Now that ESU is being used why not make 1 morn session and 1 afternoon session for each Group a Qualifying session?
Lap times are posted for each group and each session from fastest to slowest anyways so instead of posting up the times with the Header saying "Group 1 xxSession" why not just post up the Name of the Race and who is entered in them with their times?
The ESU will keep track of riders times regardless its just a matter of listing the riders in the correct races they are entered in.
obviously this is just a riders pov I dont know what changes would need to be done in regards to listing the Race Class and the Riders who are entered in them.
Would that be as simple as rewriting the program? I have no clue what happens with the scoring in the office.
I personally would still pre-enter to make things easier and to avoid the long lines.
Just a suggestion.... :biggrin:
Probably a matter to take up with CCS directly. It's been discussed at length. I don't know if the search feature will help you with that. There are pros and cons. Some people have more than one bike, and nothing will differentiate them for lap times from one class to another.. Which session do you use for qualifying if it rains in one and not another?
If you have more then 1 bike then then each bike gets assigned their own ESU.
As far as which session to use for times it would just be your Fastest time regardless of which session it was achieved in
I see the problem there being what if some riders can make the First Qualifyer and its dry then those who missed the first make the 2nd qualifyer and its wet.
Or if they have a multiple bikes and other riders have qualified in the dry for their race but the rider with multi bikes has yet to qualify on their second bike and they have to do his/hers qualifying in the rain.
Also what if 1 rider has 1 bike and gets 2 chances to qualify for their races compared to the
rider who has multiple bikes and only gets 1 qualifyer for each bike.
When you step onto the track durring a designated qualifying session you should be pushing it.
There are plenty of practice sessions to sort out the bikes set up.
Im only saying 2 designated sessions be for qualifying.
I see the biggest problem being Cheaters. Multiple bikes,slicks,running a bigger bike then what is legal in the class they are qualifying for.
Well I just answered my own questions.... :banghead:
Gridding by pre-entry seems alot easier now... :biggrin:
The topic was touched on in the Grid by Points thread on pages 5,6,7 but it trailed off into
the Points topic.
ESU results are every word that is spelled with esu in it.
Spelling it out didnt come up with anything directly addressing the topic of qualifying.
With transponders now being used in Florida we should record laps times for qualifying. As far as cheating and whatever else, it's an easy solution. Any rider caught intentionally cheating loses their licenses for 1 year or pays $2000 fine or loses any points for that race, take your pick. That should put a quick stop to any of that non-sense. AMA, FIM, MotoGP, Nascar, Formula 1 all do random spot checks without prior notice and so could we do the same. This is a discussion that's been going on for a while, it can be done! Classes already practice and race at the same time, so the rain effects all riders of that class at the same time, it's not an issue, there's equity across the grid. And qualifying also solves the problem of rain outs on race day, the quickest qualifier wins and so on. All the crying about it's going to be dangerous out there stuff. If you want to ride slow to improve, do track days or move off the race line. Qualifying will make the race weekend that much more exciting and has the potential to draw more revenue. It puts the fast in front and the slow in back, the way it should be. I said before and I'll said it again, grids determined by pre-entry are not equitible and I honestly believe can be more dangerous.
Officials will have a list of the riders who entered multiple bikes and they can spot check off the list and if the transpoder doesnt match with the bike they assinged it to they will be penalized whatever the penalty shall be.
Check them comming onto the track or comming off.
Have all the regions switched to ESU?
I run the FL region so thats why Im asking.
Yep Arsenal, you definitely got my vote! I'm glad to see transponders have come to Florida, it's a sign of a new foundation that will allow the very thing we are discussing here.
Arsenal, it sounds good.
But it appears hard.
First, you'll have to have a list. There isn't a list that is generated that tells tech or registration that a rider has one or more bikes. And coming off the track, well, all riders come off the track in a large mass. A superbike is not apparently different from a supersport bike, generally, from the outside. There are those that ride bikes that have superbike motors with supersport based tires and suspension. A technical inspection of the exterior of the bike won't show anything there.
Technical inspection, also, does not mean that the bike is suitable for a particular class. Post race tech and protests are for that.
The ECU only tells scoring that a particular rider is on track. Doesn't designate a bike.
No way to do it fairly and ensure legality without tripling fees to hire more people.
+1
Thanks, Sean.
Quote from: The Arsenal on February 28, 2007, 02:20:56 PM
Now that ESU is being used why not make 1 morn session and 1 afternoon session for each Group a Qualifying session?
Where are you racing where you have an afternoon session of practice?
Quote from: The Arsenal on March 01, 2007, 07:33:53 PM
Officials will have a list of the riders who entered multiple bikes and they can spot check off the list and if the transpoder doesnt match with the bike they assinged it to they will be penalized whatever the penalty shall be.
Check them comming onto the track or comming off.
+1
simple and effective w/o having to raise fees-use the people already hired!
Quote from: 61Ex on March 04, 2007, 08:45:21 AM
+1
simple and effective w/o having to raise fees-use the people already hired!
Not enough transmitters to equip EVERY BIKE with a different unit.
The people already hired already have jobs. When you add more jobs you need more people. To police it and make sure you can give the customers accuracy you'd need a LOT more people. It's just not a viable option for club racing with as many classes as we all run.
Quote from: Super Dave on March 03, 2007, 02:10:05 PM
Where are you racing where you have an afternoon session of practice?
Im in FL. region so we practice All Day on Sat. then 1 practice Sun Morn then do all the races.
Sorry I never specified that I was referring to Sat. practice.
Talking about designating 1 session of each groups practice on Sat. to be a qualifyer.
I just found out that other regions dont have the same format Practice all day Sat then Race Sun.
And once more we are oh so privileged to hear all the forum dinosours puff up there chests and proudly proclaim "IT CAN'T BE DONE!" Just 2 weeks ago CCS at Moroso posted the times of every transponder after a given practice session. Clearly people are already using the posted lap times to gauge where they stand against others in the same class. I know that's what I do in addition to my own lap timer. You guys are all worried about enough workers, wrong (fast) bike cheating, switching transponders (which takes me all of 5 seconds to do) and whatever else. So the worse that happens is a cheater grids further up (oh no stop the presses!). But somehow that's worse than what we have now? Which is pay first, grid first? Sorry, but I'd rather have the potential for a few cheaters grid higher than what we have now, any day!! In essence the current system let's me cheat in legal sort of way.
Don't hire more people, let the lap times fall where they may. I stand a much better chance of being properly gridded than what we have now.
You seemed to have missed the potential safety issue. Is practice/warmup the place to have riders trying to turn their fastest laps? How will faster riders treat slower riders when a qualifying position is at stake? The track can be much more crowded during practice than during a race.
Quote from: tzracer on March 27, 2007, 02:23:30 PM
You seemed to have missed the potential safety issue. Is practice/warmup the place to have riders trying to turn their fastest laps? How will faster riders treat slower riders when a qualifying position is at stake? The track can be much more crowded during practice than during a race.
How do you treat a slower rider right now? I go around them and do the best I can. Haven't you ever watched a qualifing round at AMA or MotoGP. They have to deal with slower riders all the time. And they adjust their qualifing laps accordingly (ie: wait for a section of track to clear a little before puttin' the hammer down)
Quote from: jryer on March 27, 2007, 06:05:44 PM
Haven't you ever watched a qualifing round at AMA or MotoGP.
CCS is club racing, not professional.
i dont get this argument. practice is not qualifing and qualifing is not practice. i dont want to qualify during practice and most guys dont push 100% in practice.... because its practice. the two are treated differently, besides my best practice times are 2-3 seconds off race pace, how is that a proper gauge for grid order?
The flip side is that some try to race at a pace faster than their practice times on untested suspension set ups. That's usually where problems happen.
I will say that the ridiculousness of pre entries being accepted so many months for in advance for grid position is way above my spending level, and, as a result, I have curbed back my race entries over the past few years.
Quote from: Woofentino Pugrossi on March 27, 2007, 07:01:11 PM
CCS is club racing, not professional.
I didn't insinuate professionalism, but rather the borrowing of an existing successful element in another organization.
Quote from: robsob on March 27, 2007, 08:32:48 PM
i dont get this argument. practice is not qualifing and qualifing is not practice. i dont want to qualify during practice and most guys dont push 100% in practice.... because its practice. the two are treated differently, besides my best practice times are 2-3 seconds off race pace, how is that a proper gauge for grid order?
How is you gridding in front of me because you paid first a proper gauge either? It's a suggested systemic change. It MIGHT make for better grid order.
Quote from: Super Dave on March 27, 2007, 09:26:06 PM
The flip side is that some try to race at a pace faster than their practice times on untested suspension set ups. That's usually where problems happen.
I will say that the ridiculousness of pre entries being accepted so many months for in advance for grid position is way above my spending level, and, as a result, I have curbed back my race entries over the past few years.
Super Dave you do surprise from time to time! I know you're not necessarily advocating but it nice to read a little hint of support (though I know you wouldn't admit that!)
I liked ULGP qualifying. I have nothing against it. I like ASRA and the AMA for having qualifying.
I also think there are too many classes. Might just be that there are too many expert classes, but I can't give a complete answer because I haven't had to run a race day program.
I will agree that having qualifying will potentially have a cost in people and, as a result, money. When the timing system goes down, you need to have an alternative.
I can say that I have been on the racer end of these experiences though.
In 1994, we raced the AMA event in Pomona, which was basically a giant parking lot. There was a rider protest on some serious safety issues. Most of them were solved for us to have a race, but there was no qualifying. We gridded by points.
Similarly, businesses generally run very well when there is focus on their current customers. Well, if you have points in your region, you're probably a pretty good customer that year. Or it might be a decent guide to your speed because you have more points than someone else. So, why not reward those loyal business customers with grids based on points for pre entries, then the rest of the grid based on post entry?
It is club racing. But I've been to enought "club" races where guys that I know that chase contingency money were going to get more money from a manufacturer than Mladin or Spies would get winning an AMA Superbike race. Racing is still racing. Track days are track days. I have yet to see something that says that one can't be too fast at a "club" event.
While I understand the reasons for grids based on qualifying times, I do struggle with the idea of trying to find a reasonable way to do it for an event weekend that has so many classes.
If you had to choose...
- Grids based on date of entry
- Grids based on points
As a side bar, I did have some money late in 2006 because I sold a race bike. In December, I was able to enter some races for the 2007 season. I think it was dumb that I could do that, but over the past four years, the new experts have become more and more willing to pre enter earlier and earlier for events if not the whole season. Personally, I can't do that, especially if I wanted to try to run the whole season which I haven't been able to do since 2003.
On another note, CRA won't take any pre entries until April 1. I don't know how all the other organizations do it.
Quote from: jryer on March 27, 2007, 10:28:20 PM
How is you gridding in front of me because you paid first a proper gauge either? It's a suggested systemic change. It MIGHT make for better grid order.
qualifying is great, i have no problem with it... why dont you recognise the difference between a q session and a practice session?
and the current rules are just that... rules (not a gauge), the same for everone, love them or hate them its fair across the board, you decide when you register and its not my problem if you cant afford it. taking practice session times and making them qualifying times is not fair because its not a proper q session. it has to be done right, just like the races.
i agree with daves proposal. grid by points for pre-reg and order of entry for post-reg.
and if you qualify during practice... when do you practice?
I never noticed a difference other than someone recording a lap time for a position. Otherwise, it is the same.
Quote from: robsob on March 28, 2007, 01:13:17 PM
qualifying is great, i have no problem with it... why dont you recognise the difference between a q session and a practice session?
and the current rules are just that... rules (not a gauge), the same for everone, love them or hate them its fair across the board, you decide when you register and its not my problem if you cant afford it. taking practice session times and making them qualifying times is not fair because its not a proper q session. it has to be done right, just like the races.
i agree with daves proposal. grid by points for pre-reg and order of entry for post-reg.
Currently there is no equitible GAUGE to determine grid position. Money is determining grid position and that's definitely NOT equitible. And money doesn't automatically make a rider fast. All one has to do is look at Larry Pegram's ultra expensive Honda and see he rarely grids in the top 10 AMA Superbike. (Sorry Larry!)
Quote from: Super Dave on March 28, 2007, 07:13:13 AM
I liked ULGP qualifying. I have nothing against it. I like ASRA and the AMA for having qualifying.
If you had to choose...
- Grids based on date of entry
- Grids based on points
I'd like to see the choices (in order) as:
- Grids based on lap times
- Grids based on points
Quote from: Super Dave on March 28, 2007, 07:03:17 PM
I never noticed a difference other than someone recording a lap time for a position. Otherwise, it is the same.
Yep. I've noticed no difference either.
Quote from: jryer on March 28, 2007, 08:40:56 PM
I'd like to see the choices (in order) as:
- Grids based on lap times
- Grids based on points
Agreed. But when the timing systems go down, there still needs to be a reliable way to make a grid too. Back to points or back to order of entry? I'd rather it be points, but that's me.
I would prefer gridding by points.
There is really no safe, fair way to have qualifying for all classes at a club level weekend. Too many classes, too may riders. What about multiple class entries?
Any time I had qualifying, the only bikes on the track were the ones qualifying for that class.
Dave, how would you have liked ULGP qualifying if they had used your times during practice as opposed to your own qualifying session?
Good question.
For me, it doesn't matter a whole lot. I don't have depth perception, so, for me, a routine is very important. I try to get my rythym going as soon as I can. Traffic can be a problem, but that's the was it is.
I have a thread going in the Rules section. I'd like to see a rule that at least has grids based on points. If you've got input, I'd like to have it. I haven't submitted it, but I'd like to get it developed first. Obviously, I'm looking to 2008.
Quote from: Super Dave on March 29, 2007, 08:48:01 PM
Good question.
For me, it doesn't matter a whole lot. I don't have depth perception, so, for me, a routine is very important. I try to get my rythym going as soon as I can. Traffic can be a problem, but that's the was it is.
I have a thread going in the Rules section. I'd like to see a rule that at least has grids based on points. If you've got input, I'd like to have it. I haven't submitted it, but I'd like to get it developed first. Obviously, I'm looking to 2008.
I can live with the points approach, but the first race of the year is still problematic, especially for racers who can't make the initial race, which brings me back to lap times.
don't worry we all race each other every month in the same classes with the same bikes i think we do a good job policing are selves. here in Fla the transponder is a welcome addition now the next step is qualifying Henry is a professional racer if we approach him civilized like. he may do it . the only thing is he won't get a big pile of money in December from the shootout guys
Quote from: Ducmarc on May 04, 2007, 05:06:52 PM
don't worry we all race each other every month in the same classes with the same bikes i think we do a good job policing are selves. here in Fla the transponder is a welcome addition now the next step is qualifying Henry is a professional racer if we approach him civilized like. he may do it . the only thing is he won't get a big pile of money in December from the shootout guys
yep agreed. cheating is not going to be the problem people are making it out to be.
Some of you are probably already groaning to see me popping up in this thread. I have harped on this same subject many times. Props to jryer for his many excellent points. Maybe this year will be the time we can finally get this change implemented.
To address some concerns that were raised (about having a practice session designated as qualifying):
- put a transponder on every bike. There aren't THAT many people with multiple bikes, so there shouldn't be an issue of not having enough transponders. If this is truly a problem, charge people with multiple bikes an extra $5 per bike. We already pay more for our first entry than for the rest. I view that extra as covering overhead expenses like the transponder. I don't see a problem with paying a bit more if I need to use multiple transponders during the weekend.
- give the tech inspectors bigger tech stickers. When they put the sticker on the bike, have them look at the transponder and write the transponder ID on the sticker that they put on the bike. That will let any official who inspects the bike (e.g. when it is going on or off the track) tell whether the right transponder is on the right bike without having to have a list to refer to. Bikes can be randomly spot-checked at any time - waiting at pit out, coming in off the track, even sitting in their pit area - certainly during any post-race inspection of the top finishers. A bike should never have the wrong transponder mounted on it.
- to those who keep saying, "why not grid based on points?" or "what's wrong with rewarding the good customers, who have more points because they race with us often, by gridding on points?" The answer is SAFETY!! How many times do I have to say that? The SAFEST grid is the one where the fastest guys start at the front! It is not as safe *as it could be* to have a grid where some fast guy (or multiple fast guys) shows up for one race midway through the season (maybe there's good contingency money that weekend) and is gridded at the very back.
Like jryer said, what's the worst thing that will happen? Somebody will be gridded a bit further ahead on the grid than they really should be? Like I've been saying for years, BIG WHUP! The overall grid will still be much more fair and safer (than it is with the current system OR by gridding on points).
Here's an example that I'm SURE will happen: A rider has one bike - a 600. They run it in MW SS, MW SB and MW GP. They have two sets of wheels. They run DOTs on one set for SS and the other set with slicks for the other classes. In their qualifying session, they run slicks and the time they turn is used to set their grid position for the SS race (as well as SB and GP). Again, I say BIG WHUP. It's still WAY better overall AND SAFER than gridding by pre-entry or by points.
The biggest reason I can see for CCS to NOT do this is that is takes away everybody's incentive to pre-enter mega-early. Which means CCS doesn't get a big pile of money at the beginning of the season that they can sit on and earn interest off of (or whatever they do with it). I don't begrudge CCS that - except insofar as the current system compromises rider safety.
Gridding by points is unsafe? You are an amazing amazing person there stuart. Always amazes me how some people can be around this sport for as long as you have yet still have absolutely no clue what they're talking about.
And road america had more individual rider entries than CCS had transponders. This also happened at Barber at least once.
Many points have been voiced and all seem legitimate. I don't believe there is one perfect way for our club racing. As a club memeber I will race with whatever rules are in play for that year and love it.
Grid by points dangerous? Yeah in certain situations it could be but maybe not as prevalent as the grid by entry. There have been occasion here in Florida where the slowest guy has the most points purely from being at every race. Hypothetically he would be at the front and everyone would have to go around him. It could be the same if that person pre-enters first.
Safety? There are so many occasions where the LW F40 group come up on slower traffic gridded in front at the start of the race and this happens in both the Ex and AM groups. There was a F40 race in 2005 at Homestead where there were several red flags. The first restart had the riders grid in position on track. That was great for me because that moved me from the back row to the 3rd or 4th row.
Pre-entry money? At least in the Florida region I know that Henry doesn't deposit my entry check until after the weekend. No revenues for him until after the race is done.
Too many classes? That could be so but it sure is nice that I have a place to run my old FZR even though I am not at the front of the pack. I do believe in a tiered system where an Am beginner rider starts racing on a smaller bike and not a big bike. I know we are all adults and grown-ups and all but man it is scary watching some of those practice sessions and race at times. Are there so many new guys with 1000cc bikes that are clamoring to race why we have to have that class for AM? I believe leave the big bikes for Experts and if there is an Am that can handle it, then he should be moved to expert status.
Mark
In summation I beleive that getting around a slower rider is part of racing either in qualifying or the actual race itself. Is it more dangerous-could be but my take of this club racing is that it is my hobby and not my profession.
Grid by points-I like it just as in Daytona.
Grid by qualify time- Makes sense to me but I know in some other regions there is barely anytime for practice. Daytona is 3 laps per session equating to 6 total laps of practice-not really practice.
Grid by entry- doesn't bother me but has some of the same problems that both previous ideas have.
Quote from: roadracer22 on July 29, 2007, 11:04:10 AM
There was a F40 race in 2005 at Homestead where there were several red flags. The first restart had the riders grid in position on track. That was great for me because that moved me from the back row to the 3rd or 4th row.
You have more than 3 rows in an F40 race?
I don't think the qualifying thing is going to work. The only way I could see it working was if the software had the capability to do it for them. Otherwise, they'd have to look at all the practice times to set the grid up, then enter them. With the way it's currently set up, I think they start entering riders when they sign up in morning and setting the grids then.
I could be wrong, but I just don't think they have time to sift through all the times then enter the competitors into the system.
Quote from: r1owner on July 29, 2007, 01:52:53 PM
You have more than 3 rows in an F40 race?
I don't think the qualifying thing is going to work. The only way I could see it working was if the software had the capability to do it for them. Otherwise, they'd have to look at all the practice times to set the grid up, then enter them. With the way it's currently set up, I think they start entering riders when they sign up in morning and setting the grids then.
I could be wrong, but I just don't think they have time to sift through all the times then enter the competitors into the system.
I agree with the time factor with the current system.
We do have more than 3 rows but of course we have the HW F40 and the LW F40 racing in the same race but within their respective classes. In 2005 I was an Am. This is my second year as Ex.
Mark
Whoops! Meant to put a smilie after my 3 rows comment! :)
Quote from: r1owner on July 29, 2007, 06:20:12 PM
Whoops! Meant to put a smilie after my 3 rows comment! :)
Yeah I know it, lots of old guys in Florida, afterall it is the retirement state.
Quote from: Mongo on July 28, 2007, 06:57:25 AM
Gridding by points is unsafe? You are an amazing amazing person there stuart. Always amazes me how some people can be around this sport for as long as you have yet still have absolutely no clue what they're talking about.
It always amazes me how people can read one thing and then claim that it said something else. For example, reading:
"The SAFEST grid is the one where the fastest guys start at the front! It is not as safe *as it could be*"
And turning that into saying that I said gridding by points is unsafe. THAT is amazing.
It IS a good job, though, of directing attention away from the true point that I did make on that subject, along with all the other points I made, and thereby avoiding making up a good rationalization for not doing what jryer proposed and I chimed in on.
Kind of like a few years ago when I was proposing putting transponders on all the bikes at WERA races and you explained in detail how that couldn't be done. And then the next season (or was it two seasons later?), after CCS started doing it, all of a sudden WERA was doing it, too.
Mongo, if I was a shareholder in WERA, Inc., you would be my absolute favorite person! Keep up the good work.
Ha! you have an interesting memory. WERA and CCS started using electronic scoring on all bikes across the board at the same time, just using different systems.
When you say the biggest reason to do this is safety you are trying to use the safety buzzword to get people to do what YOU want because YOU like it not because it's a better method. You are indeed insinuating that the other methods are not safe.
Your points have been refuted by people who actually know what they're talking about, but hey - don't let that stop you from being right and the rest of us being stick in the muds who just can't see the vision of the future the great Stewey has.
There is only one shareholder in WERA and she's glad you choose not to race with us too :D
Uhhhhh, Mongo? ALL of motorcycle racing is unsafe. The object is to do what we can to make it as safe as we can. If you are saying that gridding by qualifying is not as safe as gridding by points, I think you're the only one in this conversation that has said that. In which case, please explain why.
If we can all agree that gridding by qualifying is safER than gridding by points, then why would we not TRY to implement that?
Other than Mongo, it seems like everybody else agrees that gridding by qualifying would be safer and more fair. The objections boil down to discussions of logistics. Reasons it can't be done like "not enough transponders" or "no way to prevent cheating". Jryer, myself, and others have suggested solutions to those issues. So, how about some discussion of that, instead of re-hashing the obvious?
Quote from: Mongo on August 07, 2007, 07:56:04 AM
Ha! you have an interesting memory. WERA and CCS started using electronic scoring on all bikes across the board at the same time, just using different systems.
Really?
My memory seems to jibe with this thread (from 2002):
http://forums.13x.com/showthread.php?t=7026&page=2&highlight=qualifying
where you said, in part, "Transponders are great but extremely expensive ... you really expect me to be able to come up with a quarter of a million dollars for transponders ... it's just not feasible."
And then, a year later, this thread also seems to jibe with my memory:
http://forums.13x.com/showthread.php?t=31011&highlight=qualifying
which says that CCS went live with transponders at regionals on July 1, 2003, while you were still buying transponders to have enough just to use at WERA Nationals.
You might want to do a little more research than just on the posts on the BBS. One person saying it was implemented doesn't mean it stayed that way. My post in 2002 was true, in 2002. Just as it was the following year in the other thread you linked. Actually, it's true right this very second, we cannot afford to buy enough transponders to put them on every bike. So we came up with another method that worked.
Either way, qualifying at a club race will not work. It cannot be done fairly or safely (using your theory on what the term means).
What's funny is I told you the same thing 5 years ago and you still are clueless. I love the interwebs.
BTW thanks for the links to those threads, it's truly amusing to see how people don't change. Fun trip down memory lane.
While I would enjoy having the opportunity to qualify for my club races, I have been convinced that it is impractical.
AMA, ASRA, and I'm betting WERA in their National Challenge sprints can offer it, but to do it much more just can't be done at regular club weekends for the many, many, many, many reasons that Kevin and Sean and others have given.
If it is that important to you StuartV666, I'd say get the AMA license and have at it.