Along with ‘race to line’ SlotTrak introduced a new feature: ‘hot starts’. Race to line was somewhat revolutionary because for once timed heats could be recorded accurately by the computer without manual intervention thereby avoiding mistakes [or dare we say it cheating] (unlike the old school timing method noted above). Just ‘set it and forget it’ was finally possible for timed racing with the computer controlling the pace of the entire race evening. Furthermore, race to line avoided the situation where everyone was forced to wait until the last car completed the same number of laps – which could take an unbearably long time for longer heats not to mention cause considerable embarrassment for the lagging pilot. Could you imagine racing the 2.4h and using that method? It would add several hours to the event…
Other benefits of the ‘race to line’ method became evident too: since all heat participants would start together (at the start/finish line) this created a ‘race within a race’ leading to more excitement and head to head opportunities for passing. And unlike the old school method every participant knew exactly where they stood relative to the rest of the field after every heat – with just a glance at the numbers.
Unlike the old school method (where every heat began with the power just being turned on) ‘hot starts’ introduced the possibility of timing every one of your starts (in a similar fashion to drag racing) to get the jump on others with the danger of red lighting (or jumping) the start and losing your first lap as the penalty – ‘You snooze, you lose’.
Refueling (and tire wear) was introduced in SlotTrak and at the time was a novel and interesting option for tracks using optical or IR sensors. The rate of fuel consumption and length of time to refuel, etc. was adjustable. Participants would race and typically the faster they went the more fuel they would consume, so they would need to refuel sooner (and possibly more often depending on race length). If you ran out of fuel the software would stop counting your laps until you entered the pits to refuel. This option brought into play two additional variables making the racing a little more cerebral: a) participants needed to pay regular attention to the computer display to know when to pit and avoid the possibility of running out of fuel thereby losing subsequent laps, and b) nearing the end of the race participants would need to do some basic math to make sure they did not waste too much time in the pits topping up excess fuel on their last pit stop. It also required some precision in not overshooting your pit and running out of fuel thereby missing another lap if you ran out… For novice participants this was just too much to ask and for many of the more experienced this was considered just a gimmick. In the race to line method of timing as soon as it was realized that you could pit immediately before a heat expired (and continue to refuel after time was up) and still finish your last lap (albeit with a large extension time) refueling strategies morphed to be one and the same. Some groups instituted manual restrictions that disallowed refueling after a heat or time expired, others abandoned refueling entirely. While refueling may not have lasted the test of time the other timing features that SlotTrak provided remain popular.
SlotTrak’s ‘race to line’ feature may still be popular but it is not without detractors. Furthermore SlotTrak now provides additional features for lapped races, such as ‘rally’ mode. Let’s look at what the detractors say first.
Some argue that the ‘race to line’ feature is flawed. Why?
The ‘race to line’ methodology is based on a time limited race (or multiple heats). When time expires every pilot completes their current lap. The resulting lap totals plus the length of time it takes for each participant to return to and cross the finish line to complete their last lap are recorded. Lap totals and last lap time extensions are used to determine finishing order. If lap totals are identical then the lowest last lap extension will be the tie breaker. Simple.
Using an example – if an average lap time is 7 seconds and a race is set for one rotation of three heats of 180 seconds each (totalling 540 seconds or 9 minutes) then it is likely that someone racing at an average lap time pace of 7 seconds will be on their 26th lap (25.714) when time expires. That means that they will finish the race with 26 laps and an extension of approximately 2 seconds (2.002 seconds precisely or .286 of a lap).
What variables will result in the loss of a lap (or approximately 4.998 seconds) thereby preventing the participants from scoring 26 laps? We know that it is NOT the timed heat format. We also know that the timing of other participants and when they cross the line has nothing to do with this. That leaves the following possibility: the participant was in fact slower on at least one, more or all laps raced than the average lap time. The opposite holds true too – anyone faster on at least one, more or all laps raced so that they gain 2.002 seconds (or more) in the course of a heat will finish with one more lap (27 laps) and an extension of nearly 7 seconds (or less). So the only difference is how slow or fast the participant goes relative to the average lap time noted in this example.
Now, if Pilot A is faster (or has covered more distance) than Pilot B and just manages to cross the finish line to start his 27th lap while Pilot B rounds the last corner and finishes his race with 26 laps – the result could look like this:
- Pilot A – 27 Laps (6.950 ext.);
- Pilot B – 26 Laps (0.510 ext.).
If the same happens over three heats the final race results could look like this:
- Pilot A – 71 Laps (20.850 seconds ext.);
- Pilot B – 68 Laps (1.530 seconds ext.).
At a quick glance one would see that Pilot A finished 3 laps ahead of Pilot B and perhaps jump to the conclusion that the race was no contest. It would be no contest if the extensions were similar. But further reflection reveals the opposite. The difference in extension (20.850 – 1.530 = 19.32 seconds OR approximately 2.76 average laps, which if added to Pilot B’s lap total would equal 70.76 Laps). Did this change the result? No.
Let us consider another similar example with one important difference: Pilot A and Pilot B race at exactly the same pace as before but Pilot A crashes after time has expired during his 27th lap thereby adding 3 seconds to his final heat total (and total race extension). The result would be:
- Pilot A – 71 Laps (23.850 seconds ext.);
- Pilot B – 68 Laps (1.530 seconds ext.).
Doing the same math as above (23.850 – 1.530 = 22.320 seconds OR approximately 3.19 average laps, which if added to Pilot B’s lap total would equal 71.19 Laps). Did this change the result? Everyone might be tempted to say YES. But they would be wrong. Why? Because the race is over when time is up. Extensions are only used as a tie-breaker whenever lap totals are identical – and they provide a value for location on track when time is up – independent of anything else. While the calculations provided in both examples above can help illustrate how close a race may have been they are both based on one critical assumption – that Pilot B would have raced throughout that extra time as fast as the average and without incident – something that never actually happened for Pilot B. Had each heat been 183 seconds long then Pilot B may in fact have had a chance to complete 27 laps in every heat and as a result tie Pilot A in laps, and perhaps even beat Pilot A by extension (if Pilot A had an unusually long last lap extension in one heat). ‘If I just had another 3 seconds…’
Now let us consider another set of theoretical examples which illustrate the criticism best:
Example A: Pilot A and Pilot B are having the closest of duels throughout a three heat (three lane) race. In the first heat Pilot A finishes one millimetre ahead of Pilot B at the moment time expires, but, because of location just happens to have crossed the start/finish line while Pilot B did not. As a result Pilot A having just started his 27th lap will finish it and finishes with a 6.900 second extension while Pilot B finishes with just 26 laps and a 0.001 second extension. In the next heat Pilot B finishes one millimetre ahead of Pilot A at the moment time expires, but, because of location again, just happens to have crossed the start/finish line while Pilot A did not. As a result Pilot B having just started his 27th lap will finish it and finishes also with a 6.900 second extension while Pilot A finishes with just 26 laps and a 0.001 second extension. Then in the final heat the same thing happens as in the first heat – Pilot A finishes one millimetre ahead of Pilot B at the moment time expires, but, because of location just happens to have crossed the start/finish line while Pilot B did not. As a result Pilot A having just started his 27th lap will finish it and finishes with a 6.900 second extension while Pilot B finishes with just 26 laps and a 0.001 second extension.
The race result would look as follows:
- Pilot A – 80 Laps (13.801 ext.);
- Pilot B – 79 Laps (6.902 ext.).
Although the pilots would finish just 1 millimetre apart the result would show a one lap difference. [As illustrated above the extension would still reveal just how close the race was although since Pilot B never actually completed the difference of 6.899 seconds it would be improper to assume a result.]
Example B: Pilot A and Pilot B are again having the closest of duels throughout a three heat (three lane) race. In the first heat Pilot A finishes one millimetre ahead of Pilot B at the moment time expires, but, because of location just happens to have crossed the start/finish line while Pilot B did not. As a result Pilot A having just started his 27th lap will finish it and finishes with a 6.900 second extension while Pilot B finishes with just 26 laps and a 0.001 second extension. In the next heat Pilot B finishes half a lap ahead of Pilot A at the moment time expires, but, because of location again, just happens to have crossed the start/finish line while Pilot A did not. As a result Pilot B having just started his 27th lap will finish it and finishes also with a 6.900 second extension while Pilot A finishes with just 26 laps and a 3.500 second extension. Then in the final heat the same thing happens as in the first heat – Pilot A finishes one millimetre ahead of Pilot B at the moment time expires, but, because of location just happens to have crossed the start/finish line while Pilot B did not. As a result Pilot A having just started his 27th lap will finish it and finishes with a 6.900 second extension while Pilot B finishes with just 26 laps and a 0.001 second extension.
The race result would look as follows:
- Pilot A – 80 Laps (17.300 ext.);
- Pilot B – 79 Laps (6.902 ext.).
By overall distance Pilot B would be cumulatively nearly half a lap ahead of Pilot A at the moment time expired in all heats but the result would show a one lap difference in favour of Pilot A. Pilot A wins the race despite NOT ACTUALLY TRAVELLING AS FAR as Pilot B BEFORE TIME EXPIRED.
What happened here? At the moment time expired both pilots travelled further than the other: Pilot B travelled further in distance while Pilot A travelled further by milestone. Since laps are the milestones counted in ‘racing to line’ Pilot A won the race by milestones (or laps) having travelled past more than Pilot B. If the lap distance was 2mm shorter then Pilot B would have won the race by milestones (or laps), but it wasn’t. It all boils down to how you decide to count distance, how much weight you wish to assign milestones and how many milestone results [or heats] one may ‘bank’ in any given race.
There is no disputing the fact that ‘racing to line’ may yield harsh consequences for those at times falling short of the lap milestone but to dismiss its use for that reason alone would be an over-reaction – the benefits far outweigh this single (if considered as such) drawback.
The Happy Canadian Scale Modeler!
