Managed Calendar reduce div 4 separation

General slalom chatter...rant about the bad, rave about the good
Post Reply

Managed Calendar reduce div 4 separation

For
4
40%
Against
6
60%
 
Total votes: 10

Canadian Paddler
Posts: 1480
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 8:31 am
Location: Peterborough
Contact:

Post by Canadian Paddler » Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:25 pm

8.5. That Rule 50 is changed for the mileage distance for Division 4 to be reduced to 100 miles.
50 Competition Calendar
Managed Calendar
50.1 Planning
In an attempt to produce a more balanced calendar the separation between events will be set at the following straight line distances:

*Division 1/Premier 1 event per weekend
*Division 2 300 miles
*Division 3 200 miles
*Division 4 100 miles

Proposed and seconded by Green Star Canoe Club
All spelling errors are intentional and are there to show new and improved ways of spelling old words. Grammatical errors are due to too many English classes/teachers.
Old. Fat. Slow. Bad tempered. And those are my good points

FatBoy
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 1:37 pm

Post by FatBoy » Thu Nov 10, 2005 2:22 pm

Sounds reasonable to me but does anyone have any stats on which sites this would affect?

i.e. How many Div 3 sites are between 150 and 200 miles from each other, and how many Div 4 sites are between 100 and 150?

Anne
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 10:39 am
Location: Somerset

Post by Anne » Mon Nov 14, 2005 9:33 am

What happens when a div 4/3 is run as happens often, on the present distances they are the same if the new proposals are accepted the higher ranked events rules will count so no gain!

Canadian Paddler
Posts: 1480
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 8:31 am
Location: Peterborough
Contact:

Post by Canadian Paddler » Mon Nov 14, 2005 10:33 am

Actually they are different.

Currently Div 3 200 miles, Div 4 150 miles. So yair pool, Lodden, Stone and other div 4 only events need to discuss with any othe div 4 or 3/4 within 150 miles.

As you say Div 3/4 runs by div 3 seperation
All spelling errors are intentional and are there to show new and improved ways of spelling old words. Grammatical errors are due to too many English classes/teachers.
Old. Fat. Slow. Bad tempered. And those are my good points

Canadian Paddler
Posts: 1480
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 8:31 am
Location: Peterborough
Contact:

Post by Canadian Paddler » Sat Nov 26, 2005 6:49 pm

RESULT:

This motion was carried, 51 votes for, 20 votes against and 11 abstentions :)
All spelling errors are intentional and are there to show new and improved ways of spelling old words. Grammatical errors are due to too many English classes/teachers.
Old. Fat. Slow. Bad tempered. And those are my good points

Post Reply