Sportsman Council phone conference Tonight!

GaryGoFast · 09-16-2010, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSTHottie1236

As much as I liked her, you can blame crying Angelle for the .370 tree. Rumor was it was all because of the "scooters" going red. They should have just changed their tree, not everyone's. Have multiple computer programs, heck, go crazy, let all the classes have something different, doesn't seem hard, they just don't want to do it. I totally agree with Bill. True .400, let us chip these cars down a little or maybe when S/ST gets filled they will enter low car count S/G.
Oh yeah, and don't worry about not knowing. We were testing at Maple Grove a few weeks ago and my boyfriend told the staff to make sure it's a .370 tree for his car. Well they looked at him like he had three heads and then they said to him ".370?!?!?! that's news to me".

Kelli
1236 S/ST

I was in Bradenton in 07, D2 director had no idea if a .370 tree was bein used or not, looked at me like I was nuts.

The only way to make S/St a gateway class is to only allow backhalf cars to run it.
My tube car has already cost me a new convertor and tons of testing and I'm still trying to compete on a .370 tree, main reason that i can still run S/St while i keep trying to adjust the car to the.370 and add the delay. When I can be competetive at the tree I would run S/G all the time and rather stay on the stop for 2.5 sec instead of 4.5.

Keep Scotty r

krugracing12 · 09-16-2010, 07:16 PM

7667
I was referring to adding the .030 back to the tree so that slower reacting cars can still compete with a good light. there were a lot of cars (especially S/G) that could barely catch a .400 tree, let alone be another .030 quicker to react to the .370 tree. As Gary stated he changed parts and tested and still is not competitive yet, and I believe he has 8 second power in light, full tube chassis car. I was also referring to the inconsistent starting line set-ups. At one track I carry .030 or so, at the next place I have to "0" the box and snoop it in to get a light.

Bill

RacingRicki · 09-17-2010, 12:40 AM

I like the idea of SST racers being able to run multiple classes. Lower payouts and lack of a national championship will keep it somewhat "entry level". Besides, I don't care if multi-car teams want to run SST as well.

I'd run S/G more if the tree wasn't .370. This should really be changed. If people want to see the "hitters" in SST move up then this is crucial. Just because a SST car can run 8's and go 150+ doesn't mean that they can cut a light on the current S/G tree.

I am sort of indifferent on changing the indexes. But if they change them it should apply to all three super classes. If they only change the indexes for S/G and S/C, then it would make it even harder and more expensive for a SST racer to move up.

frank v · 09-17-2010, 08:00 AM

Gary ,its not the car , its the driver!!!!!!!!!!! lol

Li'l Rick Pennington · 09-17-2010, 10:03 AM

Leaving the Index alone is fine with me.

Would like to race on a .400 tree, instead of the .370.

Would like to see the Scotty rule taken out.

I like the double race weekend format, so I would be infavor of that as well.

Li'l Rick
Division 2
S/G S/ST P270

GaryGoFast · 09-17-2010, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frank v

Gary ,its not the car , its the driver!!!!!!!!!!! lol

Coming from someone who had to stick it way deep to go double 0 at Cecil this year.

BKSG1198 · 09-18-2010, 10:21 AM

The issue with the .370 or .400 tree has been brought up A LOT in the past 2 years or so. I mean the tracks make it sound like they have to physically go out and change the tree to make the move from .370 to .400 when all they have to do is switch a program in the computer. I help out with 2 East Coast Super Class Associations and we run on a .400 Tree in the Super Gas and are switching over to the .370 Tree in the Super Comp Association for 2011. Now we didn't even know there was a difference in the tree until back in 2007 Lucky came up to us at one of the Association races and was like do you want a .370 or .400 Tree and My Pop and I said "Hunh?". He said they use a .370 Tree in Divisional Races and my Dad was like well there's the reason I can't cut a light this year. I mean in 06 We were red-lighting and double 0's then 07 we were .40's and .50's and switching the 4-link bars, adjusting the shocks, putting new tires on and we couldn't figure out why and still struggle to this day. I know people have come up to us and told us "We won't run the association cause you use a .400 Pro Tree, because we use those races as test and tunes for the Divisionals". We keep the Tree at .400 for Super Street Guys that have the power to run 9.90 but maybe can't hit a .370 Tree, Dave Harvey Sr. Tom Raskowski, Mike Lauria....all these guys have said we won't run if you switch over to a .370 tree and I'd be shocked if we picked up maybe 4 to 5 guys cause we run a .370 Tree. I'd say switch back to a True .400 Tree cause I think we'd draw more cars back into the class and maybe not have 40+ cars at a National Event like this weekend. As far as I'm concerned Angelle "Cry Baby" is retired....let the Pro's have a .370, we want the .400 Tree Back!

Chris Williams · 09-18-2010, 12:38 PM

Had two long chats with a local track operator here in the NW about the .370 vs. .400 question. He's run several tracks here and is very well respected. I'm interested in people's feedback on his comments.

He said there's no such thing as a ".370" tree. The software doesn't do that, that there's just .400 and .500 -- and, importantly, some compensation amounts (more later). The issue is the LED bulbs, which are proven to be about .030 faster than the incandescents. So a tree set at .400 with LED bulbs will look like an incandescent tree set to .370.

When NHRA shifted to LED bulbs because they are brighter and more reliable in the harsh conditions of the track, they also helped the bike drivers with their red light issues. And for fuel drivers (who are running .060 - .090 lights anyway) it doesn't really effect them.

Of course, as we sportsman know, it sent us for a loop. If you could just barely hit a .050 because your car doesn't react like that, you're now looking at .080s... terrible. And when you're running a Super class where a .010 vs a .020 light is often the difference between winning and losing, .030 is a lifetime.

But the LEDs initially were (still are?) really expensive. So not all tracks could afford them. The NHRA division directors carried around a set of the bulbs for divisional races. And slowly some tracks put them in. To solve the sportsman problem with the faster tree, they put .030 in the compensation factor in the software, resulting in a tree that was as fast as the old .400 incandescent tree.

The operative question is, who has the .030 compensation in the system and who doesn't. Is it in on a class-by-class basis? Is it in for National and Divisional events? How about on your local track on the average weekend race? Should it be?

I'm interested in a "BS" detection on this. Is this what you all understand the issue is? I'm just trying to understand this from a technical level and getting a lot of conflicting info.

Thanks,
Chris

frank v · 09-18-2010, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GaryGoFast

Coming from someone who had to stick it way deep to go double 0 at Cecil this year.

true that

RacingRicki · 09-20-2010, 10:05 PM

Having run the clocks at my local track for 8-9 years, I know for a fact that there is a compensation factor. If I remember correctly, I think that this factor is adjustable on a class by class basis and has nothing to do with the bikes red lighting. I think it is the reason that Chris described.

In any case, the effect is a .370 tree because from what I have seen, the compensation factor is set at 030. Since this can vary from race to race and track to track, it is likely that we will not see it consistently across all racing series (i.e. local programs, nationals, divisionals, etc.).

Add to this that the track has to have the proper version of the compulink software that has this feature. Some tracks my not have the most recent versions so they cannot add in a compensation factor to the tree even if they wanted too.

At the NHRA division level and national level I want to see this compensation factor eliminated. I would think that tracks that host these events will have the LED bulbs by now so we should have consistency at all of those races.

09-16-2010, 07:16 PM	#2
krugracing12 Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 171 Likes: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Sportsman Council phone conference Tonight! 7667 I was referring to adding the .030 back to the tree so that slower reacting cars can still compete with a good light. there were a lot of cars (especially S/G) that could barely catch a .400 tree, let alone be another .030 quicker to react to the .370 tree. As Gary stated he changed parts and tested and still is not competitive yet, and I believe he has 8 second power in light, full tube chassis car. I was also referring to the inconsistent starting line set-ups. At one track I carry .030 or so, at the next place I have to "0" the box and snoop it in to get a light. Bill

09-17-2010, 12:40 AM	#3
RacingRicki Sponsor Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 106 Likes: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Sportsman Council phone conference Tonight! I like the idea of SST racers being able to run multiple classes. Lower payouts and lack of a national championship will keep it somewhat "entry level". Besides, I don't care if multi-car teams want to run SST as well. I'd run S/G more if the tree wasn't .370. This should really be changed. If people want to see the "hitters" in SST move up then this is crucial. Just because a SST car can run 8's and go 150+ doesn't mean that they can cut a light on the current S/G tree. I am sort of indifferent on changing the indexes. But if they change them it should apply to all three super classes. If they only change the indexes for S/G and S/C, then it would make it even harder and more expensive for a SST racer to move up. __________________ RacingRicki

09-17-2010, 08:00 AM	#4
frank v Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: ny Posts: 286 Likes: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Sportsman Council phone conference Tonight! Gary ,its not the car , its the driver!!!!!!!!!!! lol __________________ s/g 1620

09-17-2010, 10:03 AM	#5
Li'l Rick Pennington Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 28 Likes: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Sportsman Council phone conference Tonight! Leaving the Index alone is fine with me. Would like to race on a .400 tree, instead of the .370. Would like to see the Scotty rule taken out. I like the double race weekend format, so I would be infavor of that as well. Li'l Rick Division 2 S/G S/ST P270 Last edited by Li'l Rick Pennington; 09-17-2010 at 10:05 AM.

09-18-2010, 10:21 AM	#7
BKSG1198 VIP Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Vineland, NJ Posts: 2,650 Likes: 96 Liked 1,310 Times in 400 Posts	Re: Sportsman Council phone conference Tonight! The issue with the .370 or .400 tree has been brought up A LOT in the past 2 years or so. I mean the tracks make it sound like they have to physically go out and change the tree to make the move from .370 to .400 when all they have to do is switch a program in the computer. I help out with 2 East Coast Super Class Associations and we run on a .400 Tree in the Super Gas and are switching over to the .370 Tree in the Super Comp Association for 2011. Now we didn't even know there was a difference in the tree until back in 2007 Lucky came up to us at one of the Association races and was like do you want a .370 or .400 Tree and My Pop and I said "Hunh?". He said they use a .370 Tree in Divisional Races and my Dad was like well there's the reason I can't cut a light this year. I mean in 06 We were red-lighting and double 0's then 07 we were .40's and .50's and switching the 4-link bars, adjusting the shocks, putting new tires on and we couldn't figure out why and still struggle to this day. I know people have come up to us and told us "We won't run the association cause you use a .400 Pro Tree, because we use those races as test and tunes for the Divisionals". We keep the Tree at .400 for Super Street Guys that have the power to run 9.90 but maybe can't hit a .370 Tree, Dave Harvey Sr. Tom Raskowski, Mike Lauria....all these guys have said we won't run if you switch over to a .370 tree and I'd be shocked if we picked up maybe 4 to 5 guys cause we run a .370 Tree. I'd say switch back to a True .400 Tree cause I think we'd draw more cars back into the class and maybe not have 40+ cars at a National Event like this weekend. As far as I'm concerned Angelle "Cry Baby" is retired....let the Pro's have a .370, we want the .400 Tree Back!

09-18-2010, 12:38 PM	#8
Chris Williams Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Woodinville, WA Posts: 401 Likes: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Sportsman Council phone conference Tonight! Had two long chats with a local track operator here in the NW about the .370 vs. .400 question. He's run several tracks here and is very well respected. I'm interested in people's feedback on his comments. He said there's no such thing as a ".370" tree. The software doesn't do that, that there's just .400 and .500 -- and, importantly, some compensation amounts (more later). The issue is the LED bulbs, which are proven to be about .030 faster than the incandescents. So a tree set at .400 with LED bulbs will look like an incandescent tree set to .370. When NHRA shifted to LED bulbs because they are brighter and more reliable in the harsh conditions of the track, they also helped the bike drivers with their red light issues. And for fuel drivers (who are running .060 - .090 lights anyway) it doesn't really effect them. Of course, as we sportsman know, it sent us for a loop. If you could just barely hit a .050 because your car doesn't react like that, you're now looking at .080s... terrible. And when you're running a Super class where a .010 vs a .020 light is often the difference between winning and losing, .030 is a lifetime. But the LEDs initially were (still are?) really expensive. So not all tracks could afford them. The NHRA division directors carried around a set of the bulbs for divisional races. And slowly some tracks put them in. To solve the sportsman problem with the faster tree, they put .030 in the compensation factor in the software, resulting in a tree that was as fast as the old .400 incandescent tree. The operative question is, who has the .030 compensation in the system and who doesn't. Is it in on a class-by-class basis? Is it in for National and Divisional events? How about on your local track on the average weekend race? Should it be? I'm interested in a "BS" detection on this. Is this what you all understand the issue is? I'm just trying to understand this from a technical level and getting a lot of conflicting info. Thanks, Chris __________________ Chris Williams 6304 SC, TD, ET

09-20-2010, 10:05 PM	#10
RacingRicki Sponsor Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 106 Likes: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Sportsman Council phone conference Tonight! Having run the clocks at my local track for 8-9 years, I know for a fact that there is a compensation factor. If I remember correctly, I think that this factor is adjustable on a class by class basis and has nothing to do with the bikes red lighting. I think it is the reason that Chris described. In any case, the effect is a .370 tree because from what I have seen, the compensation factor is set at 030. Since this can vary from race to race and track to track, it is likely that we will not see it consistently across all racing series (i.e. local programs, nationals, divisionals, etc.). Add to this that the track has to have the proper version of the compulink software that has this feature. Some tracks my not have the most recent versions so they cannot add in a compensation factor to the tree even if they wanted too. At the NHRA division level and national level I want to see this compensation factor eliminated. I would think that tracks that host these events will have the LED bulbs by now so we should have consistency at all of those races. __________________ RacingRicki