Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

Rob Hoffman hit the nail on the head. The real question is would USAC ever consider changing the format?

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

I like chucks idea. Maybe USAC could send out a survey or whatever and get the memberships (drivers, owners) thoughts on this and other things that may make racing better. Then mull it over this winter and see what happens. Just don't make any changes during the season.

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

The ONLY thing I would consider changing, in the USAC format, would be the rule that allows B-Main transfers to get their qualifying spot back. Less sandbagging occurred in New Orleans during Katrina, than does with some fast qualifiers, during USAC heats.

The overall structure is one of the better things about a USAC show, IMO. There's a uniformity to it. When you go to a USAC show, starting with the heat races, each and every time, you know just exactly how many cars are going to race and how many are going to transfer. You can look at the heat lineups and easily figure out what the qualifying order was. Or vise versa.

And adding slower cars towards the front of heats does not (and I repeat, does not) make for better racing. When I go to a USAC event, I go to see a special show. The biggest, fastest and best -vs- the biggest, fastest and best or an outgunned guy who really kicked some ass, that day. Lowering the bar only takes away from that.

That's just my opinion, though.

Jerry

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

I like it Broc! Now let's present it to Kevin Miller. I haven't seen anything out there that is fairer.

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

the only thing i disagree with rob about is I would like to see the b-main lined up by the finishing order of the heats, other wise we are on the same page.

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

The reason I don't want the B lined up according to the heat finish is this: Let's say you qualify 4th. The track has slicked off to a huggypole, follow the leader type track. You start 8th (on the outside) and finish 9th (because you couldn't get to the bottom on the start. For those of you that think this is far fetched you should have been at Haggerstown last year.

Now you would have to line up 20th in the B main even though you qualified 4th!!! Even if you make it through the B, you would have to start at best 7th (under my suggestion) or 17th (under other people's suggestion. What is the point of qualifying then? Why not use a pill draw and go from there?

Using the times from Sunday, how many of the ISW fans would have liked to have seen Stanbrough, Sweet, Gardner and Hines starting at the back of the B and not making it to the top 6? Jon put on a clinic in the A and I would have hated to see the fans deprived of that due to heat finishes determining the B main line up.

The other thing this will lead to is aggressive driving tactics, such as punting, spinning, flipping, feeding a RR to a competior because each spot you gain in the heat equals 4 in the B. I don't want to turn Sprint Car racing into a demolition derby. If you want to see that go to a county fair.

I want to see the best of the best sliding within inches of one another and still racing cleanly.

Rob Hoffman

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

maybe there needs to be 2 b-mains then, the lcq cars could be added to the back of these. a driver has a better chance comeing from 12th to 3rd, rather than 24th to 6th. easy on the demolition derby references :D

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

Excellent post! Every time I see a Nungester post I think of the great quote "It is impossible to defeat an ingnorant man in arugement". William G. McAdoo (1863-1941)

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

Was nice meeting you too Bruce, See ya tomorrow?

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

Talk about ignorance Mr. No name. Its a discussion board, discussing ways to improve the show. Whats wrong with that? I never said my ideas are right or wrong, but the general concessous that the LCQ is way out dated is pretty uniform. Your not really changing the length of show by exchanging it for a fifth heat if necessary and its giving nothing to no-one as it would still be top 8 in front slowest at the tail.

Chuck, just happy to see some good racing.

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

You just explained the problem were talking about. Some of us are for racing your way into the main and not being handed you spot because you happened to hit the right qualifing setup or went out at the right time. Everything would be ok as is IF theyjust lined up the B Main based on the heat finishes. Then go back to qualifing times to line up the main.

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

Rob is right about lining up the B Mains by heat finish. And honestly, there is less sand-bagging than you think. Sometimes, a car that qualifies well just isn't fast enough to move through the pack. It happens. I have rarely, VERY RARELY, heard or seen a guy take it easy to start up front in the semi. Honestly, I have seen cars go out no matter where they drew and qualify well. Each night. I love Chad Boespflug, but he was not treated unfairly at all - he just got himself behind the eight-ball. It's possible to race out of that, such as Tracy Hines and Chad Boat have done. When Chad qualified better, he had no trouble making the feature. You need to treat qualifying as the important part of the program it is - that's why I love qualifying so much, and why it's such a challenge to run well in USAC races.

Adding another heat only waters down the talent. Keeping the talent stacked into four heats means you have great racers from top to bottom. And when that happens, you get heat races like the first one on Sunday. That was the best heat race I've ever seen - and, oh yeah, the fast qualifier transferred through that one by racing his ass off, just so he wouldn't have to run the B.

Two B Mains leads to one being more stacked than the other. There's nothing I hate more than seeing two Bs at a local show where one is absolutely stacked, where I feel like five cars from one could have transferred from the other.

Also, the problem with Broc's theory (although I like thinking outside of the box) is that you're still drawing for your heat race, and heats can be very much stacked against somebody or for somebody. What if your heat race group includes Levi, Tracy, Darland, Gardner, Hagen, Whitt, Bacon, Sweet, and Short? It's a fair format as long as you all qualify on similar track conditions, right? Even if I got in a heat with Chuck, Cecil, Rob, and a bunch of other guys you know you can beat? :D I'm sorry, but I've watched qualifying for four nights pretty accurately seed everyone into heats, just as it always does...

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

Discusion mind you. A fifth heat would only be added as neccessary in my scenario, 50+ cars. Less than that would tag the tail of the four heats. They would still have a C if neccessary lined up by times or heat finish, Doesn't matter to me and then tag the tail of the B.

Im not trying to give the little guy a pass in no way whatsoever. Just the chance to race their way in instead of 8 laps and on the trailer, They have this chance D,C B mains at Woo Events, Kings Royals, Chili Bowls, Regular shows and Knoxville Nationals. Why not here?

Chuck, who mentioned no driver or team here. Id just like to see more of the guys I know capable of running against them show up

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

In reality, these ideas of having "more chances" are better for the bigger teams than the smaller teams. If you give somebody like Tracy Hines, who can overcome this tough format, another chance to get in or improve his starting position, he's going to beat the little guys every time! And if guys are forced to make it through the heat after qualifying well in order to start better than 17th, you're gonna see some big teams tearing up the little guys' equipment in desperation. It is so much easier for a little guy to put together a qualifying run (because I've seen more little guys qualify well than race well) than have to beat these super teams over and over again.

And if we keep adding races, we're really gonna upset those people who are mad at Kokomo for ending late! :)

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

robert gatten

So you want to penalize someone that "because you happened to hit the right qualifing setup or went out at the right time" by starting them in the back of a heat race and then penalize them again if they don't pass enough cars in the heat? Why go for fast time then if it seriously comprimises your chances for making the feature? Why not lay down an average lap qualify, mid pack, start in a transfer position and know that a good portion of the faster qualifers will not make the A and thus improve your starting position?

I know one of the posters on here quotes Rich Vogler in saying that every time he was on the track it was a race. Even Hot Laps are a race and I come to win everything.

I don't want to see qualifications become a test to see who can hit a certain time. That is for straight line bracket racing. Sorry about the demo derby comment, but I know there are quite a few drivers racing USAC right now that could (and would under the right circumstances) take a guy out if the heat race finishing positions became any more important.

Rob Hoffman

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

Kirk, To be honest, I never had a problem with the way they are running sprintweek this year. The four from the LCQs are fair. This has steadily gotten better over the years from the time Hewitt and others suggested they split the LCQ into two races. When I started watching USAC it was often a 25+ car field for eight laps for four possitions.

Chuck, who does see improvements and certainly don't make a change mid season :)

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

This is just a place to air your thoughts, and i like your ideas posted earlier. However the fastest qualifiers start in the back and i have no problem with that. My problems comes from a guy making it out of the non qualifier,starting in the back of the heat (thats ok too ) but then passing good USAC cars to run up to 5th only to be put to the tail of the B again too start all over. The USAC cars that run 8th in the heats get to go right up front in the B even though they were out raced in the heat. Just kind of sticks in my crawl a little. Maybe its too much trouble for USAC to figure out all those heat races and line up a B main based on racing .

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

My car has also had to run the LCQ and start in the back of the heat and B. I know where you are coming from on this but most of the time it is because the driver or the team didn't get it right for qualifying and that put the team in the hole the rest of the night.

I agree this is a great place to air you thoughts. I certainly don't claim to have all the answers and I really appreciate it when logic and reasoning are used to support a person's position on a topic. I am willing to discuss/debate any issue with any person as long as we treat each other with respect. You never know where the next great idea will originate and therfore everyone would be wise to listen to everything and form an opinion on each issue based upon all available information.

But beware; a wise man once told me that opinions are like A$$holes - everyone has one and most of them stink. :rolling

Let's keep the ideas coming and the debate respectful so that we can improve the experience for everyone.

Rob Hoffman

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

...adding a fifth heat dilutes the talent......Kirk

Come on, Kirk, that's ridiculous!!!!

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

I have a few questions. When the current system was devised, inverting the heats based on your qualifying time with the fastest qualifiers at the rear. I assume it was done so with the intention of trying to make better racing in the heats instead of having the fastest qualifiers starting up front and running away from the rest of the field making for a boring race.

The goal is to make the A-main lineup or you cannot take home the trophy or the big bucks. With this system, would it not be beneficial for a driver to NOT set a fast time in order to get a better starting position in the heats so as to have a better shot at a transfer position? As someone said earlier, lay down an average lap time for a better heat starting position, then hammer down in the heat to get into the A-main. I suppose the "getting your time back" rule is suppose to prevent that. I doubt if that is the case for many racers whose initial goal is to make that A-main.

The real pressure is on the guy who did set a fast time making it back up though the heat to a transfer position. The reward for racing through the field to a transfer position is to start up front in the A-main when he gets his time back. If he doesn't make it to a transfer position in his heat, IS THAT WHY they are giving him his time back in the B-main, so as to not penalize his starting position a second time and therefore almost assuring the fast qualifier will make the A-Main by starting up front in the B? For which he will again get his time back and be assured of starting up front in the A.

I guess the one thing I am really confused about is, if they are so concerned about inverting the heats to insure good racing, why are all of the fast qualifiers put at the front of the B-main and A-main by getting their times back? Does that not do what they are trying to avoid in the heats?

Once a driver with a fast time gets into a transfer position in the heat, they have no real reason to race with the drivers ahead of them, except for pride, because they will get their time back and start up front in the A-main. All of these variables seem to open the door for opportunities for strategy instead of racing.

When I buy a ticket to a race, I expect to see every driver race their a$$ off from the time the green flag drops until the checkers fall. Every position in every race should mean something. Every car you pass should mean a better starting position in your next event or more money in your payout. That keeps every driver racing for every position from green to checker. Isn't that what most race fans expect from racers?

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

Adding another heat throws things off. If you run five heats, do you still invert 8? That puts eight more cars into the invert of the heats, and those 8 are slower than the 32 we already have, which lowers the level of talent racing for transfer positions.

Would you transfer four from those five heats? That puts 20 into the feature, and then how many would you take from a B Main stacked with the fastest qualifiers? If you only transfer three, do you still make the fastest guy start eighth?

All you've done by adding another heat is let some slower guys have a chance to start on the pole and "not get passed by three or four guys" to make the feature, all while screwing up a format that only has very, very minor flaws.

Pushtruck, you had it figured out in the beginning. Guys are not taking it easy. They know how quickly one can go from first to fifth in a heat race. Especially in Sprintweek, there is no time to ride around and "just transfer." If you're not going forward, you're going backward.

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

I personally think if you are going to qualify, this is the right format.

1. Qualifing has to mean something or don't do it. If they invert the heat, you should get your time back in the end after the B. Quals have to mean something or don't do it.

2. Inverting the heats gives somebody that "missed it" or drew a bad pill a chance to make the feature by starting up front. If you aren't good enough to stay up front, you fall back, miss the transfer, and then start back in the B. You obviously weren't that fast to begin with if you can't finish 4th.

3. Pill draw is a pill draw. You draw for heats or quals, it's still a draw. Sometimes going out early is good, sometimes it's bad. I don't really see how you make ANY kind of draw fair. Just can't happen. You can't make track conditions equal on a dirt track for everybody.

4. If you can't qualify in the top 32, you should have to work a little harder. I realize a bad draw can cause that, but Hines made the A WITHOUT even needing the B at Lawrenceburg. I know he has good equipment, but not every driver out there could do that. He then had to start the A in the back because of quals so that still meant something.

I think USAC should do things differently because that's the top of line. I like that the other series draw and race, but I like that USAC quals and it means something.

Stanbrough or Ballou would have made it to the front if they had started mid-pack at Kokomo. They were that fast and the cream rises. They weren't up front based on just a good qual run.

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

This is exactly why you have to QUALIFY well....so you don't end up in the rear of a heat and race one spot out of the transfer then go to the tail of the b and have to start over....running with USAC is not made to be easy......these guys are the best of the best and they all know how important those 2 laps are....if you are an underfunded team and a poor qualifier....then things are gonna be extremely difficult for you.....but maybe....just maybe you cut two nice laps of hanging it all out....and you make the invert or higher...thats what the entire format is about and that is why i love the qualifying.

I am as much for the underdog as anyone as i have multiple friends who race here in indiana locally every weekend....they are not racing sprintweek because despite them being quite formidable on some really tough local race tracks....they know better than to try to race against these odds because they don't qualify well...plain and simple...they know how much it is to qualify well.

i agree with spridge....i don't think these fast cars are sandbagging as much as some of you think...the first couple heat races at gas city last week were raced on a really fast track...despite some of these drivers driving for the big teams...they couldn't catch the guys starting in front of them...yes...maybe by feeding a wheel and crashing themselves or others they MIGHT have made it....but why take that risk if your running 6thor 7th with 2 to go...and despite not wanting to run a b you know your gonna get your time back and have a shot at transfer...a reward for QUALIFYING well....i was standing outside of turn 3 where i could see that the cars were creating major groundspeed on a fast track...so putting the fast qualifier or some of the cars around him where they finsih the heat race...after they cut 2 great laps and the guy on the pole...maybe the 24th fastest qualifier takes off and never gets passed because of a fast track...doesn't make much sense.

i like the format now....however rob's idea about the featch invert is something to ponder.

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

Not my idea. USAC/CRA out west has been doing it for years. It does provide extra incentive for those top 6 cars to try to make it through the heat.

I never want to see my car in the B even if I am going to start on the pole. There are too many things that can happen during a B to cause you not to transfer...a tire gets cut, you tangle with another car and spin/flip, challenge the cushion one too many times, etc. If we can make it through the heat that is the way to go.

Also if you are running for USAC points the heats pay way better than the B. A heat win is worth 8 points and a B win is worth 4. While that doesn't sound like much, we missed 2nd in the car owners chase by 2 points last year.

I can't speak for all the teams and drivers but I would think that the vast majority have the same thought process and conduct themselves accordingly.

Now let's go racing!!! :Steer

Rob Hoffman

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

no sandbagging, get real, I've seen it way to much this year in the heat races. I guess the biggest problem is the car count. The adverage 24-30 car usac show, the format does not really matter. For the large shows, the current format really hurts. Somebody talked about a stacked b-main if there were 2 b-mains, its not stacked if it goes by qualifying time. It is stacked because you are going by names.

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

I like D.O.'s idea. I went to Tri-State a couple weeks ago to an MSCS race, no qualifying thus a later start for practice (saving the track on both counts a big plus on hot days with us on eastern time for the last couple of years). NO lcq race, yeh! Passing points and everyone gets a chance to race twice. If you haven't got the hint I hate the non-qualifier and qualifying. On hot days a bad draw means head home terribly discoureaging to someone thinking of hauling a long way.Let's practice and RACE!!!

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

I also like D.O.'s idea. I went to an MSCS race at Tri-State a couple of weeks ago and practice started a little later and there was no qualifying. Both of these measures were huge as far as saving the track especially since we have been on eastern time the last couple of years. No non-qualifiers race as there was a draw and everyone car placed in heats. This gave everyone a chance to race twice. As it stands now a bad draw for qualifying with 50 cars on hand on a hot day, you might as well load up and head home! I didn't hear any complaints with the structure of the racing programe at Tri-State. I'm there for the RACING!!!

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

The MSCS format is perfect for their niche in sprint car racing. It is simple and gives every car a chance of starting on the pole of a heat, which is good for smaller teams or slower cars, honestly.

There are no passing points with MSCS, though.

Here's the negative - if you start on the pole and win your heat, you have a very good possibility of starting on the front row. In an MSCS event, you can start on the front row for every race and win without passing a car, all by drawing two good pills.

Also, if you start at the back of a stacked heat, you have an uphill battle all night. If you go from ninth to seventh (let's say you couldn't pass Stanbrough, Clayton, Schuerenberg, Short, Levi, or Bland in your heat race), then you're likely starting in the C MAIN!! The only reason that it usually works out fairly well in MSCS events is that the fields are not that deep, so moving forward in a heat race and/or C/B Mains is possible...

767 - There is some sandbagging at pavement races during the heats. I would say it is very rare at any dirt USAC race. The lowest car count all year on dirt has been 26, which came at Hagerstown. In that race, Jesse Hockett crashed while racing hard in his heat race, and had to take a provisional for the feature. Brady Short got caught up in a lapped car's spin during the B Main and barely made it back to a transfer spot. Josh Spencer missed the show after tangling with another car while battling for the transfer spot on the last lap. Believe me, no one wants to run the semi!!

But even with that, I would still love to see the CRA format employed...

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

The only night of the four so far that had such a thing as a "bad draw" was the second night at Lawrenceburg.

Night one, Levi Jones set fast time early, but Chris Windom came out at the end and went tenth-quick.

At Gas City, Scotty Weir set fast time at the end of the line, but Kenny Biro came out fifth and was fifth-quick.

At Kokomo, Brad Sweet came out late to set fast time, but Jerry Coons, Jr. came out third and ended up fifth-quick.

In that qualifying session at Lawrenceburg on Thursday, Dave Darland's quick-time came late in qualifying when the track had worked in a little. An early number was not good, and it seemed to hurt Chad Boespflug, Jesse Hockett, Tracy Hines, and even Jon Stanbrough, among others. But before all those guys came out, Jeff Bland, Jr. qualified himself solidly in the heats. And right after those "good guys" went out, Bret Mellenberndt qualified 14th.

The thing is, no matter when you go out to qualify, you have to hit a good lap. I can't even count how many guys go out and don't even hit the right line. There's a reason, other than really good luck, that some guys seem to always stay out of the non-qualifier's race...

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

maybe you reward the top 12 qualifiers by letting them keep there qualifing time. If you qualify for the a main thru your heat race the worse you can start is 12th if you go thru the b-main the best you can start is 17th. top 4 from the heat go to the feature invert either 4 or 6 cars in each heat, no more. Fastest qualifier to make it thru their heat drawls a pill for the invert of the 12 fast guys. if only 10 of the 12 fastest make it thru the heat race, then he drawls out of 1-10. It rewards guys for good qualifing, and rewards guys for raceing there way to the front. if you qualify in the top 12 and do not make the a-main thru your heat race, then you start up front in the b-main. no matter what happens your never going to get rid of ruff driveing, unless the sanctioning body starts calling balls and strikes.

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

IMHO USAC's format plays in a bigger favor to the little teams than any other organization that qualifies. All other qualifying series either invert 4 or 6 in the heats meaning you have to qualify at worst top 24 to make the cut. With USAC you can qualify 32cnd quick and start in the front of a heat race. To me that is missing it and still getting rewarded. I like the format and just wish they would start 12 in each heat. Everyone that runs enough with USAC will be on all ends of the spectrum. From qualifiying in the top 6 and racing your but off to transfer in the heat just hoping you do not have to run the B because you know the talent in that race it may be tough to even run the top 6. Or qualifying 24th to 32cnd thinking you have a great chance to make the show but have to start in the back of feature. Or one of the worst scenerio's qualifying 9th through 16th starting 3rd row knowing you have to pass good guys to get in and the fast qualifiers breathing down your kneck then if you dont transfer in the heat your starting mid pack of B with darn good cars and drivers in front of you and have to run top 6. Then the worst missing the top 32 and racing your butt off all night long. To me this sounds like a awsome format for the fans. Some nights the racers has a great night and other nights things just do not go your way. But to me this format for qualifying is as tough as it gets. But I still say the fairest form for racing is the Sprint Bandit format. USAC's format beats the blind draw to pieces.

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

can u explain the sprint bandit format?

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

I like engine rule #8 - "No turban driven..." A turban is a type of head dress worn in certain cultures. I think they should probably change it to "turbine".

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

I seem to recall getting a fax that said turbans are legal now, if they have the proper hook-ups for the HANS device.

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

:rolling:rolling:rolling

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

Are the turbans flame retardant?:O:

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

I say take DO's format and make one small change, dump USAC. ISW was started by some Indiana dirt tracks. It's a shame that the drivers who compete every week on those ISW tracks can't afford to run all the ISW shows.

I talked to several drivers in the last week about this very thing. I was told that with a USAC license or TP, plus $35 pit passes with entry is runs about $300-$400 just to race, plus you have to have a HANS.

I have been a USAC fan since the first time I went to the Hut 100 in 1960. I have been to hundreds of USAC shows, promoted USAC shows and even broadcasted USAC events around the country.

I just think that Indiana Sprint Week should be an Indiana Sprint Week not USAC Sprint Week in Indiana.

Take the ten or so tracks that want a ISW date and agree not to run sprint cars on those dates. The tracks that run sprint cars everyweek choose the weekend dates first with the remaining dates picked out of a hat.

Take DO's format with a USAC type payout. Fans complain about support classes, well how about non wing sprint cars as a support class. I am saying pay $5000 to win to the top 24 in the first feature, $1000 to win in the next feature for the next 24 and $500 to win for the remainder of cars. Everyone runs a feature. Charge a $25 entry to each race and pay it all out plus any sponsor money to the point fund.

Charge $25 admission with an advanced reserved seat sale "super ticket" for $200 good for all ten events. Indiana Sprint Weeks offers some great promotional opportuinties for some Indiana companies.

Lets get our guys who keep the local tracks in business running the big events too. The local racers and fans they bring keep the tracks in business. ISW helps keep USAC in business. If you need USAC's magic wand for the event, then let them put their name on it like they do the "Little 500' that was also around long before USAC got involved.

Track owners do not need USAC to bring a dozen officials or to tell them when to water or to rework the track.

It is a shame that the guys who race everyweek on the same ISW dirt tracks like can't even race on what is the biggest race of the year at most of the tracks.

There are lots of suggestions on how to change the ISW format posted. Well Jerry Coons Jr. said on DO's show last Monday that when the standard USAC format is changed it can have an effect on the USAC National Championship. He's right

I am a huge fan of Dave Darland but last year Jon Stanbrough lost the ISW title to Dave because Dave got the USAC provisional and Jon did not.

Let's go racing and put the USAC fee's in the drivers pockets.

Just my thoughts.

Roger Hughes

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

Honestly, Sprintweek was nothing until USAC came on board in 1997. It was a great idea then and it is still a brilliant idea now...

If you want to see the best guys out there racing, Sprintweek is the place to do it. And quite honestly, I'm tired of hearing excuses from people when it comes to the USAC Indiana Sprintweek shows....the guys who showed up all week don't deserve to be disrespected - they were the cream of the crop and proved again that they're the best sprint car racers in the country. And those are the guys that fans flock to see...

Re: some changes need to be made isw
 

I remember sprintweeks being prety good back when USAC had nothing to do with it. Like back in the early 90's when guys like Hewitt in Murphys car & Terry Shepherd in the NIPS car would show up at some of the races.