## Ransomville Figure 8

Expand Messages
• Last night while walking in the pits at Ransomville I was pleased to learn that there was going to be a figure 8 race. Immediately the new track lightbulb
Message 1 of 6 , Sep 2, 2006
Last night while walking in the pits at Ransomville I was pleased to
learn that there was going to be a figure 8 race. Immediately
the "new track" lightbulb went off!

As you may know, Ransomville has an inner oval that I believe is a
kart track...which shares the front stretch w/ the big track. Well
the "Figure 8" consisted of starting the (5 enduro-style) cars on the
back stretch of the big track. The cars raced thru turns 3&4, to the
front stretch, where they dropped on to the inner oval, made a lap
around it, and then back on to the big track, thru 1&2, etc. They
probably ran 10 laps like this. Seemed more like a "Figure Q" to me!

My question is: What is a countable track? The Figure "Q"?...The
inner oval?...Both?...Neither?

Paul
• Paul, Thanks for explaining the new Ransomville track layout to the group. The Ransomville figure eight , as they call it, is actually a double-0 and
Message 2 of 6 , Sep 2, 2006
Paul,

Thanks for explaining the new Ransomville track layout to the group.

The Ransomville "figure eight", as they call it, is actually a
"double-0" and therefore falls under the "multiple oval" area of the
TrackChaser rules. For our purposes, a figure 8 is a track with an
intersection where the cars change direction at some point. In a
double-0 (or "flagpole") race they continue to turn in the same
direction (left or right) all the way around the course.

The rule is pretty vague, and I believe it should be kept that way
because the tracks can come up with so many possible future set-ups that
we couldn't think of them all in advance. However, I think it will help
if I try to give everyone an idea of how I will rule in these
situations. To date, double-0 tracks have mainly consisted of a
permanent outer/inner oval combination, where 2 existing tracks are used
to former the course. In this case, I am ruling that anyone who has
already counted either the outer or inner oval can count the double-0 as
the oval they don't already have. As the rule states, no one can count a
third track in addition to the 2 ovals. If you don't already have either
of the 2 ovals, then you can count the double-0 as one of them (but not
both).

According to the rule, we cannot count a double-0 "in addition to the
track or tracks that comprise it". My interpretation of this is that if
one of the ovals that makes up the course is not an actual active track
then you can't count the double-0 as a second track, only as a first
track. This also applies to any flagpole race, since there is only one
real track used in a flagpole race.

Ransomville used a permanent, active kart track as the inner oval
portion of their double-0. My ruling is that both tracks have to be
active as regular ovals for motor racing, but they don't have to
necessarily hold countable racing as regular ovals. The countable oval
would take precedence over the noncountable oval in counting it as a
"first" track. Thus, at Ransomville, if you had no previous tracks and
only saw the double-0, you could count it as the outer oval. If you had
no previous tracks and saw both the double-0 and regular (outer) oval
racing then you can count two tracks (outer oval and inner oval). If it
was possible to already have 2 ovals at Ransomville (did they ever have
countable racing on the inner oval?) then you couldn't count the
double-0 as a new track.

This case reminds me that I never did add the "Track Rulings" page to
the trackchaser.com web site. I realize it can be frustrating to go to
one of these events, find that what they called a "figure 8" really
wasn't, and go away not knowing if you saw anything that counts as a new
track. Hopefully by posting some of my rulings and rules interpretations
on the web site I'll be able to reduce the confusion somewhat.

Will White
TrackChaser Commissioner

Paul Brauer wrote:
> Last night while walking in the pits at Ransomville I was pleased to
> learn that there was going to be a figure 8 race. Immediately
> the "new track" lightbulb went off!
>
> As you may know, Ransomville has an inner oval that I believe is a
> kart track...which shares the front stretch w/ the big track. Well
> the "Figure 8" consisted of starting the (5 enduro-style) cars on the
> back stretch of the big track. The cars raced thru turns 3&4, to the
> front stretch, where they dropped on to the inner oval, made a lap
> around it, and then back on to the big track, thru 1&2, etc. They
> probably ran 10 laps like this. Seemed more like a "Figure Q" to me!
>
> My question is: What is a countable track? The Figure "Q"?...The
> inner oval?...Both?...Neither?
• Thanks Will, So if I understand you correctly... -I have already seen many races at Ransomville. -I had never seen anything on the inner oval and I really
Message 3 of 6 , Sep 2, 2006
Thanks Will,
So if I understand you correctly...

-I have already seen many races at Ransomville.
-I had never seen anything on the inner oval and I really don't know
if countable racing has ever occured on it.
-So by what you said in the next to last paragraph, I could count
the inner oval?

I'm just an amatuer in track chasing, as many years of working on a
race team kept me at the same 3 tracks weekly, but I'm more in it as
a friendly competition w/ some friends....but we do try to use your
rules as a guideline.

Thanks for the great site and track information!

Paul

--- In TrackChasers@yahoogroups.com, Will White <trackchaser@...>
wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
>
> Thanks for explaining the new Ransomville track layout to the
group.
>
> The Ransomville "figure eight", as they call it, is actually a
> "double-0" and therefore falls under the "multiple oval" area of
the
> TrackChaser rules. For our purposes, a figure 8 is a track with an
> intersection where the cars change direction at some point. In a
> double-0 (or "flagpole") race they continue to turn in the same
> direction (left or right) all the way around the course.
>
> The rule is pretty vague, and I believe it should be kept that way
> because the tracks can come up with so many possible future set-
ups that
> we couldn't think of them all in advance. However, I think it will
help
> if I try to give everyone an idea of how I will rule in these
> situations. To date, double-0 tracks have mainly consisted of a
> permanent outer/inner oval combination, where 2 existing tracks
are used
> to former the course. In this case, I am ruling that anyone who
has
> already counted either the outer or inner oval can count the
double-0 as
> the oval they don't already have. As the rule states, no one can
count a
> third track in addition to the 2 ovals. If you don't already have
either
> of the 2 ovals, then you can count the double-0 as one of them
(but not
> both).
>
> According to the rule, we cannot count a double-0 "in addition to
the
> track or tracks that comprise it". My interpretation of this is
that if
> one of the ovals that makes up the course is not an actual active
track
> then you can't count the double-0 as a second track, only as a
first
> track. This also applies to any flagpole race, since there is only
one
> real track used in a flagpole race.
>
> Ransomville used a permanent, active kart track as the inner oval
> portion of their double-0. My ruling is that both tracks have to
be
> active as regular ovals for motor racing, but they don't have to
> necessarily hold countable racing as regular ovals. The countable
oval
> would take precedence over the noncountable oval in counting it as
a
> "first" track. Thus, at Ransomville, if you had no previous tracks
and
> only saw the double-0, you could count it as the outer oval. If
> no previous tracks and saw both the double-0 and regular (outer)
oval
> racing then you can count two tracks (outer oval and inner oval).
If it
> was possible to already have 2 ovals at Ransomville (did they ever
have
> countable racing on the inner oval?) then you couldn't count the
> double-0 as a new track.
>
> This case reminds me that I never did add the "Track Rulings" page
to
> the trackchaser.com web site. I realize it can be frustrating to
go to
> one of these events, find that what they called a "figure 8"
really
> wasn't, and go away not knowing if you saw anything that counts as
a new
> track. Hopefully by posting some of my rulings and rules
interpretations
> on the web site I'll be able to reduce the confusion somewhat.
>
> Will White
> TrackChaser Commissioner
>
>
>
> Paul Brauer wrote:
> > Last night while walking in the pits at Ransomville I was
> > learn that there was going to be a figure 8 race. Immediately
> > the "new track" lightbulb went off!
> >
> > As you may know, Ransomville has an inner oval that I believe is
a
> > kart track...which shares the front stretch w/ the big track.
Well
> > the "Figure 8" consisted of starting the (5 enduro-style) cars
on the
> > back stretch of the big track. The cars raced thru turns 3&4,
to the
> > front stretch, where they dropped on to the inner oval, made a
lap
> > around it, and then back on to the big track, thru 1&2, etc.
They
> > probably ran 10 laps like this. Seemed more like a "Figure Q"
to me!
> >
> > My question is: What is a countable track? The
Figure "Q"?...The
> > inner oval?...Both?...Neither?
>
• Paul, Yes, you understood me about counting the inner oval. This was a weird situation that needed to be clarified. Which race team were you associated with?
Message 4 of 6 , Sep 2, 2006
Paul,

Yes, you understood me about counting the inner oval. This was a weird
situation that needed to be clarified.

Which race team were you associated with?

Glad you enjoy the web site.

Will White

Paul Brauer wrote:
> Thanks Will,
> So if I understand you correctly...
>
> -I have already seen many races at Ransomville.
> -I had never seen anything on the inner oval and I really don't know
> if countable racing has ever occured on it.
> -So by what you said in the next to last paragraph, I could count
> the inner oval?
>
> I'm just an amatuer in track chasing, as many years of working on a
> race team kept me at the same 3 tracks weekly, but I'm more in it as
> a friendly competition w/ some friends....but we do try to use your
> rules as a guideline.
>
> Thanks for the great site and track information!
>
> Paul
>
> --- In TrackChasers@yahoogroups.com, Will White <trackchaser@...>
> wrote:
>
>> Paul,
>>
>>
>> Thanks for explaining the new Ransomville track layout to the
>>
> group.
>
>> The Ransomville "figure eight", as they call it, is actually a
>> "double-0" and therefore falls under the "multiple oval" area of
>>
> the
>
>> TrackChaser rules. For our purposes, a figure 8 is a track with an
>> intersection where the cars change direction at some point. In a
>> double-0 (or "flagpole") race they continue to turn in the same
>> direction (left or right) all the way around the course.
>>
>> The rule is pretty vague, and I believe it should be kept that way
>> because the tracks can come up with so many possible future set-
>>
> ups that
>
>> we couldn't think of them all in advance. However, I think it will
>>
> help
>
>> if I try to give everyone an idea of how I will rule in these
>> situations. To date, double-0 tracks have mainly consisted of a
>> permanent outer/inner oval combination, where 2 existing tracks
>>
> are used
>
>> to former the course. In this case, I am ruling that anyone who
>>
> has
>
>> already counted either the outer or inner oval can count the
>>
> double-0 as
>
>> the oval they don't already have. As the rule states, no one can
>>
> count a
>
>> third track in addition to the 2 ovals. If you don't already have
>>
> either
>
>> of the 2 ovals, then you can count the double-0 as one of them
>>
> (but not
>
>> both).
>>
>> According to the rule, we cannot count a double-0 "in addition to
>>
> the
>
>> track or tracks that comprise it". My interpretation of this is
>>
> that if
>
>> one of the ovals that makes up the course is not an actual active
>>
> track
>
>> then you can't count the double-0 as a second track, only as a
>>
> first
>
>> track. This also applies to any flagpole race, since there is only
>>
> one
>
>> real track used in a flagpole race.
>>
>> Ransomville used a permanent, active kart track as the inner oval
>> portion of their double-0. My ruling is that both tracks have to
>>
> be
>
>> active as regular ovals for motor racing, but they don't have to
>> necessarily hold countable racing as regular ovals. The countable
>>
> oval
>
>> would take precedence over the noncountable oval in counting it as
>>
> a
>
>> "first" track. Thus, at Ransomville, if you had no previous tracks
>>
> and
>
>> only saw the double-0, you could count it as the outer oval. If
>>
>
>> no previous tracks and saw both the double-0 and regular (outer)
>>
> oval
>
>> racing then you can count two tracks (outer oval and inner oval).
>>
> If it
>
>> was possible to already have 2 ovals at Ransomville (did they ever
>>
> have
>
>> countable racing on the inner oval?) then you couldn't count the
>> double-0 as a new track.
>>
>> This case reminds me that I never did add the "Track Rulings" page
>>
> to
>
>> the trackchaser.com web site. I realize it can be frustrating to
>>
> go to
>
>> one of these events, find that what they called a "figure 8"
>>
> really
>
>> wasn't, and go away not knowing if you saw anything that counts as
>>
> a new
>
>> track. Hopefully by posting some of my rulings and rules
>>
> interpretations
>
>> on the web site I'll be able to reduce the confusion somewhat.
• Will, I ve worked w/ a few teams over the years, starting w/ a family team in the late 80 & early 90s. When the family hung it up I started traveling w/ Todd
Message 5 of 6 , Sep 5, 2006
Will,
I've worked w/ a few teams over the years, starting w/ a family team
in the late 80 & early 90s. When the family hung it up I started
traveling w/ Todd Burley's 358 mod team. Around 2000 I moved a bit
too far out of the area to stay w/ Todd's team, but I was at
Ransomville on Friday to see him get his 1st track title there.
Getting a new track was a total bonus!

Thanks again for the clarification and the site!

Paul
--- In TrackChasers@yahoogroups.com, Will White <trackchaser@...>
wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> Yes, you understood me about counting the inner oval. This was a
weird
> situation that needed to be clarified.
>
> Which race team were you associated with?
>
> Glad you enjoy the web site.
>
> Will White
>
>
> Paul Brauer wrote:
> > Thanks Will,
> > So if I understand you correctly...
> >
> > -I have already seen many races at Ransomville.
> > -I had never seen anything on the inner oval and I really don't
know
> > if countable racing has ever occured on it.
> > -So by what you said in the next to last paragraph, I could
count
> > the inner oval?
> >
> > I'm just an amatuer in track chasing, as many years of working
on a
> > race team kept me at the same 3 tracks weekly, but I'm more in
it as
> > a friendly competition w/ some friends....but we do try to use
your
> > rules as a guideline.
> >
> > Thanks for the great site and track information!
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > --- In TrackChasers@yahoogroups.com, Will White <trackchaser@>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Paul,
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks for explaining the new Ransomville track layout to the
> >>
> > group.
> >
> >> The Ransomville "figure eight", as they call it, is actually a
> >> "double-0" and therefore falls under the "multiple oval" area
of
> >>
> > the
> >
> >> TrackChaser rules. For our purposes, a figure 8 is a track with
an
> >> intersection where the cars change direction at some point. In
a
> >> double-0 (or "flagpole") race they continue to turn in the same
> >> direction (left or right) all the way around the course.
> >>
> >> The rule is pretty vague, and I believe it should be kept that
way
> >> because the tracks can come up with so many possible future set-
> >>
> > ups that
> >
> >> we couldn't think of them all in advance. However, I think it
will
> >>
> > help
> >
> >> if I try to give everyone an idea of how I will rule in these
> >> situations. To date, double-0 tracks have mainly consisted of a
> >> permanent outer/inner oval combination, where 2 existing tracks
> >>
> > are used
> >
> >> to former the course. In this case, I am ruling that anyone who
> >>
> > has
> >
> >> already counted either the outer or inner oval can count the
> >>
> > double-0 as
> >
> >> the oval they don't already have. As the rule states, no one
can
> >>
> > count a
> >
> >> third track in addition to the 2 ovals. If you don't already
have
> >>
> > either
> >
> >> of the 2 ovals, then you can count the double-0 as one of them
> >>
> > (but not
> >
> >> both).
> >>
> >> According to the rule, we cannot count a double-0 "in addition
to
> >>
> > the
> >
> >> track or tracks that comprise it". My interpretation of this is
> >>
> > that if
> >
> >> one of the ovals that makes up the course is not an actual
active
> >>
> > track
> >
> >> then you can't count the double-0 as a second track, only as a
> >>
> > first
> >
> >> track. This also applies to any flagpole race, since there is
only
> >>
> > one
> >
> >> real track used in a flagpole race.
> >>
> >> Ransomville used a permanent, active kart track as the inner
oval
> >> portion of their double-0. My ruling is that both tracks have
to
> >>
> > be
> >
> >> active as regular ovals for motor racing, but they don't have
to
> >> necessarily hold countable racing as regular ovals. The
countable
> >>
> > oval
> >
> >> would take precedence over the noncountable oval in counting it
as
> >>
> > a
> >
> >> "first" track. Thus, at Ransomville, if you had no previous
tracks
> >>
> > and
> >
> >> only saw the double-0, you could count it as the outer oval. If
> >>
> >
> >> no previous tracks and saw both the double-0 and regular
(outer)
> >>
> > oval
> >
> >> racing then you can count two tracks (outer oval and inner
oval).
> >>
> > If it
> >
> >> was possible to already have 2 ovals at Ransomville (did they
ever
> >>
> > have
> >
> >> countable racing on the inner oval?) then you couldn't count
the
> >> double-0 as a new track.
> >>
> >> This case reminds me that I never did add the "Track Rulings"
page
> >>
> > to
> >
> >> the trackchaser.com web site. I realize it can be frustrating
to
> >>
> > go to
> >
> >> one of these events, find that what they called a "figure 8"
> >>
> > really
> >
> >> wasn't, and go away not knowing if you saw anything that counts
as
> >>
> > a new
> >
> >> track. Hopefully by posting some of my rulings and rules
> >>
> > interpretations
> >
> >> on the web site I'll be able to reduce the confusion somewhat.
>
• According to Mike Knappenberger there will be a countable Bandolero hundred lapper at Orange County Raceway (the small track) in Rougemont, NC, on Dec. 16th.
Message 6 of 6 , Nov 30, 2006
According to Mike Knappenberger there will be a countable Bandolero hundred
lapper at Orange County Raceway (the small track) in Rougemont, NC, on Dec. 16th.

Will White
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.