Weedkiller - Adie
Race Dog
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2012
- Messages
- 1,437
- Reaction score
- 33
- Bike
- BMW F800GS
Rally navigation equipment.
1. Rider side
Background.
As riders we want to set up our bikes to our own requirements to conform to race regulations. This basically means we need at least a tripmeter, CAP repreater, roadbook and a type of GPS unit where we can enter co-ordinates for a waypoint if we get lost or for dune sections. We live in this technological age but still rely (use) a wastefull paper roll as roadbook and with all due respect the tripmeter is just that - a moerse expensive quick adjustable tripmeter. The CAP repeater is in essence just a trip meter with input from the GPS arial and an additional display option for CAP.
Reason: Secrecy and cheating.
Management must do everything to keep the route secret and prevent cheating. This limit any developer to utilize any 'advanced' features in their rider side instruments. The small market and 'apparent' fragileness (??) of electronics drive the price through the roof. I had a standard Acewell speedo/revcounter/stopwatch etc unit on the bike during Amageza and it 'did not fall apart' at R1 000.00 where a simple 'Rally' tripmeter will set you back more than R 3 500.00 (Yes I know that include the remote but still.)
2. Management side.
During my initial research (during 2013) I never looked at the management side of the problem. I wanted to race as cost effective as possible.!! Now with the experience of Amageza behind I am looking at the systems from a 'slightly' different angle' Management actually sit with a fairly complex problem during the race. Looking at the support infrastructure at other 'young' rallies (Baja Mexico, Sonora (ex Cortez), Marzuga, Morrocco, Arfica Eco etc. they all struggle with 'race management'. Each try a different approach and use or develop different technology to manage the event.
A. Safety.
We as riders tend to brush any safety issues aside until we require assistance. We then scream and bitch like babies. The SPOT tracker looks like the most used unit at rallies. Although they seemed reliable I am not sure about the update frequency. A few riders got lost and the recovery team could not reach them. Was this due to recovery availability, access to the rider due to vegetation, fences etc? (** The need for 'recovery due to being lost' is a different matter. It actually should not be required. **)
B. Race data.
Management need to process race data as fast as possible because the riders are keen to know how they performed. any missed waypoints must be logged. If a rider use a 'get out of shit' waypoint race control must know of that as well. (See info on Rally Comp as used in Baja Mexico) As far as I remember ERTF as used in Dakar also use this feature.
C. Race alterations.
Due to the nature of our sport the chance of amendments to the stages are real. How these are communicated to the riders can be problematic if the riders briefing is in the evening and everyone is not in yet. A morning briefing might might cause other issues as the roadbooks are now all marked up and loaded.
D. Other.
As I am not a race organizer there might be other issues related to the riders as well.
As can be noted from the above the race organizers actually got a much bigger issue with navigation than the riders. The rider side is actually quite clear. These are the allowed equipment to make the event as navigation challenging as possible. Add challenging routes and it will be a 'great' event.
Me thinks the 2015 Amageza 'standardization' was a step in the right direction. It did cost the riders extra (once off) money but hey, if you not gonna ride anymore the items can be sold again and some cost recovered.
The future:
1. The trip meter measure distance that can be quickly adjusted, can display the time and maybe stopwatch. It is not allowed to record anything or communicate with anything as this can lead to cheating. In some cases a bike MUST have at least ONE tripmeter connected to the wheel. So, other than the 'look and feel' no improvements really.
2. CAP unit must be able to display the current moving direction. It can also act as a tripmeter with distance calculated from GPS NMEA code. Again no recording, communication etc. In some instances the GPS is also controlled as it could open a 'cheat port'. Again, nor real improvements.
3. The roadbook must move a roll of paper up or down. That is it. We think this is the only area where improvements can be made. An electronic roadbook can also include a tripmeter, CAP unit as well as recording the track. In order to manage the system it will have to be rented from race control.
Summary.
A single electronic roadbook could solve all race control problems. It could actually use less space than a current roadbook holder and still leave the rider to taylor the rest of his bike to his own liking.
Adie
1. Rider side
Background.
As riders we want to set up our bikes to our own requirements to conform to race regulations. This basically means we need at least a tripmeter, CAP repreater, roadbook and a type of GPS unit where we can enter co-ordinates for a waypoint if we get lost or for dune sections. We live in this technological age but still rely (use) a wastefull paper roll as roadbook and with all due respect the tripmeter is just that - a moerse expensive quick adjustable tripmeter. The CAP repeater is in essence just a trip meter with input from the GPS arial and an additional display option for CAP.
Reason: Secrecy and cheating.
Management must do everything to keep the route secret and prevent cheating. This limit any developer to utilize any 'advanced' features in their rider side instruments. The small market and 'apparent' fragileness (??) of electronics drive the price through the roof. I had a standard Acewell speedo/revcounter/stopwatch etc unit on the bike during Amageza and it 'did not fall apart' at R1 000.00 where a simple 'Rally' tripmeter will set you back more than R 3 500.00 (Yes I know that include the remote but still.)
2. Management side.
During my initial research (during 2013) I never looked at the management side of the problem. I wanted to race as cost effective as possible.!! Now with the experience of Amageza behind I am looking at the systems from a 'slightly' different angle' Management actually sit with a fairly complex problem during the race. Looking at the support infrastructure at other 'young' rallies (Baja Mexico, Sonora (ex Cortez), Marzuga, Morrocco, Arfica Eco etc. they all struggle with 'race management'. Each try a different approach and use or develop different technology to manage the event.
A. Safety.
We as riders tend to brush any safety issues aside until we require assistance. We then scream and bitch like babies. The SPOT tracker looks like the most used unit at rallies. Although they seemed reliable I am not sure about the update frequency. A few riders got lost and the recovery team could not reach them. Was this due to recovery availability, access to the rider due to vegetation, fences etc? (** The need for 'recovery due to being lost' is a different matter. It actually should not be required. **)
B. Race data.
Management need to process race data as fast as possible because the riders are keen to know how they performed. any missed waypoints must be logged. If a rider use a 'get out of shit' waypoint race control must know of that as well. (See info on Rally Comp as used in Baja Mexico) As far as I remember ERTF as used in Dakar also use this feature.
C. Race alterations.
Due to the nature of our sport the chance of amendments to the stages are real. How these are communicated to the riders can be problematic if the riders briefing is in the evening and everyone is not in yet. A morning briefing might might cause other issues as the roadbooks are now all marked up and loaded.
D. Other.
As I am not a race organizer there might be other issues related to the riders as well.
As can be noted from the above the race organizers actually got a much bigger issue with navigation than the riders. The rider side is actually quite clear. These are the allowed equipment to make the event as navigation challenging as possible. Add challenging routes and it will be a 'great' event.
Me thinks the 2015 Amageza 'standardization' was a step in the right direction. It did cost the riders extra (once off) money but hey, if you not gonna ride anymore the items can be sold again and some cost recovered.
The future:
1. The trip meter measure distance that can be quickly adjusted, can display the time and maybe stopwatch. It is not allowed to record anything or communicate with anything as this can lead to cheating. In some cases a bike MUST have at least ONE tripmeter connected to the wheel. So, other than the 'look and feel' no improvements really.
2. CAP unit must be able to display the current moving direction. It can also act as a tripmeter with distance calculated from GPS NMEA code. Again no recording, communication etc. In some instances the GPS is also controlled as it could open a 'cheat port'. Again, nor real improvements.
3. The roadbook must move a roll of paper up or down. That is it. We think this is the only area where improvements can be made. An electronic roadbook can also include a tripmeter, CAP unit as well as recording the track. In order to manage the system it will have to be rented from race control.
Summary.
A single electronic roadbook could solve all race control problems. It could actually use less space than a current roadbook holder and still leave the rider to taylor the rest of his bike to his own liking.
Adie
