Diagonal Grid Rows

[dragos13]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

I have a problem with it.......kinda. It might not allow me to holeshot from the second row :lol:

[The GECCO]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[rybo]

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]

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]

"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]

"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]

hells yeah i will! with my foot on your rearset