blue lights (2 Viewers)

[toffer]

hmmm, K', maybe those blinkin' blue things had a sponsor of their own?

K-Mart?

 

[clock guy]

To all that are re-designing the tree here. You are missing many of the parameters that had to be used in coming up with something to be used for everyone.
First the same tree had to be used for sportsman that were still in the normal 2 lane configuration.
The tree could not be any more than 3 inches higher than the normal tree. This is due to the visual area in the funny car windshield.
You could not lower the first amber any to get more area for the new lights, Pro stock cars can only see the top amber above the scoop while in the left lane.
Couldn't go wider, pro stock car window post and hood scoop would be in the way depending on what lane their in.
And the fact most drivers didn't come out and look at the tree till the first qualifying session didn't help. They were invited out Thursday evening after the sportsman were done, only 1 showed up.
For those at home TV did not explain it well at all.
Could we have done things different? yes
Will we make changes if its done again? more than likely.
With all the changes that had to be made to make it all work (timing and scoring) in the time allotted, a total new top of tree could not be developed. This met what the racers asked for "we need to see the pre stage and stage from the other track"

 

[G'ginna]

K-Mart?

You win the free beer.

 

[none]

To all that are re-designing the tree here. You are missing many of the parameters that had to be used in coming up with something to be used for everyone.
First the same tree had to be used for sportsman that were still in the normal 2 lane configuration.
The tree could not be any more than 3 inches higher than the normal tree. This is due to the visual area in the funny car windshield.
You could not lower the first amber any to get more area for the new lights, Pro stock cars can only see the top amber above the scoop while in the left lane.
Couldn't go wider, pro stock car window post and hood scoop would be in the way depending on what lane their in.
And the fact most drivers didn't come out and look at the tree till the first qualifying session didn't help. They were invited out Thursday evening after the sportsman were done, only 1 showed up.
For those at home TV did not explain it well at all.
Could we have done things different? yes
Will we make changes if its done again? more than likely.
With all the changes that had to be made to make it all work (timing and scoring) in the time allotted, a total new top of tree could not be developed. This met what the racers asked for "we need to see the pre stage and stage from the other track"

I know you guys hate it when people make suggestions but I think there is a very simple answer. There are already 4 pre-stage and 4 stage lights on a "traditional" tree. Wire them up to where each light corresponds to a lane. KISS.......

And if the problem is visibility, go with LED.

 

[clock guy]

but like I said still had sportsman using the same tree as a standard 2 lane track. Some of the pros couldn't figure out that the normal lights were still theirs for their lane. Funny cars shake to much to focus and tell the difference between the 2 standard bulbs on their side of the tree. So having them represent 2 lanes on the same side of the tree would have caused just as many issues.

 

[vonB]

I think TV explained it fine. Of course there are criteria in designing a new system, and its not always right the first time. That said, it's important in a design process to allow time to test. Don't blame the user (drivers), design unbiased testing into the process. Good design does take some time, and includes iterations. An invitation to check it out the day before isn't testing, and blaming a poor turnout doesn't cut it. If you want to be assured that something will work technically and also as a communication tool you have to make sure that you get feedback. If you want an interface to be right, testing is not an option, and should be done in advance with neutral people. It can be scheduled as part of the process.

 

[vonB]

I think TV explained it fine. Of course there are criteria in designing a new system, and its not always right the first time. That said, it's important in a design process to allow time to test. Don't blame the user (drivers), design unbiased testing into the process. Good design does take some time, and includes iterations. An invitation to check it out the day before isn't testing, and blaming a poor turnout doesn't cut it. If you want to be assured that something will work technically and also as a communication tool you have to make sure that you get feedback. If you want an interface to be right, testing is not an option, and should be done in advance with neutral people. It can be scheduled as part of the process of developing the thing.