E Ck Race finishing early - why?

RaceTime · 3 Dec 2003, 02:22 (Ref:802072)

Has been an interesting 24 hours - primarily because of a dummy spit by an Official from Eastern Creek taking umbrage with me (personally) for the contents of the Team Betta Electrical meia release which contains their race report. In this report the following statement was made:

Quote:

Soon after this incident the storm that had been threatening for some time, unleashed its fury over the circuit resulting in a total power loss to all facilities at the circuit.

The race continued for quite a few more laps, while officials decided what to do. The electronic equipment for timing was also affected by the storm.
There was a procession of cars into pit-lane opting for wet tyres creating yet more positional changes.

It appears the chief Timekeeper at Eastern Creek is rather upset at this statement, blaming RaceNews for its contents. He also 'reported' me to ARDC and AVESCO for spreading dis-information (despite the fact the AVESCO site carries the same release!

However - that aside - during my checking of the contents of the release this morning (I still haven't wached race 2, btw, so wasn't aware it finished early) - I received the following information.

It appears that whilst AVESCO officials were in the timing room (I am aware of Tony Manson being in there - not sure if anyone else was) - it turns out that AVESCO were 'concerned' that the UPS (Uninterruptable Power Supply) or UPS's being used in timing would not last the remaining 7 or 8 laps the race was scheduled to go for and therefore decided/requested that the race be finished early.

This information corroborates what I had earlier been told by another official who was present in the timing room at this point in time (equipment was slowly being shut down to conserve remaining power) so, now with two independant sources, I have no reason to suspect it was all roses with the available power for the timing system.

Would have been interesting to see what would have happened if they had decided not to stop the race....

Crash Test · 3 Dec 2003, 02:34 (Ref:802077)

Hrmmm, conspiracy theories, true or not- the flooding over the track at the top end of the track had Marcos aquaplaning at 20km/h on his victory lap. Why bother going around for another 7 laps, waiting for the safety car to fire off into the paddock?...

sevi · 3 Dec 2003, 03:16 (Ref:802104)

I happened to be in a conversation after the event, which the chief timekeeper was present. He said that they could of gone, 40mins? (if not 40 it was a considerable time still) more with the power supply they had. He said that there was nothing to worry about.

jetsetter · 3 Dec 2003, 03:23 (Ref:802107)

I couldn't see the sense of having the cars trail the safety car for the remaining laps, if it wasn't safe conditions to race on then the right decision was made to finish the race early.

DAVID PATERSON · 3 Dec 2003, 04:06 (Ref:802121)

I'm with Jetsetter, pragmatically speaking, if it is obvious that the safety car will have to stay out for the remainder of the race, then what's the point? Hang the red and call it a day.

RaceTime · 3 Dec 2003, 05:46 (Ref:802175)

sevi - not disputing what was said there - however, I now have two seperate sources saying that AVESCO themselves were concerned about the situtaion.

Also - Can anyone confirm how long they had been on backup power up until the event was finished?

Most tracks have 1.5 KVA backup UPS's installed - at a minimum load of DATA-1, and 1 350 watt power supplied PC's, this will give a measured (not theoretical) backup time of approximately 42 minutes. Obviously the more you put on, the less time remaining.

RaceTime · 3 Dec 2003, 05:47 (Ref:802176)

David,

The problem with hanging the red is that it is seen to be finished early whereas finishing behind the safety car at least has the 'illusion' of completing the full race distance.

Contrived as against actual

sevi · 3 Dec 2003, 06:14 (Ref:802192)

I am fairly certain it came back on just as the race finished.
Yes, there were a few concerned people, but the timekeeper assured them there was no problems.

RaceTime · 3 Dec 2003, 06:37 (Ref:802213)

How long had it been off though when the race was called?

**GTRMagic** · 3 Dec 2003, 07:36 (Ref:802266)

Twenty minutes at least.. they lost power, knocked out the teevs and monitoring equipment, then a huge rainstorm came...

sevi · 3 Dec 2003, 07:44 (Ref:802275)

It went out just after the cat and mouse incident. It must of come back on just as the race was called or just after. I know that TV wanted to use some power from timing to show the podium, but they did not have to in the end.

**GTRMagic** · 3 Dec 2003, 07:47 (Ref:802279)

Some industrious teams fired up the gensets in the transporters and got some of the equipment back up... but not all...

RaceTime · 3 Dec 2003, 07:47 (Ref:802280)

So he is claiming at least 60 minutes backup - which would require at least a 2kVA or greater UPS..interesting.

Thanks for that.

sevi · 3 Dec 2003, 07:51 (Ref:802286)

Don't talk technical talk with me.

**GTRMagic** · 3 Dec 2003, 07:53 (Ref:802287)

As soon as the lightning storm started, they should have automatically considered abandoning the race... that the teams had no idea who was where in the event as the Natsoft monitors for the most part went down until they found anternate power, how would anyone know where their cars were placed in the event.

I understood that the timing units were retrieved from each of the cars after the race to confirm the Natsoft timing... even though a signed results printout from Mr Coogan was released not long after the race completion

RaceTime · 3 Dec 2003, 08:43 (Ref:802327)

There would be no reason to retrieve the transmitters UNLESS the whole timing system failed - which they are denying ever happened...

Wizzby · 3 Dec 2003, 14:10 (Ref:802629)

Gees, even the ancient generator we have at work runs longer than that... maybe the 60 mins is when the hamster runs out of steam...

mixxer · 3 Dec 2003, 14:20 (Ref:802643)

Wizzby without getting technical an UPS (Uninteruptable Power Supply) is not a Generator more like a electronic storage battery which will kick-in when the main power goes out.
Hope that makes sense

Wizzby · 3 Dec 2003, 15:14 (Ref:802701)

Yeah I know what it is,

and in lamens terms it's the same thing, a backup power supply. My point really is that surely the powers that be would have a contingency plan making allowances for running an entire race under backup power. Makes sense to me anyway...

**GTRMagic** · 3 Dec 2003, 19:14 (Ref:802938)

A UPS is really designed to only hold enough power to allow the operator to shut the systems down in the correct manner, not to keep things operating for any length of time.

Exactly why there was no back up power system is beyond me... EC seems not to have a Disaster Recovery Program...

Having said that, my employer, who is based maybe 10km from EC, has a similar problem with brown outs and black outs more regularly than you might expect.... so there is something not quite right about the power in the area...

RaceTime · 3 Dec 2003, 21:09 (Ref:803047)

Wizzby - you cannot, under any circumstances, compare a generator with a UPS. A generator is designed for long term power replacement - as GTR says, a UPS is only designed to provide power in order that the systems it is 'backing up' can be shut down under a controlled method.

When DATA-1 was first introduced, I did a deal with a local UPS manufacturer and we actually tested DATA-1 and it's minimum computer configurations to see what size UPS could provide backup power for the then SATCC race lengths - which was 30 to 35 mins.

At a minimum - ie DATA-1 boxes, basic single computer grabbing data and doing calculations with the PC running a 350 watt power supply (remember that this was 1994) we founf a 1.5 kVA unit would provide a guranteed 45 minutes of power for us - long enough to run, print on a non-laser printer, and save an SATCC race. However, to achieve this 45 minutes we needed to have NO other computers running.

Now yes, this was 1994 - and technology has improved - but all that improvement has brought about is the size and cost of a 1.5 kVA UPS - in 94 they were abour $4,500 - a big investment for anyone. Today they are around $1,500 or higher.

Computer today have larger power supplies and use more power, so they will be more of a drain on the UPS and, consequently, we have LESS time available to us.

From information given E Ck had more than one UPS but was powering at least 2 possible 3 computers (terminals whatever they wish to call them) and they were gradually shutting down services because of the drain (TV feeds, data feed to teams for instance)

Wizzby · 4 Dec 2003, 02:22 (Ref:803279)

Quote:

Originally posted by RaceTime
Wizzby - you cannot, under any circumstances, compare a generator with a UPS. A generator is designed for long term power replacement - as GTR says, a UPS is only designed to provide power in order that the systems it is 'backing up' can be shut down under a controlled method.

Maybe so, but I still think they should have had a long term power solution! It blows my mind, as a business person, to try and understand why they wouldn't have a contigency plan for power in place, especially for timing!

RaceTime · 4 Dec 2003, 02:41 (Ref:803295)

Maybe I am not getting through to you - but they DO have a contingency plan in place - all tracks do. What you cannot expect them to plan and pay for is long term alternate power availability.

Barbagallo have, for a number of years now, brought in two dedicated large capacity generators which take over the supply of power for the whole track during V8 meetings.

But even that didn't stop the generator itself failing 4 years ago (maybe 5, can't recall exactly when now).

Just remember that what you are suggesting has to be paid for somehow - are you prepared to wear increased admission charges to covers a $10,000 hire or a possibly $100,000 purchase/installation cost associated with it?

Somehow I don;t think so.

Wizzby · 4 Dec 2003, 02:52 (Ref:803302)

I'm sorry but my opinion still stands, all circuits should have backup generators as far as I'm concerned.

Matt H · 4 Dec 2003, 02:58 (Ref:803306)

Fair call on both sides of the arguement, knowing a bit about computers myself unnderstanding the difference between generators and ups'.

However, wizzby, one flaw on your argument, entry fees for fans to v8s meetings can range frorm 50-70 dollars for the sunday...

Now the promotors, or avesco, whoever fund the generator hire/installation, have to recoup those costs, how many families, and singles on low incomes, can afford perhaps 100 dollars plus entry fee on the sunday, let alone the other days.

Cheers

Matt H

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
All THREE finishing all 3 races?	Cougar	Formula One	51	12 Sep 2003 16:40
If only the finishing order was like this...	Crash Test	Formula One	11	20 May 2000 23:59