Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Williams
This is a naive response. I have 25+ years in the software business, and get pulled aside at every track I go to answering software questions. Track operators are among the worst. I've seen computers that are 15 years old, and software that hasn't been upgraded since the Clinton administration. They all work on the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality.
|
OK, fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Williams
And, more importantly, such a change would almost certainly come at a cost from the vendor (read: Compulink). They'd only put the change into the latest version, I'm sure. So there would be cost to upgrade, and maybe even a need newer computers. Most track operators I know are exceptionally reluctant to spend money on this kind of thing.
|
Please. The addition of this feature would not tax these old computers so much that they would need to be replaced. If they can run the existing software with the existing timing features, this would most certainly not push them over the edge. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be replaced, but the addition of this sole feature would not mandate it.
That said, if there was a cost to implement the change, and NHRA pushed the upgrade cost on to the track owners, then they would either need to upgrade their systems or not host a national or LODRS event. I'm not saying the track owners wouldn't complain about it, but those are the facts of life. I've seen tracks all over the country upgrading to LED bulbs and crosstalk systems, and haven't heard of a single instance of a national or LODRS event being pulled because of a track operator's unwillingness to upgrade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Williams
Finally, as I said above, the rules would be just silly and complex.
In short, this would never happen. You need to find another way to solve the perceived problem of people going "too fast" (this is racing, right?).
|
I don't disagree about the implementation of speed limits. But, we currently get disqualified for going too quick, so using your logic I guess we currently aren't racing (which, quite frankly, could be argued since we aren't "racing" as per the definition of the word). Anyway, my ideal solution is the elimination of electronics, not the implementation of speed limits, as speed limits would just be a band-aid to the underlying problem. So there's no sense us arguing the semantics of the implementation of speed limits, particularly since neither you nor I want to see them put into place.