|
|
Post by BarryB on Feb 12, 2015 12:43:55 GMT 12
the tigers have been sequentialised longer than the panthers have been black......... I'm sure I've seen pics of the Panther team cars in black from the 1960's or 1970's? Didn't they go away from that and reutrn to it after the trend started again in the early 90's? Barry B |
|
|
|
Post by BarryB on Feb 12, 2015 12:45:04 GMT 12
Made it easier to tell Wayne (591) from Jordan (581) and bound to be other teams running similar car bodies, within the team. yes it also made it easier for teams racing against them as to know who was who here,s an example 81r damian orr racing with his track number at the new Zealand teams will make him easily identifiable and to me he is the king-pin of the rotorua team having a team number on his car in my mind went a long toward rotorua hosting this event this year as the palmy cars in last years final didn,t have clue as to where he was it,s not about fan friendly its about winning at all cost to bring this event to your back-door :-*p.s so that that club/promotion can reap the rewards this event brings.  Without the fans the promotion has nothing. Palmy Teams had it's biggest ever pre-sales this year. Must be doing something right? Barry B |
|
|
|
Post by BarryB on Feb 12, 2015 12:46:06 GMT 12
Katy Perry's had a classic?
Barry B
|
|
|
|
Post by busterbell on Feb 12, 2015 12:49:53 GMT 12
to be fair, i think you will find nelson have been using sequential numbers the longest of any club. should we ask the panthers to stop using black because it clashes with other teams, or laugh at that idea because that is their thing, and has been for some time. I think you might find the Baypark Busters of 1992/93 (111m, 112m, 113m, 114m & 115m) might have beaten them to it busterbell (although they didn't appear at the P/N Teams Champs until 1993/94). I stand to be corrected however, if the Tigers were using them before 1992. Although that's pretty irrelevent to any argument. There's many a rule has changed since Stockcars first appeared on the scene in 1955 and since the Teams Champs was instigated in 1981. Barry B i did say the longest...........or to avoid more confusion, the most often.  |
|
|
|
Post by BarryB on Feb 12, 2015 13:09:51 GMT 12
Yes, poor old Baypark has been without a team more often then not in the intervening years.......
Barry B
|
|
|
|
Post by Stevo on Feb 12, 2015 13:14:35 GMT 12
Busterbell, regardless how long Nelson have been sequential, or the Panthers black, The owner and promoter of this event sent out a directive stating that team numbers were no longer acceptable and that drivers were to use their normal track registered numbers. As Barry has previously stated, 55 out of 60 competitors (including those that came from half way around the world) complied. Nelson didn't (for what ever reason, only they will know). Now all their followers are trying to justify it by coming up with all sorts of cock and bull. It's no use comparing it to what may go on in stock car teams as that is a SNZ run event so they set the rules.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 13:38:44 GMT 12
It has already been pointed out, you called it pedantic. Pedantic or not, it's a fail mark in that particular situation, if rules are to be rules.....if there is no enforcing, why bother having it? The exact same situation was raised when the new rule was announced. The new rule failed to stop the Tigers turning up in sequential numbers (legal at the time), which is exactly what the new rule was designed to prevent. With the greatest respect, the new rule was introduced to make the event more fan friendly, not necessarily to stop teams running with sequential numbers. If team drivers want to register those numbers and race with them on regular Saturday nights at their home tracks too, all is good in the world. As for driver changes DURING the meeting, to expect number changes with 2 minutes notice is just childish (and that applies to anybody that has raised this as an issue). That doesn't show a flaw (or a fail) in the rule at all. In fact, when it's announced that Dion Mooney is in the 56v, it's immediately obvious to all whose car he has stepped into. When cars are near identical (as they are in some teams) it would be impossible to tell that a driver has changed cars in some instances. Sixth drivers are a fact of life these days too. To half way through suddenly put their number on a car when their car isn't even at the meeting doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. The rule relates to how you turn up to the track. The number goes with the car. Teams/crews have enough to do in the pits between races without worrying about changing numbers. One team had 12 months to change their numbers and couldn't do it. I'd hate to see how they'd cope if they were suddenly given two minutes to do the same thing  Barry B I was going to refrain from any further posts, but you have helped explain why the move from teams numbers to racing numbers is pointless. But first of all, lets deal with the changing cars during a meeting scenario: You called everyone who suggested changing numbers of the respective drivers childish, when in fact its the responsible thing to do if you are to follow the rules. These days a lot of teams are sponsored by signwriters, so the cost to carry a spare set of racing numbers is minimal, if not no cost all, so no issue there. You also suggested that expecting a change of numbers with 2 minutes notice was also childish, but you'd have to safely assume that with "2 minutes notice", that the drivers must be swapping whilst on the dummy grid, a perfect place to take the few seconds it takes to peel the new number off its backing and slap it over the original. No issue, drama, nor time consuming effort required there, you could say that it's in fact childs play. If the issue is about the how the car is numbered when it turns up to the track, then what was the need to change the numbers in the first place? As you pointed out any changes would be explained by the commentator, so it makes no difference if the driver was changing from car 56V or 81N, the commentor would be providing the same information. Essentially, what you are saying is that it doesnt matter about what number is on the car, as long as the punter knows who is driving it. A-la teams numbers, programmes, and commentators filling in driver changes. Whats the difference? I think this is a knee jerk reaction, following the Stockcar Teams Champs held in Palmerston North last year, due to the tactical numbering of the Auckland and Rotorua teams. It's a bandaid applied to the wrong class. Should we not instead be looking at set teams colours to avoid clashes, thats the real issue for me. |
|
|
|
Post by BarryB on Feb 12, 2015 14:09:38 GMT 12
No, I think called it a childish suggestion. We're all capable of making such suggestions at times, even those of us nearly on the pension, ha!
As for the rest of your ummm, logic, you're welcome to it. I'm still more concerned as to how Katy Perry had a classic......
Barry B
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 14:09:50 GMT 12
yes it also made it easier for teams racing against them as to know who was who here,s an example 81r damian orr racing with his track number at the new Zealand teams will make him easily identifiable and to me he is the king-pin of the rotorua team having a team number on his car in my mind went a long toward rotorua hosting this event this year as the palmy cars in last years final didn,t have clue as to where he was it,s not about fan friendly its about winning at all cost to bring this event to your back-door :-*p.s so that that club/promotion can reap the rewards this event brings. Without the fans the promotion has nothing. Palmy Teams had it's biggest ever pre-sales this year. Must be doing something right? Barry B You could have a track in the back blocks of Eketahuna, with no seats, and a promoter would still make money from livestream sales. |
|
|
|
Post by The Godfather on Feb 12, 2015 16:09:10 GMT 12
FWIW - slightly off topic, but that's nothing new...
What should happen is that the Superstocks should follow the Stockcars lead this season and have 6 cars and drivers in their team. 4 on the track, 2 reserves.
Would almost certainly mean that teams could field a full muster of cars each race, and for safeties sake each driver would be in their own seat meaning the lesser chance of injury. ( Will never totally eliminate it I realise)
Doesn't have a lot to do with the numbers thing, other than address the issue brought about by the 6th driver jumping into a car with someone elses track number |
|
|
|
Post by tony27 on Feb 12, 2015 18:24:18 GMT 12
I noticed in Go Slideways photos that Keven Roberts had 53p on the right of his car at scrutineering & in the pit shots had 53c on the left, didn't pay close enough attention during the racing to notice if that was the case or if he was made change to a Canterbury letter after the photo at scrutineering was taken
|
|
|
|
Post by penman on Feb 13, 2015 10:31:07 GMT 12
Richard, some would argue it just made them appear up themselves by appearing to think they were bigger than the Teams Champs. If the Pommies could sort themslves out, there's really no reason why all of the locals teams couldn't. The other 10 did. The changes were made for a reason, for the betterment of the meeting overall, so while they may have gained mana with you, penman and roxyford, it'd be interesting to know the overall feeling. Or maybe they're trying to take over the bad-boy mantel from the Panthers? Overall, I'm just a little perplexed.......... Barry B I've been away for a couple of days, so only just got to check Macgors now, so might be slightly late to the party. Not sure you should drag me into a comment about "gaining mana" Barry...especially as I've never suggested that. I originally posted a piece on here after a moderator of this site said that Nelson's use of team numbers was "illegal", which got up my nose a tad, as that's a fairly transparent suggestion of 'cheating', and cheating is very much seen as a dirty word in other threads on other areas of the board - often leading to replies deleted, posts removed or, in some extreme cases, an enforced stand-down. All I've said in regards to the issue is that there appears to have been nothing official come from scrutineers, etc or the Tigers themselves as to why or how they were allowed to have run these alleged "illegal" numbers. Has ANYONE asked either of those groups? However, as the discussion developed, the issue was turned from how and why the Tigers cars ran sequential numbers into a rather flaccid attempt to suggest Nelson would be better off focussing on their performance and results rather than the issue of running sequential numbers....and how and why that was able to be done. Plenty of times in plenty of posts, I have seen directives from moderators to stay on topic - and the topic is (and was) the issue of the numbers themselves and not the performance of the Tigers. If there is going to be a suggestion of "illegal" numbers, there needs to be something concrete to back up a claim like that, or it should be subject to the same reaction as one of cheating. There is a vast difference between 'illegal' numbers and 'legal' numbers that don't meet with someone's perceived intent of a ruling. |
|
|
|
Post by penman on Feb 13, 2015 10:34:02 GMT 12
not sure what the problem is, clearly it was discussed and allowed......how does it go? sour grapes and build a bridge....lol. Had they have won there may be a few sour grapes rolling around, but how did they go again? Discussed with whom? Allowed by whom? Barry B Discussed with whom? Allowed by whom? EXACTLY my point. As for your last six words BB, that's something I would expect from my 10-year-old son....and I'd let him know it was a tad childish too. |
|
|
|
Post by BarryB on Feb 13, 2015 11:13:39 GMT 12
Richard, some would argue it just made them appear up themselves by appearing to think they were bigger than the Teams Champs. If the Pommies could sort themslves out, there's really no reason why all of the locals teams couldn't. The other 10 did. The changes were made for a reason, for the betterment of the meeting overall, so while they may have gained mana with you, penman and roxyford, it'd be interesting to know the overall feeling. Or maybe they're trying to take over the bad-boy mantel from the Panthers? Overall, I'm just a little perplexed.......... Barry B I've been away for a couple of days, so only just got to check Macgors now, so might be slightly late to the party. Not sure you should drag me into a comment about "gaining mana" Barry...especially as I've never suggested that. I originally posted a piece on here after a moderator of this site said that Nelson's use of team numbers was "illegal", which got up my nose a tad, as that's a fairly transparent suggestion of 'cheating', and cheating is very much seen as a dirty word in other threads on other areas of the board - often leading to replies deleted, posts removed or, in some extreme cases, an enforced stand-down. All I've said in regards to the issue is that there appears to have been nothing official come from scrutineers, etc or the Tigers themselves as to why or how they were allowed to have run these alleged "illegal" numbers. Has ANYONE asked either of those groups? However, as the discussion developed, the issue was turned from how and why the Tigers cars ran sequential numbers into a rather flaccid attempt to suggest Nelson would be better off focussing on their performance and results rather than the issue of running sequential numbers....and how and why that was able to be done. Plenty of times in plenty of posts, I have seen directives from moderators to stay on topic - and the topic is (and was) the issue of the numbers themselves and not the performance of the Tigers. If there is going to be a suggestion of "illegal" numbers, there needs to be something concrete to back up a claim like that, or it should be subject to the same reaction as one of cheating. There is a vast difference between 'illegal' numbers and 'legal' numbers that don't meet with someone's perceived intent of a ruling. "Illegal" does not mean "cheating" in my book. It means "illegal". If that gives an unfair advantage it's "cheating". If it doesn't it's just "illegal". I'll change my wording to use current SNZ tech speak. Nelson's numbers were "non compliant" )with the event rules). I did check it out with the promoter (as it is a promoter's rule as part of the entry into the event), and he was at a loss as to why the Tigers did what they did. He obviously wasn't going to drop a team out at that late stage (vehicle checking) but did state he would try and get to the bottom of it and sort it before next year's event. Barry B |
|
|
|
Post by penman on Feb 13, 2015 11:17:40 GMT 12
I've been away for a couple of days, so only just got to check Macgors now, so might be slightly late to the party. Not sure you should drag me into a comment about "gaining mana" Barry...especially as I've never suggested that. I originally posted a piece on here after a moderator of this site said that Nelson's use of team numbers was "illegal", which got up my nose a tad, as that's a fairly transparent suggestion of 'cheating', and cheating is very much seen as a dirty word in other threads on other areas of the board - often leading to replies deleted, posts removed or, in some extreme cases, an enforced stand-down. All I've said in regards to the issue is that there appears to have been nothing official come from scrutineers, etc or the Tigers themselves as to why or how they were allowed to have run these alleged "illegal" numbers. Has ANYONE asked either of those groups? However, as the discussion developed, the issue was turned from how and why the Tigers cars ran sequential numbers into a rather flaccid attempt to suggest Nelson would be better off focussing on their performance and results rather than the issue of running sequential numbers....and how and why that was able to be done. Plenty of times in plenty of posts, I have seen directives from moderators to stay on topic - and the topic is (and was) the issue of the numbers themselves and not the performance of the Tigers. If there is going to be a suggestion of "illegal" numbers, there needs to be something concrete to back up a claim like that, or it should be subject to the same reaction as one of cheating. There is a vast difference between 'illegal' numbers and 'legal' numbers that don't meet with someone's perceived intent of a ruling. "Illegal" does not mean "cheating" in my book. It means "illegal". If that gives an unfair advantage it's "cheating". If it doesn't it's just "illegal". I'll change my wording to use current SNZ tech speak. Nelson's numbers were "non compliant". I did check it out with the promoter (as it is a promoter's rule as part of the entry into the event), and he was at a loss as to why the Tigers did what they did. He obviously wasn't going to drop a team out at that late stage (vehicle checking) but did state he would try and get to the bottom of it and sort it before next year's event. Barry B Or, even more accurately, perhaps the wording should be your "perception of non-compliance". |
|
|
|
Post by BarryB on Feb 13, 2015 11:18:30 GMT 12
No, non compliant with the promoter's interpretation of his own rules.
Barry B
|
|
|
|
Post by penman on Feb 13, 2015 11:20:51 GMT 12
No, non compliant with the promoter's interpretation of his own rules. Barry B So....the 'rule' IS open to interpretation? Which would not make Nelson's sequential numbers "illegal" or even "non-compliant". It would make them subject to Nelson's interpretation. And, whilst I have a feeling you are thinking I am being pedantic and "pushing a barrow", I'm really only responding to the original claim of illegality. Personally, I couldn't give two hoots and a holler whether Nelson runs sequential numbers, random numbers chosen from a hat, or even pictures of vegetables beginning with E (which I would suggest, would DEFINiTELY not meet the promoter's interpretation). It REALLY doesn't bother me at ALL. Using a Katy Perry track as theme music though? THAT would bother me. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 13, 2015 11:45:53 GMT 12
No, non compliant with the promoter's interpretation of his own rules. Barry B Using a Katy Perry track as theme music though? THAT would bother me. Wish you guys would stop picking on Katy Perry lol. |
|
|
|
Post by BarryB on Feb 13, 2015 12:08:40 GMT 12
No, non compliant with the promoter's interpretation of his own rules. Barry B So....the 'rule' IS open to interpretation? Which would not make Nelson's sequential numbers "illegal" or even "non-compliant". It would make them subject to Nelson's interpretation. And, whilst I have a feeling you are thinking I am being pedantic and "pushing a barrow", I'm really only responding to the original claim of illegality. Personally, I couldn't give two hoots and a holler whether Nelson runs sequential numbers, random numbers chosen from a hat, or even pictures of vegetables beginning with E (which I would suggest, would DEFINiTELY not meet the promoter's interpretation). It REALLY doesn't bother me at ALL. Using a Katy Perry track as theme music though? THAT would bother me. No, non compliant with the promoter's DEFINITION of his own rules. Penman, as I said in a PM to somebody yesterday who had bombarded me with 10 times as much twisted defensive Nelson-supporter type "logic" as you have; if you really have an issue, take it up with the rule maker himself. I didn't write the rule. It appears, on the surface at least, that only a few fans do have an issue with the new (a return to the old) numbering system, they all support one team, and in part I suggest it's because people have dared criticise their team, on top of the fact they failed to live up to expectatons. Can you name 5 vegetables beginning with E? Barry B |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 12:35:07 GMT 12
For goodness sake Barry.
I was pm'ing you yesterday in an attempt to keep our disagreement off the board, but you wanted to keep it going both in pm and on the board, so I endulged you, but you could'nt help yourself by baiting me back for more comment in your latest response to Penman, foolish me for endulging again, but I'm a generous man.
I'll point it out for you again, in the simplest of terms, as you admitted yesterday you are close to "pension age", so I'll give you a word discount....I was against the changing of teams numbers from the outset, well before last weekend's meeting. The fact that I'm a Tigers supporter has nothing to do with my opinion, purely a coincedence, given their numbers at the meeting.
A few posts amongst 5 thousand odd members, does not a conclusion make by the way. Fishermen cast nets less wide as yours.
|
|
