[TNRustler]

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

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.

[Jerry Shaw]

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

[cecil98]

Originally Posted by zeroracer my personal favorite is when you draw and qualify within your group say you draw a 56 well cars that drew 50 - 70 there are twelve cars that drew in that range those 12 qualify for there spot in there 12 car heat, and then invert top 4 of each heat... so the draw can not dramatically effect qualifying because the group you will heat race against all hit the track with very very similar conditions, with this format, everyone gets a fair amount of laps and it gives smaller teams a better chance... and base the rest of the evening off of the race finishes, this may work better just with sprintweeks because of the large car counts

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

[767]

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.

[Racerrob]

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

[767]

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

Originally Posted by mortboyz Nobody ever said making a USAC show, let alone a Sprintweek show, was easy.

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)

[Charles Nungester]

Originally Posted by AustinSprinter Way ta go Chuck!!...Nice to meet ya at da 'Burg!!.....Brucer'

Was nice meeting you too Bruce, See ya tomorrow?

[Charles Nungester]

Originally Posted by racingwwindom 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)

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.