ALAN ROGERS RALLY

Comments by Peter Noad

The navigation was obviously designed to be tricky and, like last year, it resulted in the vast majority of competitors missing controls and ending up with several thousand penalties.

With only five tests, it was a shame the first one had to be scrubbed due to a misunderstanding about the penalty for stopping astride a line instead of all wheels over. This is, of course, a line fault (the same as if you went all wheels over when it should have been stop astride) not a wrong test.

We made a mistake on Test 5, going the wrong way round cone E, but we went back again and did it correctly. It's not a wrong test if you do it again correctly; you've penalised yourself by losing time.

The test at Canada Farm was great, but I can't help thinking it is potentially hazardous because a slow car might not clear the junction before the next car arrives. With all due respect to Keith Wilson, there's no way he could have done that test in 100 seconds - it's a wrong time, probably a 60 second error:

The pre-plot navigation before lunch was all OK. You had to be on your toes and we made a couple of mistakes. Did anyone think they could re-visit the crossroads in Bishops Caundle (69951310)? It was a bit iffy.

The fun started after lunch. I bet Tony Large (photographer) wasn't expecting quite as much entertainment at the hump bridge at 536089. About a third of the field wrong-slotted. Navigators had their heads down plotting and drivers (including me) who were told 'straight on follow the road for 2 miles' saw the white Give Way lines across the road to the left and naturally assumed the right fork was correct.

After that, Regularity C was fairly straightforward but the plotting kept navigators fully occupied. I must say I was quite pleased to achieve single figures at most regularity TPs all by myself: We would have done even better if we had not gone the LWR the triangle at Pilsdon and added a tenth to the mileage (16 secs at 22 mph). The headless Tulips did fit going that way but I must say they fitted better by avoiding the triangle. The thing is, one always EXPECTS to go round triangles!

It was Regularity D that caused all the headaches, in particular the 10 avoid references in the area bounded by Powerstock, Hooke, Toller Porcurum and Askerwell near the western edge of map 194. They were deliberately tricky because they were specified as 25 metre radius of eight-figure references which plotted very close to junctions. The one at Higher Kingcombe, 54809985, was intended to be on the white, but actually plotted only 25 m from the yellow. It should have been given as 54809982 to avoid ambiguity.

The instructions did not actually say take the shortest route. Our route, like many others, complied with all the written instructions, but it was about 3 miles longer and we missed 2 RTPs and one PC.

If the navigation is deliberately tricky, then it is better to use a sliding scale of time penalties, as on the Hughes, so that a missed RTP is only 2 1/2 minutes rather than 30.

The final part of Regularity D included the not-as-map triangle at SH 72 in GS 5988. This was reminiscent of the infamous telephone box triangle on the Ross Traders in 2000. I really think organisers should be persuaded to avoid using NAM features defined only by 'impossible' approach or departure directions. I also think they should avoid jokey clues. To specify grid line 88 as 'two fat ladies' is descending into the realms of treasure hunt; it is not navigation.

It was a shame that there were not codeboards on all the long-wayround loops. It was frustrating if you missed the loop, then went back to go round it, only to find no codeboard, so you needn't have bothered especially when some codeboards were wasted on straightforward transport sections after the end of regularities.

There was obviously a clock error at RTPD2 and (probably) an organiser's mileage/speed error at RTPC3, in view of which all penalties at C3, D2 and D3 should have been scrubbed. Someone who was on time has been unfairly penalised more than someone who was early.

It should be allowable to make up lateness between the end of one regularity and the start of the next, subject to the 3/4 rule, in order to avoid bunching at regularity starts. If two (or more) cars were on the same minute at a regularity end, they had to start the next regularity all on the same second.

Sorry if this all appears negative - I try to be constructive; at the end of the day we all want rallies that are enjoyed by everyone. I actually enjoyed most of it, and I would have relished the challenge as a navigator! Yes, I would do it again. The scenery was nice, there were some interesting roads, good tests, a pleasant lunch and an excellent curry at the finish!

Competitors in the novice class were given easier navigation, as a result of which novices finished fourth and ninth overall. Well done, Paul and Alison Simmonds and Emma and Rob Henchoz. However, this raises important questions with regard to the championship. With easier navigation it is possible for a novice to win outright, which would be a hollow victory. If all rallies had easier navigation for novices it would be possible for a novice to win the HRCR Championship, which would make the Championship a bit of a nonsense. Novices have their own class and awards in the championship and they do not need, nor do they expect, to be given a special advantage over the experts so that they can win outright.

The best way of helping novices is to give them tuition before the event, and show them examples of previous navigation handouts.

Another question that arises when novices with easier navigation finish in the top five, or top ten, is 'how does this affect their novice status?' They might be obliged to, but not want to, compete as experts in a future event.

Pete Noad