PDA

View Full Version : Diagonal Grid Rows



chrobis
November 15th, 2009, 05:40 AM
Why do we arrange our grid rows perpendicular to the track, rather than diagonal, like the AMA, WSB, and MotoGP? I wonder this every time I watch a race start on tv. Is it to keep the grids from being stretched out too long? Would diagonal rows reduce 1st corner mobs?

Scored51
November 15th, 2009, 11:34 AM
Probably because Bob Heaton is the one who paints the dots. He's a "straight up" type of guy with no funny business. :lol:

Why would you want to suggest giving up more ground the competition around you? It would also take up more physical space on the pavement (meaning further down the hill at HPR, etc). What I don't know is if ANY of the organizations you mention have put 71 bikes onto a single grid, diagonal or not.

chrobis
November 15th, 2009, 01:27 PM
Actually, as I think about it, it would only add the depth of the diagonal once - for the entire grid - regardless of how many rows there are. The outside grid position of every row would be exactly where they currently are; the inside grid position of every row would be 2/3 of our row gap behind where they currently are.

If we have say 9 feet between rows (I'm just guessing here), position 2 would start 3 feet behind position 1; position 3 would start 6 feet behind position 1, position 4 (1st on 2nd row) would be 9 feet behind position 1 (still offset), but only 3 feet behind position 3 and 6 feet behind position 2. With our staggered row positions you would still be 18 feet behind the bike (two rows ahead of you) that is directly in front of you.

Rather than clumps of three bikes, gap, three bikes, gap, etc, the distribution of bikes would be much more uniform. Rather than pole position being only a lane advantage, this would give a slight distance advantage as well.

Desmodromico
November 16th, 2009, 08:24 AM
I actually like the idea and the logic seems sound as well in regards to T1...the only issue I see is how to accurately draw these puppies on the track without some sort of jig. Worst case you could get differing angles which would make it even more of a mess as far as bunching.

benfoxmra95
November 16th, 2009, 08:32 AM
after 12 years of gridding up for MRA, AMA, CMRA OMRRA.

I can tell you this, it makes no difference if its diagonal, horizontal, perpendicular, hexagonal.

Bikes will bunch up at turn 1.

The grid would have to be spread out all the way down the bottom of hill backwards at HPR to keep turn 1 a single file stream on the start.


What should be considered is the amount of room between rows to help keep grid incidents to a minimum and give you some sort of room to react to a stalled bike or a big wheelie in front of you.

T Baggins
November 16th, 2009, 08:44 AM
Back in the day we used to do four x four without any staggering at all :shock:


* * * *
* * * *

and the rows were much closer together.

Now it's

* * *

* * *

(note, the forum auto formatter thingy isn't complying with me... the above should show offset rows.

and further apart. Much mo bettah, no? I'd still like to see more space between rows, but then at HPR we've already got the issue with short people not being able to see the lights from the bottom of the hill.

Most T1 incidents I've seen in the MRA have been due to poor judgement on the part of a single rider (or a mechanical failure like at HPR last round) - not because of "too many bikes all at once".

rybo
November 16th, 2009, 11:53 AM
I happen to agree with Ben AND Tony on this one (dear god, someone must have tried to divide by zero or something)

Chris, the logic makes sense, but in practice it doesn't seem to matter. Especially at places like Hastings and HPR where T1 comes up pretty quickly after the start. In this case the riders on the BACK of the grid actually stand a better chance of catching the leaders as they get a better run (carry more speed) into the corner than the riders at the front (more straightaway space to gather speed). At Pueblo it's less of an issue because the run to T1 is pretty long.

I also agree that almost all of the T1 incidents I've seen are the cause of a single or a small group of riders that forget that it's impossible to WIN a race in the first corner, but VERY possible to lose one there (or even a season championship...)

s

dragos13
November 16th, 2009, 01:13 PM
Regardless of the T1 pileup change, I think going to diagonal grids is a good idea. For one, first place is then gridded with a slight distance advantage over second place, second over third, and so on. It wont change the actual distance from one rider to the next in front of him, however. If its just a matter of where Bob draws the dots, then I say lets do it.

If someone can tell us the current distance from one row to the next, we could do the math and figure out a simple template. I imagine the superbike and MotoGP guys do it for a reason right? 8)

Scored51
November 17th, 2009, 09:33 AM
The current MotoGP spacing per row regardless of whether they are running 3 or 4 bikes per row is 29.5 feet (9 meters). That means 71 bikes would need 25 rows 745 feet = .15 miles. All figures are rough estimates but would require Bob to walk 3/10 of a mile to check this grid (which we had in 2009) before getting back to the start button. How much additional fuel would you need to sit on that grid waiting for the above to happen, and how many would overheat?

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg77/Priority51/Motorcycle/MotoGPSpace.jpg

dragos13
November 17th, 2009, 09:42 AM
The current MotoGP spacing per row regardless of whether they are running 3 or 4 bikes per row is 29.5 feet (9 meters). That means 71 bikes would need 25 rows 745 feet = .15 miles. All figures are rough estimates but would require Bob to walk 3/10 of a mile to check this grid (which we had in 2009) before getting back to the start button. How much additional fuel would you need to sit on that grid waiting for the above to happen, and how many would overheat?


Not trying to doubt your math or anything, but when did we grid 71 riders? I had no idea it ever got that big for a single grid. Thanks for your info!!!

phildrummond
November 17th, 2009, 02:23 PM
I thought 54 riders is our cap, no? 18 rows X 3 riders? I've chalked the grid once or twice and seem to recall 18 rows.

One more thing to note is while we don't do diagonals, Bob does stagger so at least it's 2 rows to the bike directly in front.

* * *
* * *

marty
November 17th, 2009, 03:52 PM
Not trying to doubt your math or anything, but when did we grid 71 riders? I had no idea it ever got that big for a single grid. Thanks for your info!!!

i think it was endurance the weekend we HAD TO have 130+ riders to make the rest of the season. i'm pretty sure the LW grid was almost back to track exit. trying to launch a 125 uphill is no fun

phildrummond
November 17th, 2009, 04:07 PM
And apparently spacing doesn't show once a post is submitted. Disregard my awesome previous graphic!

dragos13
November 17th, 2009, 05:39 PM
We know what you mean:

Row 1 R_R_R_

Row 2 _R_R_R

and so on.


All we have to do is start the riders from pole position at the normal mark, position 2 a bike length (or maybe even half) behind pole, then third place behind him. Whatever line is currently used to draw diagonal, just have bob place the middle dot X feet back from there, and the third place dot X(2) feet back. Next row, postion 4 will start at the normal spot as diagonal grid, and so on.

Scored51
November 17th, 2009, 08:08 PM
Not trying to doubt your math or anything, but when did we grid 71 riders? I had no idea it ever got that big for a single grid. Thanks for your info!!!

i think it was endurance the weekend we HAD TO have 130+ riders to make the rest of the season. i'm pretty sure the LW grid was almost back to track exit. trying to launch a 125 uphill is no fun

Yep, that's the race I was using. The math also takes into account one row grid break and the distance the grid needs to start behind the start/finish line. We didn't actually have that many show up for the grid, but that's what the grid sheets showed. If we're gonna take the money to let 'em race, we have to be willing to let 'em ride. I think there were 54 in middleweight alone.

My basic point was that any grid under the MotoGP plan will roughly double the length of any grid. Also take a look at the picture again. There is a six foot advantage (where there is 0 currently in the MRA) between each position on a single row, and 9 feet between grid between the grid spots that run over a row change. And there is a 30 foot gap between row positions (instead of 10 to 15 feet). Sounds to me like POINTS or QUALIFYING just gained a lot of importance. But I'm happy to say that's never been an issue in the club before. :shock: :lol:

marty
November 18th, 2009, 12:13 AM
couple questions:

-wouldn't track marshall have final say in the matter? and yes, i know it is the off season and all we have is bs-ing on the forum for a couple of months :lol:

-what if we just did diagonal grids for premier classes ie ROR, middle grinder ss, etc. big classes like two wave endurance races and nov/am u/o would be the same.

i know it is just one more thing for bob to deal with but it would make the premier classes "stand out" more for specators

cromer611
November 18th, 2009, 04:45 AM
I agree with marty, the premier classes would be cool.

but for nov/ama, the second wave (if there is any) would be griddin down by turn 15 at HPR. then they REALLY couldnt see the starting lights : )

dragos13
November 18th, 2009, 06:20 AM
We dont have to increase the overall grid at all. If we just moved each bike slightly back from the next. It could be a bike length, half a bike length, etc. I dont know how much room there currently is from bike spot #1 and #4. No one gets farther away except the very last two riders, and it would only be by a matter of feet. I would love to see this setup for all classes, as having different dots for different classes would be a pain. I also think that the rider gridded at a higher grid position should have an advantage over the next riders.

Here is what I'm talking about.
http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii206/dragosracer/grid.jpg

JenJen
November 18th, 2009, 09:31 AM
Here are the numbers for endurance middleweight & endurance lightweight. At the last race there was a total of 21 rows 42 for endurance middleweight, 14 for endurance Lightweight a grand total of 56 bikes griding up. When we have such large grids we have to do a break after 7 rows & another break between the 2 classes.

As for Ngtu at the last race we had 42 bikes ,15 rows with the break after the 7th row. Ngto there were 47 bikes, 17 rows with the break. The Novice numbers stayed consistent at HPR races.

Hopefully this helps with the conversation.

joe859
November 18th, 2009, 04:31 PM
If you read what Chris wrote in post #3 and look at the diagram Casey drew, it's easy to see that the total grid length would be almost the same as it is now. Whether it's 4 rows or 24, total grid length is only about one bike length longer. The original markers for row numbers stay exactly where they were. I like this idea, it would be easy to lay out the spots, you just need 2 tape measures.

JWinter
November 19th, 2009, 07:30 PM
I hate to state this...but the important thing is to finish the race first. I don't care if I grid up backwards, I still have to race 7 laps to win.

And even if I grid up 2 feet ahead of Moham, he is still going to kick my ass.

Jeff

dave.gallant
November 19th, 2009, 07:48 PM
I hate to state this...but the important thing is to finish the race first. I don't care if I grid up backwards, I still have to race 7 laps to win.

And even if I grid up 2 feet ahead of Moham, he is still going to kick my ass.

Jeff

Stop being logical.

The offseason is about dreaming about getting faster without doing any real work to get there!

Scored51
November 19th, 2009, 09:33 PM
Here are the numbers for endurance middleweight & endurance lightweight. At the last race there was a total of 21 rows 42 for endurance middleweight, 14 for endurance Lightweight a grand total of 56 bikes griding up. When we have such large grids we have to do a break after 7 rows & another break between the 2 classes.

As for Ngtu at the last race we had 42 bikes ,15 rows with the break after the 7th row. Ngto there were 47 bikes, 17 rows with the break. The Novice numbers stayed consistent at HPR races.

Hopefully this helps with the conversation.

Well, that proves Abraham Lincoln right when he said, "No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar." :oops:

Casey's diagram looks pretty good if there is enough room to make a noticeable stagger. Would two or three feet between each bike in a row rather than the near 10 of MotoGP be enough? A possible benefit could be for the riders at the back of a large grid might be able to see the starting lights. It may also have the opposite effect. What about running a static test with a number of bikes in the critical positions during a lunch break on a lapping day before the season starts. It would be cheaper than coming up with a better light system if we care enough to change it.

dragos13
November 20th, 2009, 06:03 AM
Well, that proves Abraham Lincoln right when he said, "No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar." :oops:

Casey's diagram looks pretty good if there is enough room to make a noticeable stagger. Would two or three feet between each bike in a row rather than the near 10 of MotoGP be enough? A possible benefit could be for the riders at the back of a large grid might be able to see the starting lights. It may also have the opposite effect. What about running a static test with a number of bikes in the critical positions during a lunch break on a lapping day before the season starts. It would be cheaper than coming up with a better light system if we care enough to change it.

We could try it at the Race School mock race :)

I think it should be evenly gapped for all riders on the grid. Lets split the difference so that the distance between spots is the same for first, second, third, fourth, fifth, etc. My diagram almost shows this, just not perfect.

Also, my diagram would be backwards for HPR, as pole position would most likely be on the outside lane from the starting light, correct? So then, staggering from the top right and down going to the left, might actually help everyone see the light. Either way, people have trouble seeing it now so I dont think this will make it worse.

I would be happy to help Bob Saturday morning or whenever the dots get drawn. I think its a pretty simple idea, and easy to implement.

stuntriders
November 20th, 2009, 08:02 AM
I am not sure if anyone else has mentioned this yet, but doing this would more or less remove the choice for the rider on pole to start from the outside.

Technically it doesn't remove the choice, but I am not sure who would choose to put themselves at a disadvantage.

Personally I like this idea.

dragos13
November 20th, 2009, 08:05 AM
I am not sure if anyone else has mentioned this yet, but doing this would more or less remove the choice for the rider on pole to start from the outside.

Technically it doesn't remove the choice, but I am not sure who would choose to put themselves at a disadvantage.

Personally I like this idea.

Thats another thing we can avoid. Not sure about you, but it sucks when you are gridded front row, then find out you need to move to the other side cuz the guy in pole wants your spot.

This setup would eliminate that, always giving pole the distance advantage. I also think pole should be on the outside based on T1, ie right side at HPR and left side at Pueblo.

dragos13
November 20th, 2009, 08:10 AM
I hate to state this...but the important thing is to finish the race first. I don't care if I grid up backwards, I still have to race 7 laps to win.

And even if I grid up 2 feet ahead of Moham, he is still going to kick my ass.

Jeff

Jeff, in my opinion, the start of the race is CRUCIAL to the end result. This way, instead of me being in 4th overall and having to dragrace against 5th and 6th, I get a couple feet advantage to get the jump. When you are racing with really consistant guys (not saying you aren't) then every little bit helps to get to T1 first. On the other hand, if I'm in 6th place, then I dont get to start even with 4th place. They would get a better advantage due to holding a higher point position.

If you are gridded in front of Moham, that means you would have more points then him, and must have beat him on the previous race. Since you said he would kick your ass either way, then I dont think this will be an issue 8)

benfoxmra95
November 20th, 2009, 08:38 AM
I would LOVE to hear Tim Young's (track marshall) opinion on this.....

Timmmay where are you, I haven't seen you on the forum in awhile.



a couple years ago someone submitted a rule change to allow for varying colors of number plate background and number sizes etc...

Tim's response: "this is F'n MotoGp, we have rules in place and structured over the years for a reason"

At the time I thought he was just being stubborn and a pain in the ass, well actually he was :P . But I was missing the underlying reasoning.

Changing things just for the sake of changing things is not a great idea. It promotes confusion. This is not what we need in a high stress enviroment with the potential for accidents.

The steady structure that has been set in place over the years in the MRA is necessary.

It should not be a revolving door because your going to start introducing all sorts of variables that can lead to mistakes that can cause an accident or some other failure of the system.


I am wholly against "Procedural" changes like this in the MRA. We have a solid raceday plan, that works and is proven.

There is no need to change this. The benefits are do not outweigh the cons, its a wash. Unless there is some beaming light of why this is better, it should be left alone.

When I worked hard enough to be on pole in Twins O I felt it was part of my reward to have the ability to swap inside to outside. This shuold not change for anyone it's been that way in the mra for more years than ive been here and it should go on that way for the years beyond me.

I see alot of things lately being thrown out to "fix" the MRA.... The MRA isn't Broken.... The economy is.

dragos13
November 20th, 2009, 08:54 AM
I would LOVE to hear Tim Young's (track marshall) opinion on this.....

Timmmay where are you, I haven't seen you on the forum in awhile.



a couple years ago someone submitted a rule change to allow for varying colors of number plate background and number sizes etc...

Tim's response: "this is F'n MotoGp, we have rules in place and structured over the years for a reason"

At the time I thought he was just being stubborn and a pain in the ass, well actually he was :P . But I was missing the underlying reasoning.

Changing things just for the sake of changing things is not a great idea. It promotes confusion. This is not what we need in a high stress enviroment with the potential for accidents.

The steady structure that has been set in place over the years in the MRA is necessary.

It should not be a revolving door because your going to start introducing all sorts of variables that can lead to mistakes that can cause an accident or some other failure of the system.


I am wholly against "Procedural" changes like this in the MRA. We have a solid raceday plan, that works and is proven.

There is no need to change this. The benefits are do not outweigh the cons, its a wash. Unless there is some beaming light of why this is better, it should be left alone.

When I worked hard enough to be on pole in Twins O I felt it was part of my reward to have the ability to swap inside to outside. This shuold not change for anyone it's been that way in the mra for more years than ive been here and it should go on that way for the years beyond me.

I see alot of things lately being thrown out to "fix" the MRA.... The MRA isn't Broken.... The economy is.

With the economy being down, we need to adapt and make changes. I'm not saying this is going to increase the amount of riders we have on the grid, but just that change isn't always bad.

Almost every major racing org does a staggered grid, unlike our current setup.

I dont see what negative outcome this would bring. You mention confusion? How long will it take to get used to a slightly new grid setup? You still go to your row, which will still be marked the same way. Grid up either left middle or right. Pretty simple, imo.

Having the reward of being able to swap left or right, would be replaced with the reward of starting farther ahead then the rest of front row. I think this then rewards each rider equally, as when you hold a higher spot you grid closer to start/finish.

I still dont see any cons to this type of setup. If we remain in the mindset, hey it works dont fix it, then we will be left in the dust. We need to be open minded, and willing to try new things. Will it create a safer grid start? In my opinion, YES.

dave.gallant
November 20th, 2009, 09:20 AM
Not only do I not see any CONs of this idea, I don't see any PROs. (safer?? Come on now; really??)

This is not broken.

Lets fix something that is actually broken.

benfoxmra95
November 20th, 2009, 10:21 AM
I would LOVE to hear Tim Young's (track marshall) opinion on this.....

Timmmay where are you, I haven't seen you on the forum in awhile.



a couple years ago someone submitted a rule change to allow for varying colors of number plate background and number sizes etc...

Tim's response: "this is F'n MotoGp, we have rules in place and structured over the years for a reason"

At the time I thought he was just being stubborn and a pain in the ass, well actually he was :P . But I was missing the underlying reasoning.

Changing things just for the sake of changing things is not a great idea. It promotes confusion. This is not what we need in a high stress enviroment with the potential for accidents.

The steady structure that has been set in place over the years in the MRA is necessary.

It should not be a revolving door because your going to start introducing all sorts of variables that can lead to mistakes that can cause an accident or some other failure of the system.


I am wholly against "Procedural" changes like this in the MRA. We have a solid raceday plan, that works and is proven.

There is no need to change this. The benefits are do not outweigh the cons, its a wash. Unless there is some beaming light of why this is better, it should be left alone.

When I worked hard enough to be on pole in Twins O I felt it was part of my reward to have the ability to swap inside to outside. This shuold not change for anyone it's been that way in the mra for more years than ive been here and it should go on that way for the years beyond me.

I see alot of things lately being thrown out to "fix" the MRA.... The MRA isn't Broken.... The economy is.

With the economy being down, we need to adapt and make changes. I'm not saying this is going to increase the amount of riders we have on the grid, but just that change isn't always bad.

Almost every major racing org does a staggered grid, unlike our current setup.

I dont see what negative outcome this would bring. You mention confusion? How long will it take to get used to a slightly new grid setup? You still go to your row, which will still be marked the same way. Grid up either left middle or right. Pretty simple, imo.

Having the reward of being able to swap left or right, would be replaced with the reward of starting farther ahead then the rest of front row. I think this then rewards each rider equally, as when you hold a higher spot you grid closer to start/finish.

I still dont see any cons to this type of setup. If we remain in the mindset, hey it works dont fix it, then we will be left in the dust. We need to be open minded, and willing to try new things. Will it create a safer grid start? In my opinion, YES.


Left in the dust by who? DMG? or some other club? didn't know we were in competetion with them.

Safer? Have you seen any moto gp races where the guys are taken out in turn one on the start? it happens quite often actually....

I've seen a few in the past several years. Hopkins, hayden, and a few others have been taken out like bowling balls on the start in turn 1.

You have no data whatsoever to claim that this is a safer scenario. Please don't make a claim like that when you cannot prove it.

Remember you are on the board now, If you make a claim such as "this is safer" and implement a change with, and it turns out to not be safer then thats a problem and you are representing the MRA in a way that might look bad

To me that's worse than anything because I don't want our club to look like it doesn't know what the hell it's doing to the rest of the country by "doing this and doing that and not having any consistency", like maybe DMG....

dragos13
November 20th, 2009, 10:58 AM
Left in the dust by who? DMG? or some other club? didn't know we were in competetion with them.

Safer? Have you seen any moto gp races where the guys are taken out in turn one on the start? it happens quite often actually....

I've seen a few in the past several years. Hopkins, hayden, and a few others have been taken out like bowling balls on the start in turn 1.

You have no data whatsoever to claim that this is a safer scenario. Please don't make a claim like that when you cannot prove it.

Remember you are on the board now, If you make a claim such as "this is safer" and implement a change with, and it turns out to not be safer then thats a problem and you are representing the MRA in a way that might look bad

To me that's worse than anything because I don't want our club to look like it doesn't know what the hell it's doing to the rest of the country by "doing this and doing that and not having any consistency", like maybe DMG....

I, alone, cannot make changes to any rules or procedures. I can state my opinion, as that is all I have done here. Also, I have made it clear that this is only MY OPINION. In no way have I claimed any facts or stated that I have any data to back it up.

I have yet to see any stated cons about this change. You say that it works great how it is, well how do we know it can't work better? Just because it has happened a certain way for many years does not mean its happening in the best way possible. Change is good, in my opinion. I was voted to the board because the people who took time to vote thought I was the best candidate for this position. In no way does my personal opinion reflect our club. This is the reason we make posts, for discussion. We dont need to make any of this personal. You can be against it, I can be for it. Nothing wrong with any of that. Just dont attack me personally by stating I am a bad rep for this club and that I make it seem like "we" dont know what we're doing.

With that said, if this rule change is brought up next year it will have my support. Thats my $.02 so now I'll leave this up to the rest of the club to decide.

hcr25
November 20th, 2009, 11:09 AM
"Almost every major racing org does a staggered grid, unlike our current setup."

I am curious to know what other clubs do the staggered grid? I like the fact that if i am the pole sitter i get to choose my spot inside or outside.
Mike

benfoxmra95
November 20th, 2009, 11:12 AM
Left in the dust by who? DMG? or some other club? didn't know we were in competetion with them.

Safer? Have you seen any moto gp races where the guys are taken out in turn one on the start? it happens quite often actually....

I've seen a few in the past several years. Hopkins, hayden, and a few others have been taken out like bowling balls on the start in turn 1.

You have no data whatsoever to claim that this is a safer scenario. Please don't make a claim like that when you cannot prove it.

Remember you are on the board now, If you make a claim such as "this is safer" and implement a change with, and it turns out to not be safer then thats a problem and you are representing the MRA in a way that might look bad

To me that's worse than anything because I don't want our club to look like it doesn't know what the hell it's doing to the rest of the country by "doing this and doing that and not having any consistency", like maybe DMG....

I, alone, cannot make changes to any rules or procedures. I can state my opinion, as that is all I have done here. Also, I have made it clear that this is only MY OPINION. In no way have I claimed any facts or stated that I have any data to back it up.

I have yet to see any stated cons about this change. You say that it works great how it is, well how do we know it can't work better? Just because it has happened a certain way for many years does not mean its happening in the best way possible. Change is good, in my opinion. I was voted to the board because the people who took time to vote thought I was the best candidate for this position. In no way does my personal opinion reflect our club. This is the reason we make posts, for discussion. We dont need to make any of this personal. You can be against it, I can be for it. Nothing wrong with any of that. Just dont attack me personally by stating I am a bad rep for this club and that I make it seem like "we" dont know what we're doing.

With that said, if this rule change is brought up next year it will have my support. Thats my $.02 so now I'll leave this up to the rest of the club to decide.



sigh.....

when did i make it pesonal?

when did I attack you?

when did I say you were a bad rep?

sigh.....

I effen give up....

Good luck next year, I truly do mean that, in a good way, not sarcastic, and on a personal level and professional level.

DOUBLE A
November 20th, 2009, 11:13 AM
I am not sure if anyone else has mentioned this yet, but doing this would more or less remove the choice for the rider on pole to start from the outside.

Technically it doesn't remove the choice, but I am not sure who would choose to put themselves at a disadvantage.

Personally I like this idea.

Thats another thing we can avoid. Not sure about you, but it sucks when you are gridded front row, then find out you need to move to the other side cuz the guy in pole wants your spot.

This setup would eliminate that, always giving pole the distance advantage. I also think pole should be on the outside based on T1, ie right side at HPR and left side at Pueblo.

AGREE.

dragos13
November 20th, 2009, 11:22 AM
sigh.....

when did i make it pesonal?

when did I attack you?

when did I say you were a bad rep?

sigh.....

I effen give up....

Good luck next year, I truly do mean that, in a good way, not sarcastic, and on a personal level and professional level.

I just dont understand why new ideas are always flamed so hard. Its good to have new ideas and see what the riders think. So, if the majority of the voters think this is a stupid idea, then no biggie.

I still dont see what it hurts by implementing something that MotoGP, WSBK, AMA Superbike, WERA Nationals and others have been doing this whole time. Now, if everyone started doing rolling starts, I would be against that 8)

Are there other local clubs that have the same structure as us? Where the pole position guy can choose to swap with 3rd place? Wouldn't holding a distance advantage be better then just choosing which side of the track?

I dont want this to become drama for anyone, and hope we can all continue to discuss our opinions of this.

cromer611
November 20th, 2009, 03:43 PM
"You have no data whatsoever to claim that this is a safer scenario. Please don't make a claim like that when you cannot prove it.

Remember you are on the board now, If you make a claim such as "this is safer" and implement a change with, and it turns out to not be safer then thats a problem and you are representing the MRA in a way that might look bad"

lemme answer these for you via copy paste.

sigh.....

when did i make it pesonal? You have no data whatsoever to claim that this is a safer scenario.

when did I attack you? You have no data whatsoever to claim that this is a safer scenario.

when did I say you were a bad rep? and you are representing the MRA in a way that might look bad"


sigh.....

I effen give up....
QQ
"Good luck next year, I truly do mean that, in a good way, not sarcastic, and on a personal level and professional level."
^Cynical maybe?

anyway, im for the change. would be fun to try it. If we do try it and dont like it, its as easy as painting the white dots black and doin it regularly. Could do it in one of the 15min breaks during the day.

eeezzzyyy peeezzzy

The GECCO
November 20th, 2009, 07:23 PM
If we remain in the mindset, hey it works dont fix it, then we will be left in the dust.

I find fault in this argument. Changing something, that has a proven history of working, just for the sake of changing it is also known as "motion being mistaken for progress". The proper way to change anything is to first identify a problem, then use the some type of logical process to arrive at a solution. Not "this may or may not be broken, but let's try some different stuff just to see what happens."

Here's the thing - the people who have been arguing in favor of this change say it's safer because it spreads out the bikes heading into T1. Yet, they also claim that it will NOT increase the total length of the grid. These two arguments are contradictory.

If it's true that the proposed layout will be done in such a way that the overall length of the grid is unchanged, then there is no safety benefit because you have not increased the spacing between the bikes - all you've done is shuffle the existing space. When you stagger the rows but don't change the distance between the rows, every foot of spacing gained between riders in the same row is lost to some of the riders in the next row. In other words, the 3rd place rider on the outside of row 1 may be further behind 1st and 2nd, but now he's that much closer to the riders in 4th and 5th place, and the space between he and the rider in 6th is unchanged. There is NO net benefit, unless you move the foremost rider in row 2 back the same distance that you move the last rider in row 1.

I agree that the MOTOGP style grid is arguably safer, but that's because the last rider in row 1 is ahead of the first rider in row 2. That isn't what's being proposed here. Implementing the MOTOGP solution would add significantly to the overall length of our grids and simply would not be feasible for at least some of our classes.

JWinter
November 20th, 2009, 07:28 PM
Casey, the point I am getting at is this: Certain tracks I have an advantage and at certain tracks someone else has the better set-up. So yes I may beat another rider at track A and then I get an advantage of 2 feet in a diagonal grid at the next round; but then at the next race at track B I get beat even with the advantage. So I see no need for changing what we already have.

Besides in drag racing they don't care about points advantage...they line up side-by-side and drag race. We are doing the same thing until we get to turn 1.

I know, lets go old school and do the start like we used to do in Formula 3. Have someone stand on one side of the grid holding the bike and the riders on the other side of the grid. Fire the starting gun and whoever can run across the grid first, start his bike, and then drag race down to turn 1!!!

I am just having fun with this and really mean no harm...If everyone thinks that this kind of change is critical for the long term health of our club; I will of course go along with it.

auzzy
November 20th, 2009, 07:33 PM
I have a problem with it.......kinda. It might not allow me to holeshot from the second row :lol:

The GECCO
November 20th, 2009, 07:44 PM
"You have no data whatsoever to claim that this is a safer scenario. Please don't make a claim like that when you cannot prove it.

Remember you are on the board now, If you make a claim such as "this is safer" and implement a change with, and it turns out to not be safer then thats a problem and you are representing the MRA in a way that might look bad"

lemme answer these for you via copy paste.

sigh.....

when did i make it pesonal? You have no data whatsoever to claim that this is a safer scenario.

when did I attack you? You have no data whatsoever to claim that this is a safer scenario.

when did I say you were a bad rep? and you are representing the MRA in a way that might look bad"


sigh.....

I effen give up....
QQ
"Good luck next year, I truly do mean that, in a good way, not sarcastic, and on a personal level and professional level."
^Cynical maybe?

anyway, im for the change. would be fun to try it. If we do try it and dont like it, its as easy as painting the white dots black and doin it regularly. Could do it in one of the 15min breaks during the day.

eeezzzyyy peeezzzy

Wow...before you get too arrogant with your sighs, at least learn to use the quote function properly.

When Ben says


You have no data whatsoever to claim that this is a safer scenario.It's not a personal attack, it's a fact.


and when he says


you are representing the MRA in a way that might look bad He's not saying Casey is a bad rep, just that his actions may make the club look bad (at least that's how I read it). Why? Because ANY time you change something you need to be able to justify WHY it was done, and not being able to do that reflects poorly on the process used to make the change, plain and simple.

Right now there is nothing that justifies the change proposed. The proposed change is NOT the same as the MOTOGP grid, would NOT increase the distance between the bikes and therefore would result in no overall benefit.

bluedevil
November 20th, 2009, 09:01 PM
I can't remember why we changed from a green light start to just a red light going off? Was there a "problem" we had to fix? Did it make the start "safer" ? Was it less "confusing"? or did we just conform to the way other clubs did it? :wink:

Though we didn't actually fix any problem with this change, it was simply change, it was confusing at 1st, and after a short time people got used to it, and many actually enjoy or prefer the way we do it now.


Though I don't care if it changes or not, I think there will be a lot of changes this next year and more to come over the next few years. I'm surprised folks are picking this battle already to dig their heels in on...... :roll:

Folks wake up and smell the Starbucks! People want change. Small ones, big ones, odd ball ones, etc. They want to make the club more fun, more enjoyable, and and "test" new ideas. What's the harm? Try it for a race weekend, then take a vote. If the majority of riders hate it, go back to the norm. If they love it.. go with it. Don't be scurd of change folks... There is and MUST be lots of it from this day forward to grow as a club.

I now retract my stick from said pot......

marty
November 20th, 2009, 09:04 PM
eff it all, lets do a rolling start just like the ama.

i nominate me to ride jeff winters 450 tractor as the pace bike :twisted:

The GECCO
November 21st, 2009, 02:21 AM
I can't remember why we changed from a green light start to just a red light going off? Was there a "problem" we had to fix? Did it make the start "safer" ? Was it less "confusing"? or did we just conform to the way other clubs did it? :wink:

Actually, there WAS not one, but two potential problems solved.

First - It was argued that with the old system (red - yellow - green) that the third "action" made it possible for the riders to anticipate a rhythm, and therefore jump the start.

Second - It was also argued that starting the race required not one, but two different lights (yellow and green) to come ON, and a mechanical malfunction could cause problems. Imagine if, under the old system, the red light came on, then the red went out as the yellow light came on, then the yellow light went out but (because of a mechanical problem) the green light never came on. Some of the riders would take off because they saw the yellow light go out (as I used to) and others would stay still waiting for the green to come on. Disaster.

The new process (red on - red off) solved both problems. First, it's impossible to anticipate a rhythm when there are less than three distinct actions. Second, if a mechanical problem causes the red light to never come ON, then the riders on the grid are a lot less charged up to go, and while there may be a lot of confusion, there's less danger. There is a lot less chance of a problem that makes it impossible to turn the light OFF compared to the chances of not being able to turn not one, but two lights ON.

auzzy
November 21st, 2009, 06:49 AM
Just a question.....wouldnt it be somewhat less clustered in turn one? :?

rybo
November 21st, 2009, 09:44 AM
I can't remember why we changed from a green light start to just a red light going off? Was there a "problem" we had to fix? Did it make the start "safer" ? Was it less "confusing"? or did we just conform to the way other clubs did it? :wink: .

Dion,

Glenn mentioned it too, but there were actually a couple incidents where the green light didn't come on in 2006. I was on the grid one of those times and it did cause a fair bit of chaos. The race was red flagged and restarted, but the opportunity for "incident" was high. The race I was in was a Modern Vintage race, and that season the grids weren't very big, so we didn't have a problem.


Just a question.....wouldnt it be somewhat less clustered in turn one? :?

Auzzy,

The answer to this question was listed above. IF the club switched to a Moto GP style grid with all of it's spacing, then yes it would reduce the clustering in T1. There are a couple of problems with this, however. One is that the grid in a race like AM U would have the last gridded riders at the bottom of the hill at HPR where it would be impossible for them to see the start lights. Secondly Moto GP often has 4 riders on the front row so that their overall grid length is shorter. By creating diagonal grid rows in the MRA and maintaining our current grid spacing I see two problems that occur. 1) Some of the "advantage" that Casey sees for the pole position rider is lost as the rider who's gridded 3rd will be almost even with the rider who's gridded 4th and the 4th place rider would actually have the inside line going into T1. While it's good for the pole position rider the 3rd place rider gets hosed. 2) It doesn't solve any kind of congestion problem at T1 because the spacing between the riders is the same, it's only the configuration that's different.



Folks wake up and smell the Starbucks! People want change. Small ones, big ones, odd ball ones, etc. They want to make the club more fun, more enjoyable, and and "test" new ideas. What's the harm? Try it for a race weekend, then take a vote. If the majority of riders hate it, go back to the norm. If they love it.. go with it. Don't be scurd of change folks... There is and MUST be lots of it from this day forward to grow as a club.

I now retract my stick from said pot......

Believe me when I say that I totally understand this sentiment. On the other hand there are some changes, especially procedural ones that take place on the race surface, that need to be very carefully examined before they are implemented. These kinds of changes have peoples well being hanging in the balance and even a small amount of confusion can have disastrous consequences.

I do believe that some changes need to be made for the club to move forward. I also know that the key to this success is the careful consideration of change before we make it. The MRA has a lot of really good things going for it and a lot of inertia in the right direction. From here we need to realize that it's a semi-truck, not a sportbike. It changes direction slowly and with lots of good planning.

Keep making suggestions, keep having ideas, keep bringing them to the forums. Some will get used, some won't. If you have questions about how the board comes to the decision to use or not use a suggestion you had, please pull me aside and ask.

Scott

dragos13
November 21st, 2009, 12:02 PM
In the current setup, when the first row all gets a decent lauch, we now have 3 riders going 3-wide into turn one. First one off the gas is the last one through the turn. We have had people clip the inside dirt, trying to hold that one spot going 3 wide into turn one. I've seen this on video.

Proposing a small movement of the current dots is pretty simple. Even if its just half a bike length, I think it will be significant. When the front row has an equal launch, we now go in spaced apart. First guy has the hole shot unless second guy flat out beats him on the launch. So, its possible to go 3 wide, of course if the pole guy sucks, second gets decent and third does great and they all line up. But even then, the guy that did better will power past.

This is less likely, IMO, then having the three guys start off dead even to begin with. They all get similar launches, which puts them all equal going into turn 1.

Now, what arguements show that the current setup is better? The fact that is has worked this long is irrelevant when talking about rule changes. Something can work forever and still not be the best way to do things. This is just for discussion and should be taken lightly. Again, no one is trying to re-invent the wheel. This type of staggering happens in most other major clubs, so even if we can't do full spacing like MotoGP, maybe we can work on something similar.

cromer611
November 21st, 2009, 06:04 PM
"You have no data whatsoever to claim that this is a safer scenario. Please don't make a claim like that when you cannot prove it.

Remember you are on the board now, If you make a claim such as "this is safer" and implement a change with, and it turns out to not be safer then thats a problem and you are representing the MRA in a way that might look bad"

lemme answer these for you via copy paste.

sigh.....

when did i make it pesonal? You have no data whatsoever to claim that this is a safer scenario.

when did I attack you? You have no data whatsoever to claim that this is a safer scenario.

when did I say you were a bad rep? and you are representing the MRA in a way that might look bad"


sigh.....

I effen give up....
QQ
"Good luck next year, I truly do mean that, in a good way, not sarcastic, and on a personal level and professional level."
^Cynical maybe?

anyway, im for the change. would be fun to try it. If we do try it and dont like it, its as easy as painting the white dots black and doin it regularly. Could do it in one of the 15min breaks during the day.

eeezzzyyy peeezzzy

Wow...before you get too arrogant with your sighs, at least learn to use the quote function properly.

When Ben says


You have no data whatsoever to claim that this is a safer scenario.It's not a personal attack, it's a fact.


and when he says


you are representing the MRA in a way that might look bad He's not saying Casey is a bad rep, just that his actions may make the club look bad (at least that's how I read it). Why? Because ANY time you change something you need to be able to justify WHY it was done, and not being able to do that reflects poorly on the process used to make the change, plain and simple.

Right now there is nothing that justifies the change proposed. The proposed change is NOT the same as the MOTOGP grid, would NOT increase the distance between the bikes and therefore would result in no overall benefit.

to correct you, they weren't my sighs...

anyway, i havnt heard anyone mention anything about the old Grand Prix starts.
as much as i hate running, would be fun to have those crazy starts.
but I can already see whats gonna happen to this idea.

marty
November 21st, 2009, 06:17 PM
"You have no data whatsoever to claim that this is a safer scenario. Please don't make a claim like that when you cannot prove it.

Remember you are on the board now, If you make a claim such as "this is safer" and implement a change with, and it turns out to not be safer then thats a problem and you are representing the MRA in a way that might look bad"

lemme answer these for you via copy paste.

sigh.....

when did i make it pesonal? You have no data whatsoever to claim that this is a safer scenario.

when did I attack you? You have no data whatsoever to claim that this is a safer scenario.

when did I say you were a bad rep? and you are representing the MRA in a way that might look bad"


sigh.....

I effen give up....
QQ
"Good luck next year, I truly do mean that, in a good way, not sarcastic, and on a personal level and professional level."
^Cynical maybe?

anyway, im for the change. would be fun to try it. If we do try it and dont like it, its as easy as painting the white dots black and doin it regularly. Could do it in one of the 15min breaks during the day.

eeezzzyyy peeezzzy

Wow...before you get too arrogant with your sighs, at least learn to use the quote function properly.

When Ben says


You have no data whatsoever to claim that this is a safer scenario.It's not a personal attack, it's a fact.


and when he says


you are representing the MRA in a way that might look bad He's not saying Casey is a bad rep, just that his actions may make the club look bad (at least that's how I read it). Why? Because ANY time you change something you need to be able to justify WHY it was done, and not being able to do that reflects poorly on the process used to make the change, plain and simple.

Right now there is nothing that justifies the change proposed. The proposed change is NOT the same as the MOTOGP grid, would NOT increase the distance between the bikes and therefore would result in no overall benefit.

to correct you, they weren't my sighs...

anyway, i havnt heard anyone mention anything about the old Grand Prix starts.
as much as i hate running, would be fun to have those crazy starts.
but I can already see whats gonna happen to this idea.

you gonna be there to push me? :lol:

cromer611
November 21st, 2009, 06:52 PM
hells yeah i will! with my foot on your rearset

marty
November 21st, 2009, 07:53 PM
i heard back in the day, the formula 3 class not only did le mans start but they all would put one glove in a pile and you had to dig for a glove before you bumped your bike.

i would love to see some of those shennanigans in mw ss when the money chasers came to town with that kind of start :twisted:

dave.gallant
November 21st, 2009, 08:35 PM
i heard back in the day, the formula 3 class not only did le mans start but they all would put one glove in a pile and you had to dig for a glove before you bumped your bike.

i would love to see some of those shennanigans in mw ss when the money chasers came to town with that kind of start :twisted:

THANK GOD I NEVER HAVE TO DO THAT AGAIN.


(If we have to do it again, I am finding your glove first and tossing it over pit wall.)

marty
November 22nd, 2009, 02:23 AM
i heard back in the day, the formula 3 class not only did le mans start but they all would put one glove in a pile and you had to dig for a glove before you bumped your bike.

i would love to see some of those shennanigans in mw ss when the money chasers came to town with that kind of start :twisted:

THANK GOD I NEVER HAVE TO DO THAT AGAIN.


(If we have to do it again, I am finding your glove first and tossing it over pit wall.)

:lol: :lol: sometimes a guy could accidently grab his competitors glove, what size glove you wear dave?

dragos13
November 23rd, 2009, 08:21 AM
Just to clear up some mis-quoted info that I have seen in this thread by other members.

1. The last rider in row 1 would still be ahead of the first rider in row 2. How else would something like this be set up? No one indicated anything else. Even my cheap little drawing clearly shows that every rider in row 1 would be ahead of all riders in row 2. I thought this was obvious.

2. Will this make racing safe? No. I personally think that it will help spread out the start of the race, and help to avoid 3-wide entries into T1. Of course, crashes are still possible.

3. This will NOT give an advantage to the 4th place rider over 3rd place. An example, rider 1 starts on Pole. Rider 2 is then placed 3ft farther back from start finish then rider 1. Rider 3 is then placed 3ft farther back then rider 2. Rider 4 is then placed at the normal grid spot, being atleast equal to or greater then the gap from rider 1 to rider 2.

I dont know the exact distance that we currently grid so the 3ft used above is for example only.

What are the pro's to keeping it as is? Yes, I know it has worked for years. We have also never qualified for races, however that was recently approved. Was there a problem with gridding by points? NO. Does qualifying make ROR safer? NO. Does the fact that gridding by points in ROR make it the best way of doing things? NO. Did we need to make Endurance 5 minutes longer? Was there anything ever identified that a 30 minute endurance race wasn't working? I can go on and on. I think the idea of staying flexible and adapting to change is key with any business.

So, lets say we try this out for one race weekend and everyone hates it. Does that mean all other clubs are going to look at the MRA and think "what a bunch of clowns. They tried to make a change and look how they failed". I doubt that.

Desmodromico
November 23rd, 2009, 10:15 AM
Holy cow, I posted my agreement on the first page and then the whole thread went code red...

Anyhow I don't think it is change for the sake of change, I think it would benefit someone higher in the points by giving them some distance advantage and I agree with the 3 across into turn one being less of an issue.

If the outside is the advantageous line then why would there be an issue making this Pole? Who would want to switch back? If 4th place had the inside line on 3rd place but third got an equal start, 4th would still have to settle behind them unless they were going to be a banzai idiot which is not controllable by gridding or by anything else anyone can do unfortunately.

Will this stop T1 incidents? Of course not, but the small distance advantage would logically seem to spread the field a bit more than the current setup.

snay
November 23rd, 2009, 11:18 AM
USBA starts all races on a diagonal and I have raced both MRA and USBA I know I'm new but It has not made any diff come T1 the fast starters all get there at the same time my last 6 races mra I started 21st and at T1 I was 5th to 8th my last race USBA with the diagonal start I started dead last I think 28th and come T1 I was in 2nd but Im new and and dont know a lot !!!

dave.gallant
November 23rd, 2009, 11:20 AM
Many of us have lined up both ways weekend after weekend year after year.

It didn't make any difference to us either, and we were not "new".

:)

Desmodromico
November 23rd, 2009, 04:29 PM
I guess all us "new" guys (which I am one) should just be happy with everything as it is and not suggest anything different since the club doesn't need any new ideas or new members... :roll:

dave.gallant
November 23rd, 2009, 04:47 PM
I guess all us "new" guys (which I am one) should just be happy with everything as it is and not suggest anything different since the club doesn't need any new ideas or new members... :roll:

Cry me a f*cking river. There is no "us" or "them".

It is a "we" here, and our numbers are dwindling. And, it is not because of diagonal or horizontal gridding at the start line.

:roll:

snay
November 23rd, 2009, 05:02 PM
I guess all us "new" guys (which I am one) should just be happy with everything as it is and not suggest anything different since the club doesn't need any new ideas or new members... :roll:

Cry me a f*cking river. There is no "us" or "them".

It is a "we" here, and our numbers are dwindling. And, it is not because of diagonal or horizontal gridding at the start line.

:roll:Thanks Dave I'm with you Iv had a long day and that made me LoL! I'm with you 100%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Desmodromico
November 23rd, 2009, 09:20 PM
I guess all us "new" guys (which I am one) should just be happy with everything as it is and not suggest anything different since the club doesn't need any new ideas or new members... :roll:

Cry me a f*cking river. There is no "us" or "them".

It is a "we" here, and our numbers are dwindling. And, it is not because of diagonal or horizontal gridding at the start line.

:roll:

Your idea of "we" sounds like "you"....and perhaps it is responses like this from those who have been around a while that leads to the dwindling participation...not it is not gridding it is attitude...

Desmodromico
November 23rd, 2009, 09:22 PM
Oh and since on the subject, Erik and Casey were to of the most welcoming people I met last season, always willing to help, always with a good attitude, if more people were like them and a bit more open to others feedback we would likely have a lot more people to worry about gridding...

dave.gallant
November 23rd, 2009, 09:36 PM
I guess all us "new" guys (which I am one) should just be happy with everything as it is and not suggest anything different since the club doesn't need any new ideas or new members... :roll:

Cry me a f*cking river. There is no "us" or "them".

It is a "we" here, and our numbers are dwindling. And, it is not because of diagonal or horizontal gridding at the start line.

:roll:

Your idea of "we" sounds like "you"....and perhaps it is responses like this from those who have been around a while that leads to the dwindling participation...not it is not gridding it is attitude...

History nor participation nor interest means very much; You are so right.

This is all about me. (And Ben. And Tony. And Glenn.) It must be all about "us". Not at all "them".

Silly me.


The MRA is ready and welcoming for your volunteering, your interest, and specifically your participation. May you stay be enjoyable.

Jim 'smooth' Brewer
November 29th, 2009, 04:56 PM
Just to add some data to this discussion (although I'm not sure that's what we need at this point #-o ) here's the StGTO grid from a video of our last race @ HPR. I drew the lines in where the current dots are.

This supports Glenn's argument. If we're not going to change the row spacing and we're still going to have 3rd (Turpin in this picture) ahead of 4th (me), I don't think staggering the grid or not will make much of a difference to anything.

http://users.frii.com/jjb/MRA_board/stgto_grid.jpg

froth
November 30th, 2009, 06:44 AM
I think the last time we did the LeMans start with glovies and booties was the four hour endurance. Not only was it fun (and I got off in number two starting), but it was very funny! Someone, who shall remain nameless, actually tossed gloves and boots aside looking for his gear. I'd love to see this format implemented in the three largest grids per weekend, just to see the chaos! Just imagine folks getting their junk, putting it on, then riding on the dirt(just for a bit) to get around others. Seriously, it'd be a cluster, but hilarious! And yes, it is a fun way to start. unless you're the last one getting you stuff on, while the first one comes around for lap one!

Moto-Mania
November 30th, 2009, 06:32 PM
Fred, you're sick. :lol: Keep up the good work.

T Baggins
December 1st, 2009, 08:08 AM
Would this then "force" the polesitter to always take the inside position (even though he technically has choice)? At HPR and Hastings, often the polesitter would take the outside spot. In a diagonal grid row scenario, he then would be penalizing himself for taking the preferred grid spot.

I'm unconvinced that this is anything more than "change for the sake of change"... to make us "look cool like Moto GP". There is no evidence that it will create safer starts. If we were going to do anything, I'd suggest 2-3 more feet between rows... which would be more effective in spreading the field out.

Maybe this is something that needs to be addressed at the riders meeting at the first race weekend (for implementation the second race weekend). Debating it endlessly among 12 people doesn't give an accurate sampling of the membership, and there has been no new info other than strong opinions.

dragos13
December 1st, 2009, 08:46 AM
Just like the other major orgs, pole position would be set. There would be no choice to swap inside or outside. It can be argued that this would eliminate confusion on the starting grid when pole decides to swap. We have all seen a race line up, then the pole guy and 3rd place guy having to trade spots before Bob can light the light.

I would say set pole to the outside position, ie right side at HPR and left at Pueblo. So, this would give you the ideal line as well as a couple feet head start into T1. I guess we can get opinions from guys who actually sit on pole for this one as I never have 8)

Its only argued that this is safer, as I dont have any hard data. I will ask again, what shows this to be more dangerous? What says the current setup is better? Do we just leave it since it has worked, or do we experiment and see what can work better? The members will have to decide this one, and we should take note. Maybe change for round 1 and if everyone hates it for some reason, we change back? I agree endless debating wont settle things.

PremiumBlend
December 1st, 2009, 11:59 AM
I've read through this whole thread and I didn't want to say anything but for what it's worth, I agree with Casey. Instead of bickering back and forth online (b/c I think many people have made valid points advocating both sides), why not just give it a shot 1 round... if it doesn't pan out, hey at least we tried.

I think ultimately this will help the club bring excitement back as a whole (not this specific example necessarily), trying new ideas, testing a couple things out and seeing what the members think. Even if something is sort of ridiculous but the members love it and it makes the day just that much more entertaining, if it really is a "no harm, no foul" type situation then why not let it stick?

Just my 2cents... carry on.

T Baggins
December 1st, 2009, 12:03 PM
After many years of attempting to please "everyone" by yeilding to the outspoken wishes of a few... (and being highly unsuccessful at it, no less :cry: )

I'd much prefer to start the season "the regular way" and let the ENTIRE membership in attendance vote on it for the second round. We'll discuss it at the upcoming Board Meeting on Dec 7th and see what the rest of your elected few think...

PremiumBlend
December 1st, 2009, 12:08 PM
After many years of attempting to please "everyone" by yeilding to the outspoken wishes of a few... (and being highly unsuccessful at it, no less :cry: )

I'd much prefer to start the season "the regular way" and let the ENTIRE membership in attendance vote on it for the second round. We'll discuss it at the upcoming Board Meeting on Dec 7th and see what the rest of your elected few think...

Fair enough to me.

Jim 'smooth' Brewer
December 1st, 2009, 04:02 PM
Any safety discussion (pro or con) is specious. It would be impossible to measure a cause and effect by offsetting grid spots by at most 2 feet.

Optionally swapping inside & outside is nice. If turn 1 is far away and I'm good at trail braking, I'll want the outside (Pueblo). If turn 1 is close (and maybe a big sweeper like PPIR) I'll take the inside.

Looking at the picture (http://forums.mra-racing.org/viewtopic.php?p=56825#56825), I don't think it's going to amount to a hill of beans one way or another. Someone (who'll remain nameless) suggested to me that perhaps we should be discussing how to park in the paddock instead.

T Baggins
December 1st, 2009, 04:08 PM
spe⋅cious  /ˈspiʃəs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [spee-shuhs]

–adjective 1. apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible: specious arguments.

spe·cious (spē'shəs)
adj.
Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious: a specious argument.

Kinda like "deceived by distance... good from afar, but far from good" :lol:

PremiumBlend
December 1st, 2009, 08:51 PM
spe⋅cious  /ˈspiʃəs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [spee-shuhs]

–adjective 1. apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible: specious arguments.

spe·cious (spē'shəs)
adj.
Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious: a specious argument.

Kinda like "deceived by distance... good from afar, but far from good" :lol:

Had that happen to me at a couple of "dark" clubs where she looked great inside but in the light.... meh, not so much. :)

marty
December 1st, 2009, 09:21 PM
isn't this about the time, in any thread of this sort, where clarkie would quote the longest post (only to lengthen the thread) and rattle off something that would totally offend every side of the argument?


i miss our little kiwi buddy :roll: :lol:

racedk6
December 1st, 2009, 11:05 PM
How bout we reverse grid, last place 1st and 1st place last :shock:

Then I will race ROROROROR and lead for maybe a corner :D

Clarkie
December 2nd, 2009, 06:54 AM
MOHAMMERTIME!

T Baggins
December 2nd, 2009, 09:16 AM
spe⋅cious  /ˈspiʃəs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [spee-shuhs]

–adjective 1. apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible: specious arguments.

spe·cious (spē'shəs)
adj.
Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious: a specious argument.

Kinda like "deceived by distance... good from afar, but far from good" :lol:

Had that happen to me at a couple of "dark" clubs where she looked great inside but in the light.... meh, not so much. :)

To quote the wise prophet Tone Loc "When we got undressed it was a big old mess - Sheena was a man!"

PremiumBlend
December 2nd, 2009, 09:55 AM
To quote the wise prophet Tone Loc "When we got undressed it was a big old mess - Sheena was a man!"

HAHAHA... I just heard that song the other day for the 1st time in years.

dave.gallant
December 2nd, 2009, 10:13 AM
isn't this about the time, in any thread of this sort, where clarkie would quote the longest post (only to lengthen the thread) and rattle off something that would totally offend every side of the argument?


i miss our little kiwi buddy :roll: :lol:

LOL I read, I laugh, I keep my comments and opinions to myself as none of this BS concerns me any more :wink:

You pansy!

You just don't want to admit that change for the sake of change will propel the MRA to the forefront of club level racing in the United States!!

All of you Australians are alike. Criminals; all of you!

:shock:




:D

Clarkie
December 2nd, 2009, 10:25 AM
MOHAMMERTIME!

dave.gallant
December 2nd, 2009, 10:31 AM
I used to holeshot from the 2nd row, people need to learn how to start better, but I also got the holeshot on my 250GP bike from the 3rd row at Phillip Island as well :wink:

When Mohammertime can beat most of the 600's to T1 on his SV650 it kind of shows you a few things 8) People just need to learn how to start better if they want to compete with Brad, ST and a few others

I disagree; We should all talk about racing more instead of actually doing it.

Phillip Island? Where exactly is that???

T Baggins
December 2nd, 2009, 10:32 AM
Phillip Island? Where exactly is that???

It's in Canada you dipshit! Geez, for a tech guy you sure don't know anything about using "google"...

dave.gallant
December 2nd, 2009, 10:34 AM
Phillip Island? Where exactly is that???

It's in Canada you dipshit! Geez, for a tech guy you sure don't know anything about using "google"...

I didn't know Clarkie played hockey, eh??

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/2/27/Selanne.jpg

T Baggins
December 2nd, 2009, 10:38 AM
Yah, he's a freakin canuck hoser dont'cha know... I thought you guys were friends? Didn't you know any of this?

dave.gallant
December 2nd, 2009, 10:52 AM
Yah, he's a freakin canuck hoser dont'cha know... I thought you guys were friends? Didn't you know any of this?

I am glad I got to actually look this up:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_s2mrRWI87bU/RhRzF4_krqI/AAAAAAAAAOA/uNanTi4VtlI/s400/Are%2BYou%2BA%2BHoser.jpg

Where the hell is Spiderman Bob when you need him?

Spiderman
December 2nd, 2009, 03:29 PM
Where the hell is Spiderman Bob when you need him?
Busy workin... ya know, trying to keep my work visa valid & all, eh? http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/images/Spidey/wavingCanadaFlag.gif

:lol:

T Baggins
December 2nd, 2009, 03:38 PM
this one's for Bob:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKmuXw3lS10

chrobis
December 2nd, 2009, 09:55 PM
Di-amn; leave town for a week and all hell breaks loose.

I am simpatico with pretty much everything Casey has posted here, but realize that I must respect those who have gone before (cuz ain't many of you my elder's). You older-timers must have something - maybe I just phrased my opening question wrong. I should have asked,

"Why don't the AMA, WSB, and MotoGP arrange their grid rows perpendicular to the track, like ours?" Will that get this thing back on track?:twisted:

Mostly I am curious. Tell me that back in the day, before there even were grids, some folks got together, thought about the perpendicular arrangement, the diagonal arrangement, Jeff's backward facing, Grubbs' reverse order, and yes, both 'Tastes Great' and 'Less Filling', and determined that perpendicular was best. Who can confirm this for me? :lol: (BTW Jeff, when drag racers get to turn one, they aren't racing anymore.)

I like the idea of proposing it at a rider meeting, to be tried on a different race weekend.

And since this thread is getting hijacked all over the place, just when is the awards banquet coming 'round? Oh, and I have a simple fix for people not being able to see the starting light - put it on a taller pole.

Jim 'smooth' Brewer
December 2nd, 2009, 11:25 PM
"Why don't the AMA, WSB, and MotoGP arrange their grid rows perpendicular to the track, like ours?" Will that get this thing back on track?
Sheesh, Chris, what are you thinking trying to get back on topic? :shock:

I can think of 2 reasons *some* of the pro series grid diagonally - 1) the tracks they ride are wide enough to make a difference (see Chris Dale's MotoGP diagram (http://forums.mra-racing.org/viewtopic.php?p=56434#56434)) and 2) they qualify for grid spots so it's certain the guy on the pole is faster at that track (plus I imagine there's some visual prestige to being started a little ahead).

Clarkie's "learn to start better" comment applies here, though.

Does anyone really know why the stagger the rows? (I guess we could ask Jason Kingham, eh?)

dragos13
December 3rd, 2009, 06:29 AM
Clarkie's "learn to start better" comment applies here, though.

Does anyone really know why the stagger the rows? (I guess we could ask Jason Kingham, eh?)

I dont really see how this has anything to do with how well someone can launch. Its a matter of a distance advantage over the guys you have more points then. If they launch better, good. We could all launch like Rossi or like a newbie, doesn't make a difference. If I'm gridded third, and I get just a slightly better launch then pole, I get the holeshot. Staggering back a little, would mean I would need a significantly better launch to take the holeshot from pole. So, in a way THIS will cause the need to launch better.


Good question Chris, why dont all the other guys do it like us? I mean, if this is the best way of doing grid spots. ALL other orgs that I have been able to find grid pics of, stagger their riders as they move across. Maybe they just haven't caught up with the MRA yet 8)

hcr25
December 3rd, 2009, 08:12 AM
What other "clubs" do the staggered grid starts?

dragos13
December 3rd, 2009, 08:17 AM
What other "clubs" do the staggered grid starts?

Well, being hard to find many small club info here is what I have confirmed:

MotoGP
World Superbike
AMA Superbike
Wera Nationals
Utah MoM

I'm pretty sure when I raced with Phoenix CCS they gridded the same way we do.

Moto-Mania
December 3rd, 2009, 08:59 AM
MOHAMMERTIME!

The prophet has spoken.

racedk6
December 3rd, 2009, 12:16 PM
Rollin start! Problem solved :roll:

Next?

hcr25
December 3rd, 2009, 12:17 PM
I dont think WERA does it like that. Unless the track has pre painted grid spots. Also I dont think WSBK, Moto GP or AMA really count as "clubs"
After all the AMA does rolling starts, maybe we can try that. It actually looks like fun if you are not in the back.

On a separate note I would like to be able to have colored number plate back grounds.

dave.gallant
December 3rd, 2009, 12:19 PM
I would like to change the color and order of the MRA starting lights.

(We really should match MotoGP)

racedk6
December 3rd, 2009, 12:19 PM
After all the AMA does rolling starts, maybe we can try that. It actually looks like fun if you are not in the back.

On a separate note I would like to be able to have colored number plate back grounds.

I win!

And yes colored number plates!!! I want colored number plates damn it!

Other clubs do this is so we should too!

hcr25
December 3rd, 2009, 12:21 PM
Also we need umbrella girls!

racedk6
December 3rd, 2009, 12:23 PM
Also we need umbrella girls!

Call Danika!

She gots lots of friends :wink:

hcr25
December 3rd, 2009, 12:25 PM
I'm talking about porn star looking,snail trail leaving slutty ones!

racedk6
December 3rd, 2009, 12:30 PM
I'm talking about porn star looking,snail trail leaving slutty ones!


OoooooooooOOoooooo Yeah we need those 2 per rider!

Jim 'smooth' Brewer
December 3rd, 2009, 02:16 PM
I dont think WERA does it like that. Unless the track has pre painted grid spots. Also I dont think WSBK, Moto GP or AMA really count as "clubs"
Last time I raced with OMRRA, AFM, WSMC, CRA, & CCS/ASRA, they started straight across.

Maybe we can follow the AMA's lead from 2001 --- http://www.roadracingworld.com/news/article/?next=yes&article=12357 :roll:

dave.gallant
December 3rd, 2009, 02:18 PM
I dont think WERA does it like that. Unless the track has pre painted grid spots. Also I dont think WSBK, Moto GP or AMA really count as "clubs"
Last time I raced with OMRRA, AFM, WSMC, CRA, & CCS/ASRA, they started straight across.

Last time Mike Applesauce and I raced WERA Nationals, we lined up evenly, not staggered.

JimWilson29
December 3rd, 2009, 02:20 PM
i raced at Willow Springs in 03 and 04 and the rows were straight across.

dragos13
December 4th, 2009, 06:38 AM
So much opposition on this thread. I'm just happy that it will come down to our members voting, as many new riders are willing to think outside the MRA box. I dont know if there is hatred just because some of us "less senior" guys are making change suggestions. Maybe it doesn't go over well when new people come into a club and want to change things up.

I think I have made more enemies on this thread then friends, so I'll see you guys at the board and general meetings and we can go from there.

This is why ALL members should take part in the rule change meetings each year. Something as silly as diagonal grids COULD get approved if we get the right turnout.

On a side note, I'm all for colored number plates. I actually think we should do something for the RORU top 10 guys. Maybe we can have 1-10 for the big bikes, then 1x-10x for the RORU guys? It could even be 1U-10U? I dont know, but since we are most likely keeping ROR seperate it would be cool to do something.

I am also in FULL support of manditory SLUTTY umbrella girls and would be happy to start that thread if we have more support for that then staggered grids 8)

hcr25
December 4th, 2009, 07:38 AM
No hatred from me and I hope the vote on the staggered grids goes better then the 11 race schedule vote :)

dragos13
December 4th, 2009, 07:55 AM
No hatred from me and I hope the vote on the staggered grids goes better then the 11 race schedule vote :)

For sure bro. Thats kind of why I dont like the idea of asking members on a race day. Everyone is super pumped, excited, yeah sure 11 races would be awesome, right? Then the time comes, and hardly anyone makes the entire season.

Since its past the rule change time, I say we just bring this up next year and have it voted on at the rule change meeting. Let the few dedicated riders make the decision, as is done with most rules. Of course, since this is a procedure change, we can impliment it and take it away at any time. I'm layin down the gloves on this one tho. :)

chrobis
December 4th, 2009, 08:14 AM
It's good to see that Dave has finally come to his senses (from http://forums.mra-racing.org/viewtopic.php?t=9906):



The Mra dictates solely how the track is setup and coned off and staffed with cornerworkers etc...

So this means we can grid up with diagonal rows?????

Thank goodness. I was starting to get worried!

T Baggins
December 4th, 2009, 09:11 AM
No hatred from me and I hope the vote on the staggered grids goes better then the 11 race schedule vote :)

For sure bro. Thats kind of why I dont like the idea of asking members on a race day.

I think this is different than the 11 race vote. Really it makes no difference "how" we grid up - just so long as everyone is in the loop on it - and it doesn't backfire in some way we haven't considered.

If this is truly just "change for change sake" then state it as such, and if the members are behind it (or really don't give a shit either way, which is what I suspect is the case) - the we can do it, provided that it doesn't create any ridiculous hardship for the Track Crew and Bob Heaton.

It will definitely be more difficult for him to "freehand" staggered grids evenly than it is to do straight grids. If you've ever looked down them at a 45 you'll see that they're already far from straight as it is...

Now on to the perceived "negativity, new idea hating...":

As far as the colored backgrounds - I don't see that it matters really, except that the onus is on the rider to ensure legibility, and if scoring can't read your number and there's a problem with the transponders (which there is more often than you guys realize...) then too bad so sad if you're scored wrong. We only have 2 manual scorekeepers and they do the best they can.

There is a provison in the rulebook right now whereby "Class Champions" can run reverse backgrounds the year they are defending their championship. White numbers on black background. It looks cool, but not many people take advantage of it.

We've discussed the Y or U or X after a number ever since we got the transponders. Problem is the transponders don't recognize letters, so the only thing that would have the special number would be the bike - not results or anything else... And then the issue of the medical forms that the ambulances carry. Should they have your "real" number or your ROR-U number? If they pull the wrong medical form (2 vs. 2U), then what?

As for the slutty umbrella girls, we've had those in the past as well. All we got out of it was a few divorces and an outbreak of Syphillus. :lol:

Scored51
December 4th, 2009, 10:18 AM
We've discussed the Y or U or X after a number ever since we got the transponders. Problem is the transponders don't recognize letters, so the only thing that would have the special number would be the bike - not results or anything else...

Just to stop the hate for the transponder system before it gets generated, it's actually not a problem for the software but an issue with the database that the MRA uses for registration. This proposal has come up within the last four years (as well as changing backgrounds to which the class champ reversal was the answer) and been written off for that reason.

T Baggins
December 4th, 2009, 10:26 AM
We've discussed the Y or U or X after a number ever since we got the transponders. Problem is the transponders don't recognize letters, so the only thing that would have the special number would be the bike - not results or anything else...

Just to stop the hate for the transponder system before it gets generated, it's actually not a problem for the software but an issue with the database that the MRA uses for registration.

My mistake... I always thought it was the AMB scoring system itself, not the way we integrate into it. I'm a sales guy, not a tech guy...

As for a proposed solution (Dave, this is for you...):

"BURN IT, IT'S A WITCH!"

T Baggins
December 4th, 2009, 10:46 AM
a couple people ran their number on the sides of the main fairing this year, in additon to (or in lieu of) on the tail. Fuller's bike is a good example.

Is there any reason they couldn't run a 1U (or whatever...) on the side of their bike as part of the paint scheme... so long as their "real" number is properly displayed in the other areas?

racedk6
December 4th, 2009, 11:26 AM
a couple people ran their number on the sides of the main fairing this year, in additon to (or in lieu of) on the tail. Fuller's bike is a good example.

Is there any reason they couldn't run a 1U (or whatever...) on the side of their bike as part of the paint scheme... so long as their "real" number is properly displayed in the other areas?

New "poll" for this debate here-----http://forums.mra-racing.org/viewtopic.php?t=9907

Scored51
December 4th, 2009, 02:01 PM
My mistake... I always thought it was the AMB scoring system itself, not the way we integrate into it. I'm a sales guy, not a tech guy...

As for a proposed solution (Dave, this is for you...):

"BURN IT, IT'S A WITCH!"

Not a problem... Closest to the fire just means first with a Zippo!

oldtimer
December 6th, 2009, 10:48 AM
Last time Mike Applesauce and I raced WERA Nationals, we lined up evenly, not staggered.

Ditto, I just raced the Barber event which was run by WERA and we gridded straight across.

Actually it was more of a blob grid pattern. The AMA diagonal boxes are painted onto the track and we were told, as we assembled on the grid, to ignore them and try to line up in rows without the benefit of grid dots.


FWIW, I like starting from pole on the inside so I'm personally not in favor of diagonal gridding. I also like to be able to swap pole position if desired. Sorry Casey! :)

dave.gallant
December 6th, 2009, 11:20 AM
We've discussed the Y or U or X after a number ever since we got the transponders. Problem is the transponders don't recognize letters, so the only thing that would have the special number would be the bike - not results or anything else...

Just to stop the hate for the transponder system before it gets generated, it's actually not a problem for the software but an issue with the database that the MRA uses for registration. This proposal has come up within the last four years (as well as changing backgrounds to which the class champ reversal was the answer) and been written off for that reason.

Not entirely true.

The MRA database can handle any extraneous text in the rider number field.

dave.gallant
December 6th, 2009, 11:25 AM
As for a proposed solution (Dave, this is for you...):

"BURN IT, IT'S A WITCH!"

http://yafh.com/image/3b9f4cf5-burn-the-witch-burn-witch-kill-monty-python-demotivational-poster-1223816026.jpg

chrobis
December 6th, 2009, 11:41 AM
To those of you who have stated that you like the option of swapping inside-to-outside if you are on the pole. (I have never started on pole and doubt that I ever will, so this isn't a big issue for me but...)

On those tracks where you would stay on the inside (I'm guessing HPR and maybe PPIR?), would that preference be compensated for by the distance advantage? In other words, given my initial guess that our row spacing (dot to dot) is nine feet, would a six foot distance advantage for the outside line negate your preference for the inside line? If not, what distance would? Changing this required distance advantage would obviously change the row spacing which would necessarily increase the overall depth of the grid.

I'm just curious; I started this thread more for the discussion than for any burning desire for change - I haven't taken offense from any of the comments and hope that that feeling is shared by all of you luddites out there. :lol:

Jon
December 6th, 2009, 12:19 PM
Has anyone actually looked up the true reason for the diagonal gridding procedure for MotoGP, WSB and etc? It would seem that this discussion is a rather moot unless those involved are using the same imformation on to why it's done.
That said, adopting the rules of professional race organizations (MotoGP, WSB and etc. I'm BTW leaving out AMA for now as I'm not sure how professional they still are :roll: ) just for the appearence is adding complexity that I'm not sure that's understood by all here. I mean we could add safety cars like WSB and MotoGP does, How about a sighting lap followed by a warm-up lap? Unless we race at facilities such as these organizations do gridding up diagonally does little to add to the race but just makes the grid appear bigger and in the case of some of the naovice classes makes some unlucky person have to hold his brake on in order not to roll backwards at HPR, while he waits to start going uphill!

DarkKnight
December 8th, 2009, 02:50 PM
I just received a response from Paul Butler of Dorna Sports to my inquiry on gridding. This is his reply:

Dear Mr. Koblichke,
I have been asked to reply to your enquiry to Dorna about the evolution and merits of various starting grid solutions. As you know, since the road racing world championships began, the starts have evolved from push starts to clutch starts. In the early days of push starts the rows of some 6 riders were parallel - the push start delay and much less power allowing for a graduated departure. Since the introduction of clutch starts and much higher power outputs and acceleration, grids have evolved into "echelon" format. This evolution has been based on safety considerations - no rider is directly behind another on consecutive rows, and on reward for practice achievement - the faster riders are ahead of the slower ones on each row of the grid.

The International governing body, the FIM, has a publication "FIM Standards for Road Racing Circuits (SRRC) which illustrates the dimentions and layout of starting grids for homologated circuits. I hope this is of help to you. Paul Butler.

----------------------------
Given his explanation and after looking over documents from the FIM, I see no real argument for or against parallel or diagonal gridding other than diagonal rewards riders for their practice / qualifying times. Staggered gridding (echelon style), which we do now, is all about safety

http://www.fim-live.com/en/fim/fim-official-documents/

rybo
December 8th, 2009, 06:44 PM
Thanks for taking the time to contact the FIM and get this information. It's helpful.

I'm trying to get the exact dimensions of our current grid for comparison.

Scott