After this weekend cornerworking at BHF and listening to all the calls. I thought a few ideas for next year.
1. Transmitters (transponders, beepers, or whatever you want to call them. ;D) should have a STANDARD mounting location. Lots of calls on the radio asking if there was one on the bike. Instead of just letting them mount them wherever they like, make it a rule that they have to be mounted on TOP of the tail withing 6" front to aft of the rear axle.
2. Practice groups. Quite a few guys were running 2 practice groups per session when they are supposed to only do one. Maybe have tech write 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 (MW practice groups, other areas might be different). Then pit out should be able to catch the ones trying to get extra practice (unless you clear it with race director).
Ya know just a couple ideas. I know one racer who was told it was ok and another that got chewed this weekend for the doing 2 groups.
Rob,
I understand what you're getting at with point #1.
It would make it easier to spot whether or not a bike was missing it's transmitter.
I think the problem on some bikes locating the transmitter UNDER the tail section is due to using carbon body work. From what I know it tends to interfer with the signal getting picked up consistantly.
And beyond that I'm sure one or two people have mounted them under the tail section because it's looks cool. (i.e., not specifically due to carbon interference.)
It would be great though if a 'universally standard' location could be adopted.
Rick
There was a ducati 996/748 that had carbon pipes and had it mounted on top and was apparently registering fine. And as for carbon bodywork, I've seen ONE bike in 5 yrs with it. ;D
It is and should be possible that if a racer is paying to race in several classes that have separate practices, he should be allowed to race in a couple of practices. If they continue to break practice by class entry, it will remain this way. If however they simple make if odd/even expert and Amatuer, then ther would be no proble and no sticker beyong the number plate needed.
Mike
PS, I am not one of the guys who runs multiple practices
QuoteIt is and should be possible that if a racer is paying to race in several classes that have separate practices, he should be allowed to race in a couple of practices. If they continue to break practice by class entry, it will remain this way. If however they simple make if odd/even expert and Amatuer, then ther would be no proble and no sticker beyong the number plate needed.
Mike
PS, I am not one of the guys who runs multiple practices
Then why do they tell many of us you cant , then tell other they can? But yet someone with a 750 and R6 who signs up for mwss, mwsb, hwss, hwssb, gto, ulss and ulgp still is only allowed in 1 preactice group. Cant run lightweight/thunderbike/singles practice (group 5 in teh MidWest) with a 750 or R6. But yet a guy on a SV can run both groups theoretically (they can run in am odd and even groups 1&2 (250GP, MW, HW, UL, ST) because they are twins). SO I guess next year I should run both am even group because my bike is classified as a middleweight and group 5 because its Thunderbike legal too. I know Bill will say something to me about that. ::) LIke I was told before, if I want extra practice, theres a CCS racer only practice on Friday.
Rob,
Every time that I've worked Tech and there was a separate practice session for LW/Thunder/Sgl we asked the riders of bikes that would potentially be legal in two practice sessions which group they wanted to practice in. They were then given the appropriate Tech sticker for that group. This should eliminate people from doing multiple practice sessions. The only exception that I'm aware of would be isolated cases where two riders were racing the same bike in different classes.
OT but interesting - Splitting practice groups by Odd and Even numbers you would think would divide the sessions fairly evenly. NOT! Last Blackhawk there were huge variances - like 10 in the even group and 28 in the odd. Law of averages would tell you that it should be pretty close to a 50/50 split. Guess it's all those guys trying to run #69!
What if I'm running two different bikes? One in the Ultralight and the other in lightweight classes? I've been having to choose which bike to favour for practice?
QuoteRob,
Every time that I've worked Tech and there was a separate practice session for LW/Thunder/Sgl we asked the riders of bikes that would potentially be legal in two practice sessions which group they wanted to practice in. They were then given the appropriate Tech sticker for that group. This should eliminate people from doing multiple practice sessions. The only exception that I'm aware of would be isolated cases where two riders were racing the same bike in different classes.
When I go through tech on sat, they've put the pink (I assume its for lightweight/thunderbike practice) sometimes and the middleweight sticker on others. Since I race thunderbikes on sat, I practice with them. When I race on sunday, I run in the regular am group.
Mike, hopefully next year I'll have 2 bikes to play with. My F2 and my YZF750. I did that once and got a little chat with Bill about this, but yet some people are "apparently" getting permission to run multiple practices. I guess thats what bothers me.
Rob, when you say you've only seen one bike in 5 years with carbon bodywork on it, do you mean carbon that's visible?
There may be more than you think. Just painted carbon. I myself have seen more than 2 this year.
Not saying there isnt any more. I just seen one CF duc tail there. Maybe CCS could station someone at pit out to check for transmitters. Dont know how well that would go over.
At the last BHF race, there was a dude standing right there at pit out. ???
No I mean another guy that specifically looks for the little yellow box. ;D ;D ;D
if I had paid money to race a SV in 5 classes (TB and LW/MW) I would expect to get 2 practice sessions. Paymore get more practice, makes sense to me.
Fees are such that first entry covers practice, race, and insurance; second covers race and insurance and race; third+ covers the race (no added charge for insurance).
So for added practice session would you be willing to pay for it? what would be fair? and then bike density issues for practice become even more problematic as you cannot figure how many people have bought extra sessions by use of computer. currently the schedule for practice takes into account the entries
QuoteFees are such that first entry covers practice, race, and insurance; second covers race and insurance and race; third+ covers the race (no added charge for insurance).
So for added practice session would you be willing to pay for it? what would be fair? and then bike density issues for practice become even more problematic as you cannot figure how many people have bought extra sessions by use of computer. currently the schedule for practice takes into account the entries
Eric, can't figure out by use of computer? I can do anything you want with a single laptop. I can create a payperless system that can reduce your administrative tasks by 90% and do it better. Thats what I do.
you can monitor and decide how you want to split your practice sessions, and adjust the number if you had a system in place to monitor that. You can make a general determination by looking at pre-entry numbers before you leave for the event.
If CCS offered extra sessions for extra money, how many people would be willing to buy it? How much more income would it generate? If a computer system is set up you can monitor how many people have registered for practice and decide when it will be full and only sell available slots based on a cap in each group. You can control that, as you do now, with color tech stickers, Then you can move people from crowded practice groups to less crowded ones. If there are 60 people in odd number and 15 in even, you can move that. Its hard without an automated system, but if you do it would be a breeze.
I proposed to CCS what, 3 years ago to build a system/web app to solve
- point posting
- results posting
- online entries
- rider profiles (For everyone)
As I see that results are still being posted as text files, the system I was going to make would still be another 5 years advance of what we have now.
I understand businesses are resistant to changes. But just because you don't choose to doesn't mean you can't make the whole operation better with the RIGHT developing firm. Data solutions are supposed to help reduce work, instead of increasing workload.
If they had adapted what I proposed, we would not have any complaints about why points are not posted and not correct.
Ken Abbott told me last year that this year we will have a "state of the art" system that did everything I proposed... where is it?
sorry this is a bit off topic, but since you mentioned that your computers can't do something real simple... I would just like to elaborate on that.
From the time an post-entry is done until practice starts there is not time to get into computer. Computer entry at registration then link to scoring is not feasible at most (any?)track. Plus it would just slow down the registration line.
direct electronic entry is not feasible for one reason alone lawsuits. It must be hand signed entry form.
How about having a big number on the tech sticker saying what group your in for practice. Have 2 rows of stickers next to each other at tech for groups that normally have to be split, every other sticker that is used would be for the other group, this way it doesn't matter how many odd or even #'s there are at a particular event. Doing it this way you could look at the rows of stickers and see if they are equally balanced or not for like bike practice sessions. :)
the only problem I see with this is it sounds great in theory split the all AM into two groups, and experts into two groups. However there are those of use who are on 1K bikes, and those of us who are 125's. It is a bad idea to throw those 2 together,
Best idea, 4 groups, Heavyweight, Middlewieght EX, Middlewieght AM, and TBK/Lwt/Ultraliight
This splits the biggest group, Middleweight by EXpert and AM. And if I remember correctly this is how its done for the most part. And BTW, if you dont like the group that your end, you can goto another higher practice group.
BTW, everynow and then when USGPRU is in town we split LWT/ULTRALWT into EX/AM, for saftey, b/c having 80+ bikes out there for a practice group is unsafe much less unerving
Just my .02 though Take it for what you will
What I would like to see is cut some of the LWT classes next year, I race them so I can say that :) , and add qualifying for all the GT races. I think that would be a much improved rule change.
Come on guys, do we really need all the different classes? I would rather fewer longer races. I know this is not going to happen, b/c CCS is in the business to make money, and they dont do that by having fewer classes, with longer races. They make more money by having alot of races, more entries= more money.
Quotethe only problem I see with this is it sounds great in theory split the all AM into two groups, and experts into two groups. However there are those of use who are on 1K bikes, and those of us who are 125's. It is a bad idea to throw those 2 together.
I wasn't saying to split the Amateurs and Experts into 2 groups each, I was saying that if the current groups were used they could be split evenly using what I suggested (instead of doing the unpredictable even/odd number plate system). :)