Members' Opinion Polls
|Message board > Members' Opinion Polls > Members' poll: That's a negative Ghost rider, the pattern is full...|
|That's a negative Ghost rider, the pattern is full...|
Apparently congestion in the mornings is getting worse (although we reached gridlock years ago). A 'leaked' CUCBC paper has suggested banning novices from the mornings, prompting some discussion. What to do?
|by mjb - Sun 11th Nov 2007, 7:31pm|
Simon said: What to do?Where's the "ban all other colleges from the Cam" option ?
|by RTT - Sun 11th Nov 2007, 10:01pm|
|Letting colleges row in the dark is a ridiculous suggestion. The only reason it is OK for the town clubs is that there are very rarely more than one or two crews out. Since you'd need to allow each college to have a minimum of one allocation spot for each sex, that's about sixty outings to fit in to give everybody one night outing.|
If we assume all boats do a single run, the number of times that boats meet goes up as the triangle numbers, ie. O(n^2). Three town crews => three meetings. Three town crews plus three college crews => fifteen meetings. You therefore probably don't want to let more than three college crews out per night, meaning it takes four weeks to get through the list. Since this means you only get two outings per term, it seems a bit pointless to go through the hassle and increased risk.
I'm sure a more complicated time slot arrangement (eg. two sessions per night) could improve on this to some extent, but the whole thing is a bit of a non-starter.
|by Simon - Mon 12th Nov 2007, 12:14am|
RTT said: Letting colleges row in the dark is a ridiculous suggestion.You're right for the safety reasons you note.
What might be interesting though, is the fact that not all Colleges would take up their outing slot. If one did want to have night outings - and we don't, because safety is the first priority - then some sort of "outing permits trading scheme" would be interesting. How much would we pay for extra outings? Would it make the playing field a bit more level because people like Lucy Cav would earn money to buy better equipment or pay for coaches? Or would it just make the gap between good and bad even bigger?
|by inconvenient truth - Mon 12th Nov 2007, 3:07pm|
Simon said: "outing permits trading scheme"I suspect the whole thing would fail due to Downing's refusal to ratify the treaty
|by Charley - Tue 13th Nov 2007, 9:23am|
|I'm definitely a fan of building a control tower at Chesterton, but only if it's mandatory to request a fly by each time you pass. Could slow things down a bit, but would make outings just a little more exciting.|
|by RTT - Tue 13th Nov 2007, 7:57pm|
|Bumps entry fees would have to skyrocket though, in order to fund all the extra coffee required after spillage.|