Pro stock semi

[Rajunz]

The RT and ET come from the electronics. Electronics can be wrong, as they were in the Steve Johnson case.

I watched it several times and what I noticed was that the wide angle camera lense made it look like AJ was pretty far ahead coming to the stripe, but that was just an illusion from the perspective of the wide angle. If you watch it again, concentrate on the width of the stripe from near the camera to the far side and you will see what I mean about the perspective.

 

[Paul]

Hey Paul,

While there have been instances of debris breaking the beams that would also result in a high MPH stopping the speed timer quicker. And that didn't happen in this case.
Alan

Alan, that's a good point, but in this case where the difference in the nose positions and ET's was so small, the MPH error from a spurious "pre-trigger" would also be pretty small, I didn't bang it out on a calculator but I don't think the MPH error would be big enough to pop out as being clearly wrong.

 

[Super Mod]

For what its worth, if you do the math-

Erica ran 205.26mph

205.26 mph X 0.001sec (margin) X 5280 ft/mi x 1hr/60min X 1min/60sec X 12in/ft = 3.62 inches.

Pretty darn close. You can't tell who won visually - Im sure the camera wasn't precisely on the finish line, so theres some skew there. Plus try to see 3.6 inches from 30 yards away... its near impossible.

That run makes the who got the light award at the next race on jumbotron.

Thanx Nick......math IS important YouTube - ‪Math... Who Needs It?!‬‏

 

[cdag]

I watched it several times and what I noticed was that the wide angle camera lense made it look like AJ was pretty far ahead coming to the stripe, but that was just an illusion from the perspective of the wide angle. If you watch it again, concentrate on the width of the stripe from near the camera to the far side and you will see what I mean about the perspective.

Agreed, ESPN's finish line camera has an angle that makes close matches appear to have a different outcome. One of the T/F matches was the same way.

 

[Dan]

There is a lot of technology with electronic timing; there isn't with someone painting a stripe. The distance from start to painted finished line, in both lanes, probably is not 1320 feet. Is the stripe just painted for the drivers reference?

 

[Ro]

Looked like it to me too. But Allen's front nose is longer than Erica's. You gotta look at the tires. Also the numbers tell the storie. Plus you gotta consider camera angle.

 

[Bob K.]

The camera was not lined up with the finish line. It was slightly behind. AJ sure looked ahead, if the camera was ON the line like usual there wouldn't be any controversy.

 

[Rat]

All you "numbers don't lie" people need to remember that it's just a computer -- garbage in, garbage out. All the "numbers" you quote come from the same computer system. That's like saying a ruler can't be wrong because it's a ruler. If it was made wrong, it's wrong.

Again, I'm not saying there's a conspiracy, but all you people who are blindly accepting the computer-generated numbers are forgetting that computers make mistakes. All the time. Trust me, 25 years in the computer business, it could be wrong.

I'm not advocating that anything be done, I'm not advocating that she didn't win. I'm just laughing at all the "the numbers prove it" people, when the numbers all come from the same system that declared the winner. It is within the realm of possibility that the system was wrong.

It's just not true. I said numbers don't lie and I even took out my calc after i saw the race and did the math on it. there is no way it could be wrong. now your talking what I said and turning it around to tell me in another way that i dont believe electronics ever fail? Unreal.

Electronics never failed here, nothing tripped the beam, take out a calculator and do all the math and Erica wins in every possible way. The "system" worked in the way it was supposed to. Unless your telling me the system's gave the wrong r/t and e/t I can't agree with you.

I'm not doubting your 25 years in the computer industry and I agree with you that any electronic on earth could fail if it's not designed right but your argument holds no water here. I don't think Bristol has been operating with a faulty an inaccurate timing system and excuse me if I am wrong, but it sounds like a brewing conspiracy

 

[Randy]

It's just not true. I said numbers don't lie and I even took out my calc after i saw the race and did the math on it. there is no way it could be wrong. now your talking what I said and turning it around to tell me in another way that i dont believe electronics ever fail? Unreal.

Electronics never failed here, nothing tripped the beam, take out a calculator and do all the math and Erica wins in every possible way. The "system" worked in the way it was supposed to. Unless your telling me the system's gave the wrong r/t and e/t I can't agree with you.

I'm not doubting your 25 years in the computer industry and I agree with you that any electronic on earth could fail if it's not designed right but your argument holds no water here. I don't think Bristol has been operating with a faulty an inaccurate timing system and excuse me if I am wrong, but it sounds like a brewing conspiracy

That's all well and good, but the computer is no better than the info put in it. Jst liek ths sentecne, for example.

If the beam failed to see (break) when the car passes through it in a timely manner it would also be reflected on the time slip and the math, as you say, would add up as a win for the wrong car no matter how many times you calculate it.

Before the current infared beams there were all kinds of problems with reflecting light off the wheels, interference and everything else you can imagine setting off the system. We used to have to put shoe polish or wax on the right front wheel of our cars if we had the right lane at Bakersfield Raceway in the late afternoon. The sun would reflect off the wheels and trigger the stage beams and give you a red light without ever moving your car.

RG

 

[Randy]

Looked like it to me too. But Allen's front nose is longer than Erica's. You gotta look at the tires. Also the numbers tell the storie. Plus you gotta consider camera angle.

I'm sure you know the finish line beam is broken by the body, not the front tires.

As far as Johnson's car having a longer nose than EE, I doubt it. The chassis builder's know the maximum length allowed, which is checked in body tech, and no one with an ounce of brains with a car as expensive as a PS car would give away 1/10th of an inch. Especially Cagnazzi. If it looks longer it's just an optical illusion.

RG

 

[john]

If it looks longer it's just an optical illusion.

It may be the camera's elevation and a thing called perspective?

 

[Randy]

It may be the camera's elevation and a thing called perspective?

Paint jobs (layout) can create an optical illusion making something look longer or shorter than it is. EE's car is solid black while AJ's car has graphics.

In the image below, which line is longer?

The black line in the back seems much longer than the one in the front. When the background is removed, the lines are seen to be equal!

.

RG

 

[clwill]

For perhaps the 2nd or 3rd time in the last several years, I find myself completely agreeing with Randy Goodwin. Will wonders never cease

 

[clwill]

Electronics never failed here, nothing tripped the beam, take out a calculator and do all the math and Erica wins in every possible way. The "system" worked in the way it was supposed to. Unless your telling me the system's gave the wrong r/t and e/t I can't agree with you.

You just don't get it. The "math" you do comes from the system that may have been faked out.

There are only two sources of data on this subject:

1) the Compulink system that handles the beams, time slips, win lights, scoreboards, is fed to ESPN for their graphics, to the internet, etc., etc. (and is the source of your "math"),

and 2) the ESPN cameras.

We're just discussing the the comparison of these two data sources. You're comparing one source to itself which is silly and not helpful.

 

[Shaggy]

I will give a perfect example of the numbers dont lie being wrong... A month or so ago, during an IHRA race, Jake and Mark Sanders were said to have run one of the quickest times ever for the Nostalgia FC class... Problem was the numbers were wrong... And it was not debris, it was the computer being screwed up... So yes the numbers can lie!

Now back to the originally scheduled conspiracy...

 

[J]

any1 have a picture of the finish????

 

[Rat]

So then now if "us numbers people" are wrong, ok i'll give you the benefit of the doubt now. Let's say Allen crossed the line first now, what robbed him of the win? Maybe Chris, your giving me the impression that your undertone suggests that Allen won without ever typing that.

Yeah, your not saying that Allen won, but you keep laying down the idea that the electronics lied. So i'll look at it from your view, What is the technical explanation for Allen's technical win, but electronic loss? Again, I am not trying to start any issue with you; but it's only fair for me to post my opinion. I am saying that i'm confused by what your typing and what is being thought when it's read between the lines.

I know your not supposed to read between the lines on here, but how can you not?

 

[clwill]

I can give you several possibilities:

• Maybe the two beams in the two lanes aren't precisely even (exactly 1320' from the start).
• Maybe the painted stripe on the track isn't perfectly perpendicular, so the camera shot looks wrong.
• Maybe the camera lens isn't perfectly ground and it introduces a subtle distortion that makes the far lane look different.
• Maybe the center block on the track wasn't aligned right and that faked out the system some how.
• Maybe the beam in Erica's lane got triggered early by some debris (already discounted by Alan above).
• Maybe there is something in the design of Alan's car that reflected the signal from the beam just like the center block does for a fraction of a millisecond.
• Maybe there is a cabling issue that makes one lane need a slightly stronger signal to trigger the circuit than the other.
• Maybe there is a bug in the Compulink program where some sequence of events causes the program to stutter for a fraction of a millisecond (its running MS-DOS for god's sake) and it missed the signal from Alan's car.
• Maybe there was a spike in the voltage on the lines running down the track that introduced some RFI on the lines (the wires are over a 1/4 mile long, for gosh sakes).
• Maybe someone in the control tower was typing on the Compulink computer at the time and that invoked some tiny little interrupt in the system for the briefest of moments.
• Maybe a sunspot caused a brief burst of infrared that faked out Erica's lane's sensor.

And now, I'm just messing with you. This is a dead issue. She won. It's over. The only thing I'm trying to teach YOU is that your continuous and ridiculous insistence that adding up the data from the same computer that declared the winner is stupid -- IF that computer was wrong. It wasn't (or probably wasn't ).

 

[FABMAN]

Where's A J, don't here him complaining about the results??

 

[Rajunz]

So then now if "us numbers people" are wrong.............

Say what? Numbers People, you didn't even get close on that math of your's.........

What exactly are you implying. AJ cut a 0.20 light and ran 6.692. Erica cut a 0.14 light, 7 thou advantage, ran 6.697. Holeshot win. Technically she ran a 6.690 with the help of the rt.......