone is upright and looks to still be partially in the zone of the box, thought that wouldn't count as a downed cone?

Note the tilt of the cone... it is still in motion in the shot.

So what's the definitive answer on Cone Calls ... I thought if part of the cone was still in it's box, it was still OK ?

Mako Koiwai wrote:So what's the definitive answer on Cone Calls ... I thought if part of the cone was still in it's box, it was still OK ?

Page 54 of the SCCA rule book.

And if I remember correctly, video evidence is not accepted when trying to contest cone calls at national level events.

Christine Berry wrote:

Mako Koiwai wrote:So what's the definitive answer on Cone Calls ... I thought if part of the cone was still in it's box, it was still OK ?

Page 54 of the SCCA rule book.

And if I remember correctly, video evidence is not accepted when trying to contest cone calls at national level events.

Its not accepted... But even if it was, it would obviously have to be conclusive. I don't see anything conclusive at all about that pic....

I'm not saying it's conclusive, nor am I contesting anything ... just wondering what the rule is about cones and boxes. I thought if part of the cone was in it was still OK, but from what I heard this weekend, if the cone was disturbed and is not longer square in it's box, it's a penalty ?

Mako Koiwai wrote:I'm not saying it's conclusive, nor am I contesting anything ... just wondering what the rule is about cones and boxes. I thought if part of the cone was in it was still OK, but from what I heard this weekend, if the cone was disturbed and is not longer square in it's box, it's a penalty ?

section 7.9.1 covers cone penalties... very clearly... with an excellent picture.

I suspect the confusion you are experiencing is coming from section 7.9.2 and an incident from this weekend that referenced that section.

I suggest carefully reading both and then asking any resulting questions.

Mako Koiwai wrote:I'm not saying it's conclusive, nor am I contesting anything ... just wondering what the rule is about cones and boxes. I thought if part of the cone was in it was still OK, but from what I heard this weekend, if the cone was disturbed and is not longer square in it's box, it's a penalty ?

How long have you been autoxing?

good thing you said Picture

good think I don't work course ...

So did the protest concern a rerun because of an "out of position" cone that was upright and still clearly in the box, but rotated 45 degrees? If so, we're getting into some real gray areas. Say a cone was still legal, but only one tiny corner of the base was touching the chalk line, but it was sticking into the racing line, reducing the track's width by nearly a cone-width. Rerun? I'd say yes. But the first scenario????

To me the answer is, if part of the cone is sticking out PAST the chalkline, it is a good reason to grant a rerun. The course has been substantially altered and if the driver could see that, good for that person.

Anything other than that is going to be too subjective and allow all kinds of event stoppages as people say this cone was rotated or touching the box.

Jason Isley BS RX8 wrote:

Arthur Grant wrote:The cone is upright and looks to still be partially in the zone of the box, thought that wouldn't count as a downed cone?

Note the tilt of the cone... it is still in motion in the shot.

Great catch on the implied motion, I notice the lean but didn't properly attribute it to motion.

Mako, time to re-watch the recent documentary on Autocross it discussed this very well.

[quote="Doug Kott"]So did the protest concern a rerun because of an "out of position" cone that was upright and still clearly in the box, but rotated 45 degrees?

For the most part yes. The competitor stopped for a cone that he believed was out of place. After talking to the course worker, he stated that the cone was brushed by a previous car and he was on his way to check it. He found the cone to be completely in the box but rotated close to 45deg. I did not allow the rerun. Section 7.9.2 covers this area and the word in question is displaced. (I have sent a letter to the SEB to clarify this definition using this scenario as an example). The driver asked about his options and protesting timing. The chief steward was then notified as it is his decision to grant a provisional rerun or not. The competitor was given the option of taking a provisional rerun and then protesting timing if he wanted that time to count.

The box around cones is suppose to be 2" wide for divisional & national events. Local events are allowed to use the standard chalk line around the box. This event was a combination of both. This 2" border does allow for some movement inside the box, otherwise every cone would have to be perfectly placed in each box for every run.

Let's hope that some type of clarification will be made.

So it's the same as what I always thought. As long as any part of the cone is still touching the outline, it's not a penalty for the driver hitting the cone.

As long as the cone has been moved so that it's no longer square in it's box, the following car can stop for a re-run request.

Those of you with Eagle Eyes get re-runs ... I'm just lucky to see the cone, especially now that I'm being treated for "Wet Macular Degeneration." Ah the joys of getting older ....

Mark Duerst wrote:

Doug Kott wrote:So did the protest concern a rerun because of an "out of position" cone that was upright and still clearly in the box, but rotated 45 degrees?

For the most part yes. The competitor stopped for a cone that he believed was out of place. After talking to the course worker, he stated that the cone was brushed by a previous car and he was on his way to check it. He found the cone to be completely in the box but rotated close to 45deg. I did not allow the rerun. Section 7.9.2 covers this area and the word in question is displaced. (I have sent a letter to the SEB to clarify this definition using this scenario as an example). The driver asked about his options and protesting timing. The chief steward was then notified as it is his decision to grant a provisional rerun or not. The competitor was given the option of taking a provisional rerun and then protesting timing if he wanted that time to count.

The box around cones is suppose to be 2" wide for divisional & national events. Local events are allowed to use the standard chalk line around the box. This event was a combination of both. This 2" border does allow for some movement inside the box, otherwise every cone would have to be perfectly placed in each box for every run.

Let's hope that some type of clarification will be made.

I think you made the right call, because the cone was not laterally displaced. This is a really good discussion here...it clarifies a lot of fine points.

--Doug

Doug Kott wrote:So did the protest concern a rerun because of an "out of position" cone that was upright and still clearly in the box, but rotated 45 degrees? If so, we're getting into some real gray areas. Say a cone was still legal, but only one tiny corner of the base was touching the chalk line, but it was sticking into the racing line, reducing the track's width by nearly a cone-width. Rerun? I'd say yes. But the first scenario????

Howdy,

I'm the guy who made the protest. Just so everyone knows the happenings, I was offered a provisional several times. It was even heavily suggested that I take it. I didn't, primarily because I'm a stubborn idiot at times. My lesson learned. Don't learn the same lesson yourself.... Given when it happened, my general state of mind (having just found out I coned my second run - way after the fact), well, I wasn't thinking too clearly. And since I didn't intend to protest, i saw no point in taking a provisional.

After I read the rule:

7.9.2 - A competitor encountering a downed or displaced pylon on course has the option of continuing the run or stopping as soon as possible, and pointing out the downed or displaced pylon to a course worker.

and then went to dictionary.net:

1. To change the place of; to remove from the usual or proper place; to put out of place; to place in another situation; as, the books in the library are all displaced. [1913 Webster]

At that time I decided to protest just to get clarification. The PC rightfully did not grant me a rerun - I declined the provisional. In the end, I can live with my mistake, but wanted to raise the issue to get more exposure.

To address the specific comment:

still clearly in the box, but rotated 45 degrees?

That may have been the case. I didn't stop right next to it, but went to the next course worker who was around the next bend, given our light worker situation. However, it was 'placed in another situation' enough that I saw a LOT of white on the ground next to it when exiting the corner. So much white that it made me lift to see what was going on, which makes me think it wasn't centered in the box even if rotated. While the cone wasn't directly in my way, the course was certainly different for me - enough so that it impacted my run. Ironically, this was actually the first time I have ever stopped for a displaced cone.

Interestingly enough, after the protest was filed for public viewing, several people mentioned that this situation had been ruled the same way as the PC did on Saturday at a few national events - more recent than rulings in the other direction.

I understand we don't want a situation where someone cones a run and then starts looking for out of place cones to get a rerun. It is my understanding that the stewards can DSQ such a run if that is the case - so we already have a remedy for that situation.

So, in the end, I learned a lesson on taking provisional runs - no hard feelings on my part. And, hopefully we can get some clarification soon - I've written the SEB as has at least one other SCCAer for that very purpose.

45 degrees rotated cone in the box on a slalom would make the course 3" wider, or the car 6" wider, like comparing a Miata/E36 to a Corvette/Viper.

My fastest Saturday run despite blowing the turnaround midway through the course:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEJYUOJytCA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry for the shaky video, it seems to be a unique problem for me. Also no footage of my Sunday runs due to a dead battery.

Rad_ Delgado_ wrote:45 degrees rotated cone in the box on a slalom would make the course 3" wider, or the car 6" wider, like comparing a Miata/E36 to a Corvette/Viper.

Hmm... the base would intrude a little more, but you can run over the base. The part that sticks up (the conical shape) would not change location when rotated.

Bryan Heitkotter wrote:My fastest Saturday run despite blowing the turnaround midway through the course:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEJYUOJytCA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry for the shaky video, it seems to be a unique problem for me. Also no footage of my Sunday runs due to a dead battery.

Nice driving on both days!!!

Bryan Heitkotter wrote:My fastest Saturday run despite blowing the turnaround midway through the course:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEJYUOJytCA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry for the shaky video, it seems to be a unique problem for me. Also no footage of my Sunday runs due to a dead battery.

Yes, very nice!! I like the camera position...far enough back to take in the whole scene.

--Doug

KJ Christopher wrote:I understand we don't want a situation where someone cones a run and then starts looking for out of place cones to get a rerun.

If someone had good enough vision and the calmness to drive at competitive autocross speeds and still identify random cones that are slightly out of the box, I'd almost be willing to give them a rerun just for being so Chuck Norris-like

Seriously I was pretty impressed from your description that you could see well enough in a split second to recognize that the cone and the outline were offset, not to mention that your brain could process that information so quickly given all the other data it had to deal with at the time.

Anyway, back to the question at hand, I've never measured the base of a cone, but if you figure it's 10" and that when you outline it, that outline will be around .5" wider than that on each side, a cone can still be legal when the person before you hit it, and cause a 10" change to the course when you approach it (okay, maybe 8" when you count the part of the cone that rises from the base). Going through a Chicago box, slalom or other such precision element, that could be a huge difference. It seems like a no-brainer that two different sets of criteria should be applied to cones hit and stopping for a cone and getting a re-run. It'd be pretty easy to create a real-world example and convince anyone who thinks otherwise.

Kurt Rahn wrote: Anyway, back to the question at hand, I've never measured the base of a cone, but if you figure it's 10" and that when you outline it, that outline will be around .5" wider than that on each side, a cone can still be legal when the person before you hit it, and cause a 10" change to the course when you approach it (okay, maybe 8" when you count the part of the cone that rises from the base). Going through a Chicago box, slalom or other such precision element, that could be a huge difference. It seems like a no-brainer that two different sets of criteria should be applied to cones hit and stopping for a cone and getting a re-run. It'd be pretty easy to create a real-world example and convince anyone who thinks otherwise.

The problem wasn't that the cone was protruding outside of the chalk line, it was that the cone was rotated, but still contained wholly within the chalk line, at least that's my understanding. I definitely noticed a few very generously boxed cones when I was walking, where the chalk was a good 2 inches outside of the cones edge. I remember thinking at the time that it didn't seem fair, because the cone could be placed in two different but legal ways, and make the course two inches wider/narrower.