Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[evolution\-disc\.\]\s+Re\:\s+Two\s+Driver\s+Run\s+Order\s+2002\s+Nationals\s*$/: 15 ]

Total 15 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [evolution-disc.] Re: Two Driver Run Order 2002 Nationals (score: 1)
Author: "Mark J. Andy" <marka@telerama.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:56:31 -0400 (EDT)
You know, I've been on these lists for awhile too. I've seen stupid questions and good questions. All the grid questions I saw were good ones and ones that I wondered about myself when I read the pr
/html/autox/2002-08/msg00476.html (9,900 bytes)

2. RE: [evolution-disc.] Re: Two Driver Run Order 2002 Nationals (score: 1)
Author: "Madurski, Ronald M." <RONALD.M.MADURSKI@saic.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:12:32 -0400
this its Actually, the way it is written would work extremely well in most cases. The smaller classes (less than 20 non-2-driver cars) would still have to run intermixed with other classes for 2 dri
/html/autox/2002-08/msg00477.html (12,327 bytes)

3. Re: [evolution-disc.] Re: Two Driver Run Order 2002 Nationals (score: 1)
Author: Randy Chase <randyc2@cox.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 14:29:07 -0700
All the grid questions I saw were good ones They were good questions and a number of us are studying the posts to make sure we understand how this works. It is a bit confusing in regards to how it wa
/html/autox/2002-08/msg00478.html (9,076 bytes)

4. Re: [evolution-disc.] Re: Two Driver Run Order 2002 Nationals (score: 1)
Author: RX7cat@aol.com
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:29:28 EDT
Confirmed by Paula Whitney who helped rewrite that particular supp a month or so ago when it was deemed unclear. Paula acknowledges that it is difficult to get the wording as clear as they would like
/html/autox/2002-08/msg00479.html (10,895 bytes)

5. Re: [evolution-disc.] Re: Two Driver Run Order 2002 Nationals (score: 1)
Author: Scott Troyer - TestEng DRAM Repair <stroyer@micron.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:57:32 -0600
Well I hope Beth's description is what is going to happen. The difference for me in AS (21 cars) will be huge. I will be the 2nd 2 driver car out at #48. If we try to maintain the numerical order as
/html/autox/2002-08/msg00480.html (10,728 bytes)

6. Re: [evolution-disc.] Re: Two Driver Run Order 2002 Nationals (score: 1)
Author: Scott Troyer - TestEng DRAM Repair <stroyer@micron.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:06:50 -0600
I agree with the flexibility part. And I will admit I was thinking one class ran at a time as long as it was greater than 20 cars. Not sure where I picked up this idea. I'll just make sure I'm ready
/html/autox/2002-08/msg00481.html (10,032 bytes)

7. Re: [evolution-disc.] Re: Two Driver Run Order 2002 Nationals (score: 1)
Author: RX7cat@aol.com
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:21:13 EDT
Now that's a question I can't answer...I don't the hows and whys of how the procedure came to be. :-) Well, now here's what we do in that situation...Timing tries to evaluate the way the classes are
/html/autox/2002-08/msg00482.html (11,839 bytes)

8. RE: [evolution-disc.] Re: Two Driver Run Order 2002 Nationals (score: 1)
Author: "Madurski, Ronald M." <RONALD.M.MADURSKI@saic.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:40:27 -0400
over Now that's a question I can't answer...I don't the hows and whys of how the procedure came to be. :-) I think I know that one!!!! It makes it easier to keep score. Less hunting around for which
/html/autox/2002-08/msg00483.html (9,874 bytes)

9. Re: [evolution-disc.] Re: Two Driver Run Order 2002 Nationals (score: 1)
Author: "Rocky Entriken" <rocky@tri.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:52:46 -0500
over IMHO, because 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 etc. IS a lot more efficient, at the outset, than is 86, 27, 44, 8, 19, 53, etc. You START with that because it is the most efficient way, then adjust as needed f
/html/autox/2002-08/msg00484.html (10,139 bytes)

10. RE: [evolution-disc.] Re: Two Driver Run Order 2002 Nationals (score: 1)
Author: "Madurski, Ronald M." <RONALD.M.MADURSKI@saic.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:54:33 -0400
I wrote this a long time ago (45 minutes :-) and didn't send it so it's kind of out of order in the discussion... But you've got other classes in the heat... So, here's how it would work in your heat
/html/autox/2002-08/msg00485.html (12,417 bytes)

11. Re: [evolution-disc.] Re: Two Driver Run Order 2002 Nationals (score: 1)
Author: "Rocky Entriken" <rocky@tri.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:03:36 -0500
Scott -- not quite. You won't be quite so rushed. Let's assume AS is the first class -- of four in your heat, which also includes ESP, SML, STXL. As of Tuesday, that heat had 54 cars in it, 21 of whi
/html/autox/2002-08/msg00486.html (13,157 bytes)

12. Re: [evolution-disc.] Re: Two Driver Run Order 2002 Nationals (score: 1)
Author: Scott Troyer - TestEng DRAM Repair <stroyer@micron.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:18:22 -0600
Thank you Rocky, and everyone else who has replied to straighten me out on thought I had it all figured out but I guess I didn't. I have a much better feel for it now. Sorry about the ruccus....but y
/html/autox/2002-08/msg00487.html (9,157 bytes)

13. Re: [evolution-disc.] Re: Two Driver Run Order 2002 Nationals (score: 1)
Author: "Mark J. Andy" <marka@telerama.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 20:00:57 -0400 (EDT)
I think one of Tyson's points is that the system we use should be able to handle co-drivers seamlessly, not lump them into the "sh*t" happening category. After all, we already know we're gonna have
/html/autox/2002-08/msg00490.html (9,984 bytes)

14. Re: [evolution-disc.] Re: Two Driver Run Order 2002 Nationals (score: 1)
Author: "Rocky Entriken" <rocky@tri.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:36:31 -0500
I predict that when you get into it, it will prove much more seamless than it may appear just now. Yes, we know we're gonna have co-drivers, but we don't know who, what cars, how many, and where the
/html/autox/2002-08/msg00496.html (11,007 bytes)

15. Re: [evolution-disc.] Re: Two Driver Run Order 2002 Nationals (score: 1)
Author: "Patrick Washburn" <washburn@dwave.net>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 20:19:42 -0500
Thanks for that clarification...that is the only part that was subject to interpretation IMO. (draconian measures if you are not ready in the 5 minutes) See you there! more get Patrick Washburn C-Tec
/html/autox/2002-08/msg00523.html (9,083 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu