Super class survey

[Jason Oldfield]

Originally Posted by roseracing

4. Banning electronics from Super Classes? That seems like a step in the wrong direction (even though Jason Oldfield may disagree). If it's available and affordable - then why not allow it? It makes for closer racing. Just my opinion. (And yes Jason, our closest race is 4.5 hours away. No local tracks close to us either. Check it out, my zip code is 68776).

5. Capping the MPH is an easy idea "on paper" (and not a bad idea), but almost unrealistic (per Chris Williams post). That will never happen.

6. Splitting the 9.90 class into 2 classes (one for door cars and one for roadsters) is a different idea. Let me take that idea one step further and simply allow the Super Gas "roadsters" to race in Top Sportsman.

Brad Rose

Brad,

4. I believe you. My issue is not that the electronics are available and affordable, because for the most part they are (for about $1,000, you can have all the electronics you need to be competitive). My issue is that by allowing everybody to run the $1,000 in electronics, people are then required to spend another $10,000+ in engine upgrades to keep themselves competitive. And please nobody tell me that there isn't an advantage to being the faster car that is chasing. There is, and if the vast majority of the people didn't feel this way, the speeds would not have crept up in the Super classes like they have. Does being the faster car guarantee you a win? Obviously not, but it certainly makes it easier (just like the faster car has the advantage in the classes with handicapped head starts).

My other issue with the electronics is that it takes more of the driver aspect out of the classes. Again, not to say that better drivers won't win more races than not-so-good drivers, but let's take the electronics out of it and put it more back into the hands of the drivers.

5. Agreed. Again, this is easy to implement (it's a software change, big deal - we all upgrade our computers ourselves, so I'm sure the track operators can certainly accomplish this on their own), though I don't believe this is a realistic change (and if you get rid of the electronics, it is completely unnecessary).

6. I LOVE the idea of letting left-hand steer roadsters compete in T/S. I have NEVER understood why they aren't allowed. This doesn't completely solve the current issue in S/G, but it's a good start (plus it gives racers more options).

Well written and thought out response Brad...

[Chris Williams]

Originally Posted by Jason Oldfield

5. Agreed. Again, this is easy to implement (it's a software change, big deal - we all upgrade our computers ourselves, so I'm sure the track operators can certainly accomplish this on their own)

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.

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.

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?).

[Jason Oldfield]

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.

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.

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.

[63corvette]

[QUOTE=Jason Oldfield;226959]Brad,

6. I LOVE the idea of letting left-hand steer roadsters compete in T/S. I have NEVER understood why they aren't allowed. This doesn't completely solve the current issue in S/G, but it's a good start (plus it gives racers more options).

Jason, the issue with roadsters in TS is most of them have frames which will certify only down to 8.50 seconds. A complete rebuild will be in order to meet the TS guidelines for them and be too costly for most racers.
Just My 2 Cents
Rick Cates