some changes need to be made isw

robert gatten · 7/16/08, 5:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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.

Kirk Spridgeon · 7/16/08, 5:30 PM

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?

I'm sorry, but I've watched qualifying for four nights pretty accurately seed everyone into heats, just as it always does...

Charles Nungester · 7/16/08, 5:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirk Spridgeon

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?

I'm sorry, but I've watched qualifying for four nights pretty accurately seed everyone into heats, just as it always does...

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

Kirk Spridgeon · 7/16/08, 6:00 PM

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!

Racerrob · 7/16/08, 6:08 PM

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

Charles Nungester · 7/16/08, 6:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirk Spridgeon

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!

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

robert gatten · 7/16/08, 6:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Racerrob

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

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 .

Racerrob · 7/16/08, 7:32 PM

Quote:

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 .

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

cecil98 · 7/16/08, 8:33 PM

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

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

Pushtruck · 7/16/08, 8:41 PM

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?

7/16/08, 5:30 PM	#52 Re: some changes need to be made isw
Kirk Spridgeon Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 802	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? I'm sorry, but I've watched qualifying for four nights pretty accurately seed everyone into heats, just as it always does...

7/16/08, 6:00 PM	#54 Re: some changes need to be made isw
Kirk Spridgeon Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 802	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!

7/16/08, 6:08 PM	#55 Re: some changes need to be made isw
Racerrob Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 237	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

7/16/08, 8:33 PM	#59 Re: some changes need to be made isw
cecil98 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,399	...adding a fifth heat dilutes the talent......Kirk Come on, Kirk, that's ridiculous!!!!

7/16/08, 8:41 PM	#60 Re: some changes need to be made isw
Pushtruck Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 288	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?