Discussion: Too many controls for SI stick

At Barebones this year we're planning a course that has 39 controls on it. Loads of SI sticks won't store that many punches. So what can we do? Do we have to reduce the number of controls (that would suck)

1. Rent a supply of the SI sticks that hold more punches.

2. Select a bunch of controls to have only pin punches and include a place on the map for those punches. Pick some pin designs that are easy to check - like all the same or just two different ones or something like that.

3. Select a bunch of controls to have no punches but don't tell competitors which they will be. If they get to a flag without an epunch, they just continue on.

I think Sandy's option 3 is good if you want to avoid extra work.

To improve slightly on this option, you may want to check if there is an operating mode for SI boxes that will make them beep in the usual amount of time but not write to the card. ("Read SI Cards" comes to mind, although it may be too slow.) The idea is that competitors shouldn't know which controls are the dummy controls until after they finish (and see their splits). This may reduce cheating potential.

1. Rent a supply of the SI sticks that hold more punches.

Looks like you need 80 of them, 100 to be safe? Any Canadian or west coast sources?

Email me, if you want to discuss using my 60 SI-6 cards.

To improve slightly on this option, you may want to check if there is an operating mode for SI boxes that will make them beep in the usual amount of time but not write to the card.

Finish boxes may do, since the Finish time will keep getting overridden by a new Finish time.

And using boxes programmed as Finish will give you the option of reading the boxes if you decide you need to know whether someone was there.

Hopefully we can do something with the controls since giving people new SI sticks for one race will cause all sorts of new problems for things like calculating the 6 day total...

Hopefully we can do something with the controls since giving people new SI sticks for one race will cause all sorts of new problems for things like calculating the 6 day total...

If possible, probably want to make the Dummy controls ones which aren't on other courses.

Though, I don't believe the SI-card is generally used as the ID for calculating 6 day totals, since there are other reasons the SI-card can change over the course of a multi-day, like lost or swapped for one day with a family member.

I like Option 3 also.

Thomas, I don't see the need for the box to beep. Once the runner has got to that control, why does it matter if they find out it's a Dummy control? What potential is there for cheating?

The only disadvantage I can see is if a competitor finds out ahead of time (or when running up to it), somehow, so decides to skip or the control?

However, if no box (or a box with no beep) there will have to be a very clear sign on it, so runners don't get confused!

Although it is more complex, we did an event a number of years ago which had a map and SI card exchange. (this was before the higher capacity cards were available) Competitors with small capacity SI cards could have a second card. They could either carry it for the entire course with instruction to begin using it at control 25 to 28 (supplemented with a clear reminder sign). Or, around control 25 to 28, hang a clothesline with runner's second cards hung in alphabetical order. A bucket could collect first cards for download and return. This is a little more work to administer but reduces the risk of anyone dropping / losing a card while trying to keep track of 2 of them. People with higher capacity cards would not have to stop/change.

Jeremy: As I originally said in my post, this is a "slight" improvement. However, I now think there are enough small advantages to make it worthwhile.

Probably the best benefit overall is that the routine for competitors is unchanged: "Punch every box and ensure it beeps; otherwise pin punch; otherwise risk disqualification".

If you have no box or a dead box (with a sign so competitors know they don't have to pin punch), then competitors may be able to see that they don't need to punch before reaching the control, especially if running behind others. This is unfair. Also, if two friends cross paths at different stages in the course, one could tell the other which controls can be skipped.

One small issue with using special controls (programmed as finishes, for instance), might be that competitors could read the LCDs on the boxes to determine whether they are dummies. This could be a particular issue with BSF8-DT units, which have their screens on the top. However, the organizers could put tape over all (or most) screens, if indeed they are using these units.

Finally, as Sandy said, the organizers would still have the ability to interrogate the dummies if they are programmed as finishes. Thus, the instructions really are unchanged: "punch as usual or risk disqualification."

Fascinating ideas. Ottawa had a race last weekend where the race-director put a matrix (score-O) box in the middle of the race, and these were all non-SI. This made the race interesting and solved our "too-many controls for SI-5/8" problem. But the race-director ended up with 29 SI controls, and this was still too many, since some people punched more than one extra control here and there and thus overflowed their punch card. I think I would put the limit at 26-27 controls because of the SI-8's maximum of 30 controls.
I think t_graupner's idea of programming some controls to be Finish sounds like the best. A non-beeping control would throw competitors off their stride. And if anybody has the time to look at the display, they're not in the top 3 positions anyhow.

To be honest, I think at an event like Barebones, the motivation probably has more to do with being able to provide splits for all legs than to ensure that people don't cheat.

in which case it makes sense to have the extra "finish" controls be ones that are not only not shared with other courses, but also easy to collect and interrogate... so that full splits can be processed efficiently.