No articles for a couple of days, which either means we’re all
tired or the mod-bot is borked. Anyway, in the spirit of providing
a subject for discussion…
Should the starting field be increased in Cup racing? This year
there are 38 teams running the entire season, and 10 or 12 part
time (intentionally or otherwise) teams. With the entry of the
Toyota teams next year, there quite likely could be 42 to 46
serious full-season teams. Throw in the usual collection of
decent part-timers and there’s a pretty good likelyhood of one
or more teams with major sponsorship going home each week.
One solution to that would be to increase the starting field
from 43 to something like 46 or 48. That way there’s enough
room that the "good" cars should be able to time in each week,
and the Copes, Chaffins, and Skinners would still have a spot
or two to fight over.
Most of the tracks have enough room for this (in the early
days they started 70+ at Darlington, and more than 60 at
Daytona for the first couple of speedway races). But fitting
that many cars into Bristol or Martinsville could be a problem,
and some of the bigger tracks (Dover, the road courses, maybe
Loudon) don’t have the pit road space for that many cars.
My thinking is increasing the field size would be a mistake.
What I would do, if it were my choice to make, is have a 44
car field at the bigger tracks (because I prefer the symmetry
of 2 car rows), and 38 at the shorter tracks (any track that
can’t provide 44 full-sized pit stalls). That would send
good cars home, but that’s the risk you take in motor racing;
if the sponsor’s unhappy tell them to pony up the dollars for
a better driver or a better race team.
John
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 18:13:56 CST, John McCoy <igop…@ix.netcom.com> wrote in <Xns9836C458A6950pogosupern…@216.168.3.30>:
>No articles for a couple of days, which either means we’re all
>tired or the mod-bot is borked.
I’m coping with the back-to-school blues.
Not many people seem to understand how difficult it
is to return to the classroom after an 8-month
sabbatical.
>Should the starting field be increased in Cup racing?
NO! 43 cars on the track is plenty, especially on short
tracks and road courses.
>… Throw in the usual collection of
>decent part-timers and there’s a pretty good likelyhood of one
>or more teams with major sponsorship going home each week.
That will make qualifying more fun to watch.
> … fitting
>that many cars into Bristol or Martinsville could be a problem,
>and some of the bigger tracks (Dover, the road courses, maybe
>Loudon) don’t have the pit road space for that many cars.
Ack! I forgot about the pits! Another excellent point against
your proposal. :o)
>My thinking is increasing the field size would be a mistake.
Whew!
Marty
Bring back the "consi", aka the "hooligan" or "last chance" race.
Give the tail-enders and part-timers a chance to get some TV time – ‘cuz
there’ll be highlights!
And would’nt you rather watch "Highlights from this morning’s wild last
chance race! Morgan Shepard trades paint by the gallon with Johnny Sauter
for the final spot!" It’d sure beat another learned discussion of the
provisional system……….
"John McCoy" <igop…@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9836C458A6950pogosupernews@216.168.3.30…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> No articles for a couple of days, which either means we’re all
> tired or the mod-bot is borked. Anyway, in the spirit of providing
> a subject for discussion…
> Should the starting field be increased in Cup racing? This year
> there are 38 teams running the entire season, and 10 or 12 part
> time (intentionally or otherwise) teams. With the entry of the
> Toyota teams next year, there quite likely could be 42 to 46
> serious full-season teams. Throw in the usual collection of
> decent part-timers and there’s a pretty good likelyhood of one
> or more teams with major sponsorship going home each week.
> One solution to that would be to increase the starting field
> from 43 to something like 46 or 48. That way there’s enough
> room that the "good" cars should be able to time in each week,
> and the Copes, Chaffins, and Skinners would still have a spot
> or two to fight over.
> Most of the tracks have enough room for this (in the early
> days they started 70+ at Darlington, and more than 60 at
> Daytona for the first couple of speedway races). But fitting
> that many cars into Bristol or Martinsville could be a problem,
> and some of the bigger tracks (Dover, the road courses, maybe
> Loudon) don’t have the pit road space for that many cars.
> My thinking is increasing the field size would be a mistake.
> What I would do, if it were my choice to make, is have a 44
> car field at the bigger tracks (because I prefer the symmetry
> of 2 car rows), and 38 at the shorter tracks (any track that
> can’t provide 44 full-sized pit stalls). That would send
> good cars home, but that’s the risk you take in motor racing;
> if the sponsor’s unhappy tell them to pony up the dollars for
> a better driver or a better race team.
> John
"John McCoy" wrote …
> No articles for a couple of days, which either means we’re all
> tired or the mod-bot is borked. Anyway, in the spirit of providing
> a subject for discussion…
> Should the starting field be increased in Cup racing?
> My thinking is increasing the field size would be a mistake.
> What I would do, if it were my choice to make, is have a 44
> car field at the bigger tracks (because I prefer the symmetry
> of 2 car rows), and 38 at the shorter tracks (any track that
> can’t provide 44 full-sized pit stalls). That would send
> good cars home, but that’s the risk you take in motor racing;
> if the sponsor’s unhappy tell them to pony up the dollars for
> a better driver or a better race team.
I also wonder about all the new Toyota teams and "who goes home". I also like
the symmetry of an even number too (43 is just weird!) but you can’t exceed the
number of pit stalls. So if a smaller track can add a pit stall to 44, then ok,
otherwise 40/42-46 sounds good with the same minimum points awarded for 34th on
back to get the backmarkers off the track. (Cope will have already left.)
And a guaranteed 25 point bonus to the winner (before bonus) over second place.
And no 5 point bonus for leading a lap unless it’s a green flag lap.
So, three examples:
2nd place gets 170+5+5=180; 1st gets 205+5 for leading a lap=210.
or
2nd place gets 170+5=175; 1st gets 200+5+5 for leading a lap and the most=210
or
2nd place gets 170+0=170; 1st gets 195+5+5 for leading a lap and the most=205
I take no fee for my recommendations.
"John&Michelle" wrote …
> Bring back the "consi", aka the "hooligan" or "last chance" race.
> Give the tail-enders and part-timers a chance to get some TV time – ‘cuz
> there’ll be highlights!
> And would’nt you rather watch "Highlights from this morning’s wild last
> chance race! Morgan Shepard trades paint by the gallon with Johnny Sauter
> for the final spot!" It’d sure beat another learned discussion of the
> provisional system……….
The T35 qualify as they do now and are guaranteed a spot. Everybody else races
for the rest of the spots!
COOOL!
"John McCoy" <igop…@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9836C458A6950pogosupernews@216.168.3.30…
> No articles for a couple of days, which either means we’re all
> tired or the mod-bot is borked. Anyway, in the spirit of providing
> a subject for discussion…
This is my third post in the last couple of weeks. Nothing is showing up so
if this one doesn’t make it through I’ll just assume I’m blocked in the bot
and quit trying. If it DOES make it through… Hi everyone… I’m back!
Michael
John McCoy <igop…@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> My thinking is increasing the field size would be a mistake.
Keep the field size the same but maybe the only Top 25 are
guaranteed. We need more guys that have to qualify well to
get into the race.
I can see maybe some changes to the Daytona 500 qualifying
format before next year with all of the new numbers coming
online. We really need to reduce the top 35 make it to the
500 no matter what they do in the Duals to the top 25 in
this years points or even fewer.
sam
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 08:56:43 CST, "Michael McGaha" <mich…@mcgaha.cc> wrote in <1%ULg.25491$gY6.1…@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>:
>"John McCoy" <igop…@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns9836C458A6950pogosupernews@216.168.3.30…
>> No articles for a couple of days, which either means we’re all
>> tired or the mod-bot is borked. Anyway, in the spirit of providing
>> a subject for discussion…
>This is my third post in the last couple of weeks. Nothing is showing up so
>if this one doesn’t make it through I’ll just assume I’m blocked in the bot
>and quit trying. If it DOES make it through… Hi everyone… I’m back!
Welcome back!
For tips on how to find lost posts, see:
http://rasnm.carracing.com/nntpprob.htm
I use the ugly workaround myself nowadays. There’s some
hiccup in my $10 / 25 GB deal with Astraweb. I’m very happy
with the price for the service and it’s easier for me to
use a macro to set up a reply via e-mail than to figure out
what’s wrong with Astraweb.
Marty
Thanks for the welcome. I’m glad this made it through. I am not sure how the
bot works but I do my newsgroups on my laptop which could be connected to
any of 4 connections. Frame Relay T1s from my office, AT&T DSL or Suddenlink
Cable from home, or AT&T/Cingular cell modem from anywhere else.
and to stay on topic, I think the fields should be increased on the tracks
that have the facilities to support them. but at the same time, decreased at
the tracks where they already have to share pits. If they only have 40 pits,
limit it to 40, if they have 48 pits, let them run 48. The added drama of a
reduced number of entries for the shorter tracks will make them fight harder
to qualify.
Michael
"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mole…@canisius.edu> wrote in message
news:vnf0g2l84fu8oqvh61r2er80rl506nc2kn@astraweb.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 08:56:43 CST, "Michael McGaha" <mich…@mcgaha.cc>
> wrote in <1%ULg.25491$gY6.1…@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>:
>>"John McCoy" <igop…@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>>news:Xns9836C458A6950pogosupernews@216.168.3.30…
>>> No articles for a couple of days, which either means we’re all
>>> tired or the mod-bot is borked. Anyway, in the spirit of providing
>>> a subject for discussion…
>>This is my third post in the last couple of weeks. Nothing is showing up
>>so
>>if this one doesn’t make it through I’ll just assume I’m blocked in the
>>bot
>>and quit trying. If it DOES make it through… Hi everyone… I’m back!
> Welcome back!
> For tips on how to find lost posts, see:
> http://rasnm.carracing.com/nntpprob.htm
> I use the ugly workaround myself nowadays. There’s some
> hiccup in my $10 / 25 GB deal with Astraweb. I’m very happy
> with the price for the service and it’s easier for me to
> use a macro to set up a reply via e-mail than to figure out
> what’s wrong with Astraweb.
> Marty
"Sam Hayes Merritt, III" <s…@themerritts.org> wrote in
news:12g09vs9gh3iobe@corp.supernews.com:
> John McCoy <igop…@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> My thinking is increasing the field size would be a mistake.
> Keep the field size the same but maybe the only Top 25 are
> guaranteed. We need more guys that have to qualify well to
> get into the race.
There is apparently discussion of changing it to 30. I’m not
entirely sure it really makes a difference, unless someone in
the 30 to 35 range is a notoriously bad qualifier. I guess if
you made the cutoff 25th you’d have a higher chance of hitting
one of the drivers who’s often slow in quals (like Earnhardt).
> I can see maybe some changes to the Daytona 500 qualifying
> format before next year with all of the new numbers coming
> online. We really need to reduce the top 35 make it to the
> 500 no matter what they do in the Duals to the top 25 in
> this years points or even fewer.
Yeah, as long as Daytona keeps the Thursday races they need
a seperate procedure, that keeps those races meaningful for
more than 4 drivers.
John
"WildWeasel" <wweasel…@zerospam.yahoo.com> wrote in
news:tuedncK7uNTZGGLZnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@comcast.com:
> "John&Michelle" wrote …
>> Bring back the "consi", aka the "hooligan" or "last chance" race.
>> Give the tail-enders and part-timers a chance to get some TV time –
>> ‘cuz there’ll be highlights!
>> And would’nt you rather watch "Highlights from this morning’s wild
>> last chance race! Morgan Shepard trades paint by the gallon with
>> Johnny Sauter for the final spot!" It’d sure beat another learned
>> discussion of the provisional system……….
> The T35 qualify as they do now and are guaranteed a spot. Everybody
> else races for the rest of the spots!
Yeah, running a 20 mile/20 lap (whichever is longer) B main with
the top 8 transferring would be a pretty neat deal. You could
run it right after qualifying if there was no other event that
day, or an hour or so before race time if there was a Busch
race or something filling out qualifying day.
John
"Michael McGaha" <mich…@mcgaha.cc> wrote in
news:oG%Lg.23037$kO3.8281@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com:
> Thanks for the welcome. I’m glad this made it through. I am not sure
> how the bot works but I do my newsgroups on my laptop which could be
> connected to any of 4 connections. Frame Relay T1s from my office,
> AT&T DSL or Suddenlink Cable from home, or AT&T/Cingular cell modem
> from anywhere else.
If the mods will excuse me, I’ll comment on this (in the past it’s
been frowned on, but discussion’s been pretty slow recently so I
hope they’ll forbear). How you’re connecting shouldn’t make a
difference. The way things work, the you post to your newsserver.
If the newsserver sees the group is moderated, it emails the post
on to the relay (so if you’re using more than one newsserver, and
one of them does not know the group is moderated, then those posts
will just disappear). The relay emails the post to the mod-bot
(there are 4 relays, one of which is notoriously flaky. Which one
you get is random, and if it’s the flaky one you’ll randomly loose
posts). If the mod-bot likes your post it will finally get posted
into it’s newsserver, and then propagate to all the other servers.
As you can see, there’s plenty of opportunities for a post to get
lost going to a moderated group.
> and to stay on topic, I think the fields should be increased on the
> tracks that have the facilities to support them. but at the same time,
> decreased at the tracks where they already have to share pits. If they
> only have 40 pits, limit it to 40, if they have 48 pits, let them run
> 48. The added drama of a reduced number of entries for the shorter
> tracks will make them fight harder to qualify.
That’s a reasonable approach, in my idea. I dislike the pit
weirdnesses that have been used in recent years to force all the
fields to 43 (the shared pit at Dover, "Gilligans Island" at
Sonoma, tiny short pits at several tracks). I would rather see
them shorten up the fields at those tracks, which would add some
drama to qualifying and make the pits safer during the race. If
we’ve got 46 cars with national sponsorship, then someone’s not
going to be in the race anyway; so it makes little difference
if 3 cars go home or 5.
I’m much less enthused about increasing the field size on the
tracks which are big enough, altho in that case there’s little
which argues against it. I think if you did do that, tho, you’d
need to set a minimum speed, so you don’t end up with a 58 car
field at Pocono (which has plenty of pits) with the slowest
dozen cars running 20mph slower than the field.
John
"WildWeasel" <wweasel…@zerospam.yahoo.com> wrote in
news:LdmdncJyB_z7GWLZnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@comcast.com:
> I
> also like the symmetry of an even number too (43 is just weird!)
Well, it made sense at the time (for those who weren’t around, some
years back the normal field size was 42. It happened that one race
Richard Petty failed to qualify, and there was much grief that such
an icon would be denied the opportunity to race. Some while later
NASCAR introduced the past champ provisional, to be used only when
a past champ needed it. Since this was done for Petty’s benefit,
and it made the field size match his car number, everyone thought
it a pleasing coincidence. Some years after that NASCAR decided
to include the past champ provisional in all races, making it just
a normal provisional when a past champ didn’t need it).
> but
> you can’t exceed the number of pit stalls.
Why not? They already do at Dover (which has either 41 or 42 pit
stalls, I forget which). Granted, it’s less than fair.
> And a guaranteed 25 point bonus to the winner (before bonus) over
> second place.
I’d like to see racing, for all positions, be made more important.
But I also beleive the season’s champion should be the guy who
runs best all season, not the guy who runs great every 3rd week
and barely qualifies the rest of the time. So I’m not at all
sure what I want to see done with the points.
> And no 5 point bonus for leading a lap unless it’s a
> green flag lap.
This I thoroughly approve of.
John
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 16:18:06 CST, "Michael McGaha" <mich…@mcgaha.cc> wrote in <oG%Lg.23037$kO3.8…@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>:
>Thanks for the welcome. I’m glad this made it through. I am not sure how the
>bot works but I do my newsgroups on my laptop which could be connected to
>any of 4 connections. Frame Relay T1s from my office, AT&T DSL or Suddenlink
>Cable from home, or AT&T/Cingular cell modem from anywhere else.
It’s possible that one of those has the standard newsgroup port closed.
(I think it’s 119). If you can e-mail from them, you can use the Ugly
Workaround.
I’m developing a FAQ on how moderation works:
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=faqs:moderation
>and to stay on topic …
Helping people get connected to the newsgroup is a necessary
off-topic maintenance regimen.
A newsgroup with no news is no fun. The more folks we have who
know how to connect, the better for all of us.
> … If they only have 40 pits,
>limit it to 40, if they have 48 pits, let them run 48. The added drama of a
>reduced number of entries for the shorter tracks will make them fight harder
>to qualify.
I think having a standard number is OK.
I’m fond of 43 because of the Petty connection (as someone noted
in another post).
I don’t think races have been lost because of the shared pits.
In an all-day race, you can count on enough cars dropping out
so that, at the end, all the contenders have their own pits.
Marty
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 18:22:02 CST, John McCoy <igop…@ix.netcom.com> wrote in <Xns9837C5B78C29Apogosupern…@216.168.3.30>:
>If the mods will excuse me, I’ll comment on this (in the past it’s
>been frowned on, but discussion’s been pretty slow recently so I
>hope they’ll forbear).
Me, too. It’s a topic we have to discuss from time to time
to help folks get connected and stay connected.
> How you’re connecting shouldn’t make a
>difference.
So long as all four of his service providers allow the standard
NNTP port (119), that is correct.
The way things work, the you post to your newsserver.
>If the newsserver sees the group is moderated, it emails the post
>on to the relay (so if you’re using more than one newsserver, and
>one of them does not know the group is moderated, then those posts
>will just disappear). The relay emails the post to the mod-bot
>(there are 4 relays, one of which is notoriously flaky. Which one
>you get is random, and if it’s the flaky one you’ll randomly loose
>posts). If the mod-bot likes your post it will finally get posted
>into it’s newsserver, and then propagate to all the other servers.
>As you can see, there’s plenty of opportunities for a post to get
>lost going to a moderated group.
The whole point of the Ugly Workaround is to use e-mail to
bypass the relays. You can post to the newsgroup by sending e-mail to:
<ra…@carracing.com>.
Cf. <http://rasnm.carracing.com/nntpprob.htm>.
Marty
"John McCoy" <igop…@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9836C458A6950pogosupernews@216.168.3.30…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> No articles for a couple of days, which either means we’re all
> tired or the mod-bot is borked. Anyway, in the spirit of providing
> a subject for discussion…
> Should the starting field be increased in Cup racing? This year
> there are 38 teams running the entire season, and 10 or 12 part
> time (intentionally or otherwise) teams. With the entry of the
> Toyota teams next year, there quite likely could be 42 to 46
> serious full-season teams. Throw in the usual collection of
> decent part-timers and there’s a pretty good likelyhood of one
> or more teams with major sponsorship going home each week.
> One solution to that would be to increase the starting field
> from 43 to something like 46 or 48. That way there’s enough
> room that the "good" cars should be able to time in each week,
> and the Copes, Chaffins, and Skinners would still have a spot
> or two to fight over.
> Most of the tracks have enough room for this (in the early
> days they started 70+ at Darlington, and more than 60 at
> Daytona for the first couple of speedway races). But fitting
> that many cars into Bristol or Martinsville could be a problem,
> and some of the bigger tracks (Dover, the road courses, maybe
> Loudon) don’t have the pit road space for that many cars.
> My thinking is increasing the field size would be a mistake.
> What I would do, if it were my choice to make, is have a 44
> car field at the bigger tracks (because I prefer the symmetry
> of 2 car rows), and 38 at the shorter tracks (any track that
> can’t provide 44 full-sized pit stalls). That would send
> good cars home, but that’s the risk you take in motor racing;
> if the sponsor’s unhappy tell them to pony up the dollars for
> a better driver or a better race team.
> John
I have no problem with a bigger field on the larger tracks. If they fit,
yes. Now on tracks like Bristol, there just is not room both in the pits and
on the track. One of those things that I would do is make sure people like
Cope and them that run 5 laps and go home are no longer paid unless there is
a real reason they need to pull off. This stuff of handling all the time
after a few laps is pure bull. I also rather like the idea of a "Last
Chance" race for those that qualify say 25th or 30th on back. It would be a
short race of say 50-75 miles at most. Might be a great crowd pleaser and
give the good teams a chance to fix any problems so people like Cope and
them that only show up to collect last place money can’t spend all their
money to qualify, bump teams in competition out and then pull out when it
comes to racetime.
Jim
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 23:47:39 CST, "jim" <jimbr…@bellsouth.net> wrote in <Ex6Mg.51511$e9.28…@bignews4.bellsouth.net>:
> … Might be a great crowd pleaser and
>give the good teams a chance to fix any problems so people like Cope and
>them that only show up to collect last place money can’t spend all their
>money to qualify, bump teams in competition out and then pull out when it
>comes to racetime.
I don’t have a problem with teams taking the money and running.
If they win their way in during qualifying, they’ve earned the money.
If they can’t stick with the pack during the race and are going nowhere
in the points standings, I don’t see what’s wrong with parking the
car.
The "good teams" have got to get better if Cope is beating them
at the qualifying game.
Marty
I think there should be a provision in the rule structure,
on "big" tracks, to allow "promoter’s options".
They used to.
I hate it when they go to a track like Pocono, the biggest, widest
piece of useless asphalt on the planet,
and one guy goes home.
I wouldn’t care if they started 50 there.
The place is big enough to handle it, without anyone even
noticing a difference after a few dozen laps.
same for the other >2 milers…
Especially a place like Fontana… Haul all the way out there,
and 2 guys don’t make it.
Come on… let ‘em race.
If guys are "really" slow, then that is up to the promoter
to exercise his "option"..
Right now, it doesn’t appear that there would ever be a ridiculous
amount of entries.
I’d have no problem with it.
—————————————————————————————
Dan
I got a new Matco tool box for my wife.
Best trade I ever made…
"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mole…@canisius.edu> wrote in
news:hdp2g29nu8outv2bsi4ioo3f14u1acp5dt@astraweb.com:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 23:47:39 CST, "jim" <jimbr…@bellsouth.net> wrote
> in <Ex6Mg.51511$e9.28…@bignews4.bellsouth.net>:
>> … Might be a great crowd pleaser and
>>give the good teams a chance to fix any problems so people like Cope
>>and them that only show up to collect last place money can’t spend all
>>their money to qualify, bump teams in competition out and then pull
>>out when it comes to racetime.
> I don’t have a problem with teams taking the money and running.
> If they win their way in during qualifying, they’ve earned the money.
> If they can’t stick with the pack during the race and are going
> nowhere in the points standings, I don’t see what’s wrong with parking
> the car.
> The "good teams" have got to get better if Cope is beating them
> at the qualifying game.
Well, I’ll agree that qualifying is part of the race, and if one
team does better than another in that first act, then it does
deserve by rule to start the race.
But there’s also an issue of sportsmanship here. Simply put,
qualifying for a race when you have no intentions of running the
race is bad sportsmanship. It’s annoying to see teams doing so
in such a blatant fashion (Shepard in particular annoys me,
because he makes a point of being religious while displaying
such a dubious ethical standard).
One of the unintended consequences of switching from the old
style provisionals to the current scheme is to make it easier
for a team to only run 3 or 4 laps each week; under the old
scheme it was worth it to try & run long, if only to add up a
few more points toward a provisional.
John
Also, it would allow the "underdogs" to make the show without a "qualifying
setup"
Would you miss the "Last Chance" race at Bristol? 50 laps, quick caution at
lap 5 for adjustments, no pit strategy, track position,fuel mileage, team
orders – just hard chargin’ racin’!
"jim" <jimbr…@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Ex6Mg.51511$e9.28537@bignews4.bellsouth.net…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "John McCoy" <igop…@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9836C458A6950pogosupernews@216.168.3.30…
> > No articles for a couple of days, which either means we’re all
> > tired or the mod-bot is borked. Anyway, in the spirit of providing
> > a subject for discussion…
> > Should the starting field be increased in Cup racing? This year
> > there are 38 teams running the entire season, and 10 or 12 part
> > time (intentionally or otherwise) teams. With the entry of the
> > Toyota teams next year, there quite likely could be 42 to 46
> > serious full-season teams. Throw in the usual collection of
> > decent part-timers and there’s a pretty good likelyhood of one
> > or more teams with major sponsorship going home each week.
> > One solution to that would be to increase the starting field
> > from 43 to something like 46 or 48. That way there’s enough
> > room that the "good" cars should be able to time in each week,
> > and the Copes, Chaffins, and Skinners would still have a spot
> > or two to fight over.
> > Most of the tracks have enough room for this (in the early
> > days they started 70+ at Darlington, and more than 60 at
> > Daytona for the first couple of speedway races). But fitting
> > that many cars into Bristol or Martinsville could be a problem,
> > and some of the bigger tracks (Dover, the road courses, maybe
> > Loudon) don’t have the pit road space for that many cars.
> > My thinking is increasing the field size would be a mistake.
> > What I would do, if it were my choice to make, is have a 44
> > car field at the bigger tracks (because I prefer the symmetry
> > of 2 car rows), and 38 at the shorter tracks (any track that
> > can’t provide 44 full-sized pit stalls). That would send
> > good cars home, but that’s the risk you take in motor racing;
> > if the sponsor’s unhappy tell them to pony up the dollars for
> > a better driver or a better race team.
> > John
> I have no problem with a bigger field on the larger tracks. If they fit,
> yes. Now on tracks like Bristol, there just is not room both in the pits
and
> on the track. One of those things that I would do is make sure people like
> Cope and them that run 5 laps and go home are no longer paid unless there
is
> a real reason they need to pull off. This stuff of handling all the time
> after a few laps is pure bull. I also rather like the idea of a "Last
> Chance" race for those that qualify say 25th or 30th on back. It would be
a
> short race of say 50-75 miles at most. Might be a great crowd pleaser and
> give the good teams a chance to fix any problems so people like Cope and
> them that only show up to collect last place money can’t spend all their
> money to qualify, bump teams in competition out and then pull out when it
> comes to racetime.
> Jim
"John&Michelle" <jcr…@metrocast.net> wrote in message
news:c5udnUMfzbRw75_YnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d@metrocastcablevision.com…
> Also, it would allow the "underdogs" to make the show without a
> "qualifying
> setup"
> Would you miss the "Last Chance" race at Bristol? 50 laps, quick caution
> at
> lap 5 for adjustments, no pit strategy, track position,fuel mileage, team
> orders – just hard chargin’ racin’!
Would I ever like to watch that! Of course I am not sure that very many of
the cars would be in condition to race in the ‘big race’ after that. I
suppose you need to do it the day before so they could repair the cars!
<LOL>
Jim
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "jim" <jimbr…@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:Ex6Mg.51511$e9.28537@bignews4.bellsouth.net…
>> "John McCoy" <igop…@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9836C458A6950pogosupernews@216.168.3.30…
>> > No articles for a couple of days, which either means we’re all
>> > tired or the mod-bot is borked. Anyway, in the spirit of providing
>> > a subject for discussion…
>> > Should the starting field be increased in Cup racing? This year
>> > there are 38 teams running the entire season, and 10 or 12 part
>> > time (intentionally or otherwise) teams. With the entry of the
>> > Toyota teams next year, there quite likely could be 42 to 46
>> > serious full-season teams. Throw in the usual collection of
>> > decent part-timers and there’s a pretty good likelyhood of one
>> > or more teams with major sponsorship going home each week.
>> > One solution to that would be to increase the starting field
>> > from 43 to something like 46 or 48. That way there’s enough
>> > room that the "good" cars should be able to time in each week,
>> > and the Copes, Chaffins, and Skinners would still have a spot
>> > or two to fight over.
>> > Most of the tracks have enough room for this (in the early
>> > days they started 70+ at Darlington, and more than 60 at
>> > Daytona for the first couple of speedway races). But fitting
>> > that many cars into Bristol or Martinsville could be a problem,
>> > and some of the bigger tracks (Dover, the road courses, maybe
>> > Loudon) don’t have the pit road space for that many cars.
>> > My thinking is increasing the field size would be a mistake.
>> > What I would do, if it were my choice to make, is have a 44
>> > car field at the bigger tracks (because I prefer the symmetry
>> > of 2 car rows), and 38 at the shorter tracks (any track that
>> > can’t provide 44 full-sized pit stalls). That would send
>> > good cars home, but that’s the risk you take in motor racing;
>> > if the sponsor’s unhappy tell them to pony up the dollars for
>> > a better driver or a better race team.
>> > John
>> I have no problem with a bigger field on the larger tracks. If they fit,
>> yes. Now on tracks like Bristol, there just is not room both in the pits
> and
>> on the track. One of those things that I would do is make sure people
>> like
>> Cope and them that run 5 laps and go home are no longer paid unless there
> is
>> a real reason they need to pull off. This stuff of handling all the time
>> after a few laps is pure bull. I also rather like the idea of a "Last
>> Chance" race for those that qualify say 25th or 30th on back. It would be
> a
>> short race of say 50-75 miles at most. Might be a great crowd pleaser and
>> give the good teams a chance to fix any problems so people like Cope and
>> them that only show up to collect last place money can’t spend all their
>> money to qualify, bump teams in competition out and then pull out when it
>> comes to racetime.
>> Jim
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 19:24:22 CST, John McCoy <igop…@ix.netcom.com> wrote in <Xns9838D04764E13pogosupern…@216.168.3.30>:
> … But there’s also an issue of sportsmanship here. Simply put,
>qualifying for a race when you have no intentions of running the
>race is bad sportsmanship.
They discussed "start and park" on Trading Paint last night
(at least that’s when I caught the show).
Mike Waltrip said it’s fine by him. The teams earn their
way into the show, they earn their appearance money,
and they save their equipment and limit their expenses
in a rational fashion so that they can get stronger.
They win the money fair and square.
If someone wants to take the money away from them, they’ve
got to beat them during qualifying.
Marty
"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mole…@canisius.edu> wrote in
news:anp5g25v467bccvfoa9u7gg2qljps8e8n1@astraweb.com:
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 19:24:22 CST, John McCoy <igop…@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote in <Xns9838D04764E13pogosupern…@216.168.3.30>:
>> … But there’s also an issue of sportsmanship here. Simply put,
>>qualifying for a race when you have no intentions of running the
>>race is bad sportsmanship.
> They discussed "start and park" on Trading Paint last night
> (at least that’s when I caught the show).
> Mike Waltrip said it’s fine by him. The teams earn their
> way into the show, they earn their appearance money,
> and they save their equipment and limit their expenses
> in a rational fashion so that they can get stronger.
Well, in Waltrip’s case saying anything else would have sounded
like whining, and I will give him the credit for not doing so.
I’m sure he’d prefer to be in the field and run 400 laps, as
opposed to Morgan Shepard, who will likely only run 20.
After watching qualifying yesterday I must admit to a little
sympathy for Waltrip, who I think is suddenly realizing that
he may be in way over his head. I don’t think he forsaw at
all how big the differences where between running a car in
Busch 10 or 12 times a year (with support from one of the
bigger cup teams), to running in Cup every single week,
without any support at all. I imagine he also greatly
overestimated the degree to which his own skill as a driver
could overcome the other disadvantages.
But I still find him annoying, so I’m not too sympathetic
John
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 12:16:04 CST, John McCoy <igop…@ix.netcom.com> wrote in <Xns983987AF321DDpogosupern…@216.168.3.30>:
>After watching qualifying yesterday I must admit to a little
>sympathy for Waltrip, who I think is suddenly realizing that
>he may be in way over his head. I don’t think he forsaw at
>all how big the differences where between running a car in
>Busch 10 or 12 times a year (with support from one of the
>bigger cup teams), to running in Cup every single week,
>without any support at all.
He said they’re in 38th in the standings right now.
Aiming to crack the top 35 by the end of the season.
I think he’s got a lot of sympathy for the bottom-dwellers.
>I imagine he also greatly
>overestimated the degree to which his own skill as a driver
>could overcome the other disadvantages.
He’s shown flashes of real humility over the years–knowing
that his wins came from great teamwork and fortunate timing
in his career.
>But I still find him annoying, so I’m not too sympathetic
I like him a lot. Not that that has done him any good. :o(
Marty
This chase stuff is still something I just don’t like. The top three last
year didn’t make it into the top ten? Is that what they said after tonight’s
race? To see Stewart miss it by such a small margin simply because he had a
couple of bad races these last few times was a shame. He took it like a man
but inside he had to be seething. What was really bad is that had just about
any of those in the top 10 going into this race blown up or got caught in a
wreck early they would have been eliminated. I’m sorry but I just don’t
think that is right when anyone could have come back and placed in the top 5
easy for anyone down to 15th place. Now the best they can do is 11th. By the
same token, Kane can do no worse than 10th when realistically almost all of
the people in the top ten could have bad luck and end up well out of the top
10 in points by the end of the season.
Jim