Nascar needs to fix the Qualifying procedures

[harvick#1]

now.

or might as well not qualify at all and always start on owner points every race. this is getting pathetic to see the races start like this, reschedule it for the next day, if it interrupts the Sprint Cup guys from the Nationwide event, so be it, and deal with it.

better yet. just pick the numbers out of a hat if its rainouts

[NickFalzone]

I'd say at least 1/3 of the races this season been qual'ed on owner's points. Is that an exaggeration? It feels like every other week there's a rainout.

[The instant classic]

I HAVE A CRAZY IDEA! why not every weekend have a 10 lap shot out and the way you finsh, that will be yr race starting spot
cuz its true QF is always rainout, it takes to long

[Mark in Oshawa]

NASCAR's take on it is simple. If they cannot guarntee everyone gets a chance to qualify on every weekend, then they wont change things. They have other series and sometimes other people they share the track with (ARCA)and as long as they get the race in, that is their concern.

Qualifying means diddly really anyhow. When was the last time Matt Kenseth qualified up front? In his championship year he came from the back most weekends. It means diddly if your guys have their S#$t together. Tony Stewart came from the back at the first Pocono this year too.

You guys don't really care about qualifying, it is just an excuse to accuse NASCAR of something else they haven't done....

[Jonesi]

I'd say at least 1/3 of the races this season been qual'ed on owner's points. Is that an exaggeration? It feels like every other week there's a rainout.

I think it's only 5 out of 21 races so far, so slightly less than 1/4.

[cgs]

there are only a few tracks where qualifying means something, mainly short tracks and Darlington.

[tstran17_88]

Qualifying means diddly really anyhow. When was the last time Matt Kenseth qualified up front?Darlington...this past May.

http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=327074&FS=NASCAR*


Matt Kenseth started the 2009 season with back-to-back NASCAR Sprint Cup Series race wins and except for Texas, the Ford driver has been out of the top-five and his start record was the nearly the same. His best grid position this year was third, also at Texas Motor Speedway.

That changed today when he placed his Roush Fenway Racing Ford on the pole on the historic Darlington Raceway.

[call_me_andrew]

For qualifying, Pocono 2 was officially the fifth rainout of the year.

http://www.racing-reference.info/raceyear?yr=2009&series=W

[Sparky1329]

Rain happens. Suck it up.

[PA Rick]

Rain happens. Suck it up.

Put on the intermediate rains and crank in more downforce.

[jeffmr2]

If the field has to be set on owners points why not invert the field that would be interesting seeing all the quick cars trying to get through the pack.

[Lee Roy]

Rain happens. Suck it up.

Yep. And the proceedures associated with rain are in the rule book for the competitors to see.

[Copse]

Yep. And the proceedures associated with rain are in the rule book for the competitors to see.
Being in the rule book doesn't make them exempt from sucking, though.

A race weekend is three days long. It's incredibly silly that there aren't reserve time slots at other times during those days. Wanna go busch-whack instead of doing your main job? Suck it up and start at the back!

[call_me_andrew]

Put on the intermediate rains and crank in more downforce.

NASCAR would sooner have racing in the rain than qualifying. If the track is wet at the start of qualifying, it'll be more dry when the last cars go on track. If it starts dry and rains during, then the cars going later will be at a huge disadvantage. NASCAR would sooner dissapoint everyone than let a few conspiracy theorists believe they control the weather in a way to screw over (insert driver here).

[Mark in Oshawa]

People whining about rainouts in qualifying don't seem to grasp it isn't that big a deal to the people who compete, and I have yet to hear one driver or team owner argue the current system is unfair. It is only us couch racing fans that want to endlessly "improve" NASCAR.

[PA Rick]

NASCAR would sooner have racing in the rain than qualifying. If the track is wet at the start of qualifying, it'll be more dry when the last cars go on track. If it starts dry and rains during, then the cars going later will be at a huge disadvantage. NASCAR would sooner dissapoint everyone than let a few conspiracy theorists believe they control the weather in a way to screw over (insert driver here).

The point is moot. The COT doesn't have wipers.

[harvick#1]

A race weekend is three days long. It's incredibly silly that there aren't reserve time slots at other times during those days. Wanna go busch-whack instead of doing your main job? Suck it up and start at the back!

thats the point I'd like to see Nascar take :up:

[call_me_andrew]

Maybe NASCAR should shorten the race weekends to two days.


The point is moot. The COT doesn't have wipers.

You can put wipers on anything.

[dj4monie]

NASCAR's take on it is simple. If they cannot guarntee everyone gets a chance to qualify on every weekend, then they wont change things. They have other series and sometimes other people they share the track with (ARCA)and as long as they get the race in, that is their concern.

Qualifying means diddly really anyhow. When was the last time Matt Kenseth qualified up front? In his championship year he came from the back most weekends. It means diddly if your guys have their S#$t together. Tony Stewart came from the back at the first Pocono this year too.

You guys don't really care about qualifying, it is just an excuse to accuse NASCAR of something else they haven't done....

Actually -

2 out of the last 3 times Ron Fellows has finished 2nd or 3rd, he had the car that would WIN (#1 DEI, twice). I think Jarrett mentioned that if Ron was with a better team he would have change to win. A chance to win? You know how Ron was foiled TWICE? He had to start SHOTGUN on the field (rained out qualifying) the last two times he finished in the Top 3. He had to use his car up both times.

Ambrose had to start last and finished 3rd last year, he could have won EASILY. No blown engine at Sears this year, Ambrose would have won, easily.

Qualifying at the Road Courses should be changed. I don't see the point in a single lap shootout anyway, do it like everybody else does it, let them all loose on the track, who ever runs the fastest lap when time expires wins Pole, no brainer.

Shootout style on ovals is okay because HONESTLY the people that end up at the back are underfunded teams. But people like Said and Fellows show up with cars that can WIN and to put them in the back because of owner points and don't allow qualifying on Saturday.

NASCAR USED to have 2nd day qualifying!

Eeek

We just want GOOD racing and I know given equal equipment on road courses (Cup Regulars) vs Ambrose, Fellows, Said, Robby, Papis, they wouldn't win. I say let it rain, the cream rises to the top... Goodyear has new rain tires and if they throw a competition yellow to allow everybody to change to rain tires, that is not racing, that's giving Cup guys a chance when they don't have one, Fellows and Ambrose proved that last year in Montreal...

[raybak]

Bring on a wet race, Ambrose will kick some butt. Saw him many years ago at Winton in the wet, he's pretty good when it's wet. He seems to be able to stay on the slicks longer when the track gets greasy. Very good car control.

Ray

[Mark in Oshawa]

NASCAR isn't going to make it easy for Fellows or Said. Nor do any of the big buck teams want some ringer driving for James Finch embarassing them. So things wont change.

I think NASCAR is fried no matter what they do, but around 6 years ago they went to the one car, one lap system on road courses and one car 2 laps on ovals. They do it the same way every track, in that every car has to be allowed to take time, or they don't count it. They don't jury rig the sched to make allowances for rain, and their system works for them.

WE may not like it, and I suspect Boris Said didn't like it when he didn't have the owner points to get into a rained out race once or twice in the last few years, but it works for NASCAR.

AS for Cup cars in the rain, I would love to see it on a road course but that is purely selfish reasons in that I know Ron or Marcos would win.

Anyhow, qualifying at any other oval means not much whereas maybe on a road course they should mix it up a little...but they wont and there isn't much point in whining about it.

[harvick#1]

the Nationwide runs groups in qualies at all road courses, and it seems to work great.

[dj4monie]

NASCAR isn't going to make it easy for Fellows or Said. Nor do any of the big buck teams want some ringer driving for James Finch embarassing them. So things wont change.

I think NASCAR is fried no matter what they do, but around 6 years ago they went to the one car, one lap system on road courses and one car 2 laps on ovals. They do it the same way every track, in that every car has to be allowed to take time, or they don't count it. They don't jury rig the sched to make allowances for rain, and their system works for them.

WE may not like it, and I suspect Boris Said didn't like it when he didn't have the owner points to get into a rained out race once or twice in the last few years, but it works for NASCAR.

AS for Cup cars in the rain, I would love to see it on a road course but that is purely selfish reasons in that I know Ron or Marcos would win.

Anyhow, qualifying at any other oval means not much whereas maybe on a road course they should mix it up a little...but they wont and there isn't much point in whining about it.

Na its not selfish, its good racing and if they wanna keep saying NASCAR drivers are the best in the world (on ovals maybe) then they should run on road courses the way everybody else does, if its not a complete downpour, let them run.

Yes JPM, Ambrose, Said, Fellows, PJ, Robby Gordon and Mad Max all have driven in the rain and driven well... They would leave everybody in the dust, I should I say mud, it would be fun. Last year was priceless I should put it on You Tube, Ambrose left EVERYBODY, if he doesn't get caught speeding in the pits he wins by like what 30-35 seconds?

Everybody Email STP and tell them to pony up the cash for them to run in Canada this year, that's two years in a row. This TRACK OWES Marcos...

[race_director]

why cannot they put full wet tires and try a qualifying time . even if driving at much reduced speed . that would serve the purpose of People at the track/ TV and also the system itself .

well driving on a wet oval track is dangerous, but it is motorsport and risk is part of that . how can anyone claim to be great driver if they do not drive in wet condition ???

Give MS or Montoya a wet oval track . they would be the 1st one to go out and drive

[call_me_andrew]

I just explained that. NASCAR wants to ensure every driver gets equal track conditions. When it rains, tracks are in a constant state of flux.

I think raintires could work on a short track, but we'll need someone with the balls to test them first.

[PA Rick]

I just explained that. NASCAR wants to ensure every driver gets equal track conditions. When it rains, tracks are in a constant state of flux.

I think raintires could work on a short track, but we'll need someone with the balls to test them first.

In most other roas racing series' when it rains on race day it gets interesting. Teams gamble with drys and wets, and intermediates, some drivers are wizards on the wet, some are slow. The show goes on, sometimes shortened to a preset time limit. The TV coverage goes as planned. These are among the most memorable races.

When it rains on a NASCAR road course, most people find out who won on the Monday evening news. If there were more than two road races, they might consider running in the wet.

Rain tires exist for GT1 and other series that could be used. They have thousands of miles of testing in various conditions.

[harvick#1]

In most other roas racing series' when it rains on race day it gets interesting. Teams gamble with drys and wets, and intermediates, some drivers are wizards on the wet, some are slow. The show goes on, sometimes shortened to a preset time limit. The TV coverage goes as planned. These are among the most memorable races.


2008 24 hours of Lemans still is one of the best races ever, it all came down to the weather and who played the cards right. and seeing quick Nic on slicks on the rain while TK was on Inters while the track was only raining on the pit straight, that was one of the greatest finishes ever

[call_me_andrew]

Rain tires exist for GT1 and other series that could be used. They have thousands of miles of testing in various conditions.

I was talking about an oval. A short oval. No one has ever tested rain tires before on an oval.

[Lee Roy]

I just explained that. NASCAR wants to ensure every driver gets equal track conditions. When it rains, tracks are in a constant state of flux.


You are correct. It would be unfair for one car to be able to qualify on a dry track and another to qualify on a wet track. It really matters in a series like NASCAR where there are more cars than there are starting spots and some competitors will not make the race.

In other series that limit the number of competitor to the number of starting spots, such as Formula One (which limits the number of competitors), or the 24 Hours of Le Mans (which is by invitation only); or in series that can't attract a full field such as ALMS or the Indy Reject League, qualifying some cars in the rain and some in the dry doesn't really matter all that much since no competitor will have to go home.

[nigelred5]

You are correct. It would be unfair for one car to be able to qualify on a dry track and another to qualify on a wet track. It really matters in a series like NASCAR where there are more cars than there are starting spots and some competitors will not make the race.

In other series that limit the number of competitor to the number of starting spots, such as Formula One (which limits the number of competitors), or the 24 Hours of Le Mans (which is by invitation only); or in series that can't attract a full field such as ALMS or the Indy Reject League, qualifying some cars in the rain and some in the dry doesn't really matter all that much since no competitor will have to go home.

And would it hurt to see someone like a Jr., or Gordon actually miss a race on speed for a change. I can't stand the whole provisional starting spot system, no matter what type of track they race on. NASCAR qualifying is done simply to manipulate the ratings. Set the field on time- period. No past champoins, no owner's points. Speed. 1 to 43. It sucks seeing a driver on a small team throw down a great time well into the field, only to be bumped by a mediocre driver that has swapped their team owner's points from another car just to get into the field. Happens all the time.

NASCAR simply doesn't understand Road Racing. It's still all about the show to them and ensuring their favorite faces are always in the race. I guess to them it's better TV to see the ringers have to drive through the field from the back, knowing that they have a phantom yellow or a pit lane violation in the bag to ensure that the ringer will always come up just short and a regular still wins. It happens far too often in NASCAR

[Lee Roy]

And would it hurt to see someone like a Jr., or Gordon actually miss a race on speed for a change. I can't stand the whole provisional starting spot system, no matter what type of track they race on. NASCAR qualifying is done simply to manipulate the ratings. Set the field on time- period. No past champoins, no owner's points. Speed. 1 to 43. It sucks seeing a driver on a small team throw down a great time well into the field, only to be bumped by a mediocre driver that has swapped their team owner's points from another car just to get into the field. Happens all the time.


I love it. Do you complain that Formula One essentially gives every team a provisional? Do you complain that the ACO essetially gives every team they invite a provisional? Do you complain that the Indy Reject League essentially gives every team a provisional?

BTW, you say "set the field on time - period". Do you complain that the fastest times in Formula One qualifying are set in the second qualifying period, but not used for setting the field? I thought it was "set the field on time - PERIOD".

Sorry, but until you can show me you've been complaining elsewhere that qualifying (not "time-trials", but actually qualifying for the race) in other series isn't artificially manipulated by the sanctioning body, I have to accept this a just typical "NASCAR bashing". In other words, you're essentially saying that it's okay if other series do it, but it's bad if NASCAR does the same thing.

[Oli_M]

Here's my take on NASCAR qualifying:

It seems of all the major series, bar Le Mans endurance races, (and to an extent, excepting the 2 road courses on the schedule), qualifying/starting position for NASCAR is probably the least important. Yes, obviously its going to be better to start up front, but due to the number of pitstops, restarts etc your actual starting position on lap 1 isn't a huge factor on where you actually finish the race.

At the end of the day, they've got to set the grid some way, someone has to start on pole and someone has to start last. To me, because of the reasons I put above, I don't really see a problem with the grid being set by points if Qualifying is cancelled. Similarly, I wouldn't really mind if they decided that it would be by practise speeds, last race result or whatever.

The ONLY part I don't like is the situation this puts non top 35 cars. I would personally always want to see these cars have to qualify. So, firstly, they go out first in the qualifying session. Then if it rains half way thru (assuming all the GOGH have set a time), the field is set on points for top 35 then fastest 8 from GOGH'ers. If no qualifying is run, have GOGH qualifying to fill the last 8 spots on Saturday at the start of the practise session, or even just before the start of the race.

Just my opinions......!

[nigelred5]

I love it. Do you complain that Formula One essentially gives every team a provisional? Do you complain that the ACO essetially gives every team they invite a provisional? Do you complain that the Indy Reject League essentially gives every team a provisional?

BTW, you say "set the field on time - period". Do you complain that the fastest times in Formula One qualifying are set in the second qualifying period, but not used for setting the field? I thought it was "set the field on time - PERIOD".

Sorry, but until you can show me you've been complaining elsewhere that qualifying (not "time-trials", but actually qualifying for the race) in other series isn't artificially manipulated by the sanctioning body, I have to accept this a just typical "NASCAR bashing". In other words, you're essentially saying that it's okay if other series do it, but it's bad if NASCAR does the same thing.
Give me a break. When a driver's only way into the field id to take a provisional because his time is several seconds slower and bumps a faster driver OUT OF THE FIELD because He DOESN'T have a provisional, that is blatant undisquised manupulation of the field. Prove to me how it is anything else? All of the other scenarios are a procedure where EVERYONE gets in, it is simplyhow they set the order. Call it a freakin Mulligan if you want. I don;t like it at all, never have and NO I am not a NASCAR BASHER But ther eis plenty of just criticism warranted. Provisionals are BS. If your car and driver isn't good enough to be in on time alone, it shouldn't be in the field.

[nigelred5]

I love it. Do you complain that Formula One essentially gives every team a provisional? Do you complain that the ACO essetially gives every team they invite a provisional? Do you complain that the Indy Reject League essentially gives every team a provisional?

BTW, you say "set the field on time - period". Do you complain that the fastest times in Formula One qualifying are set in the second qualifying period, but not used for setting the field? I thought it was "set the field on time - PERIOD".

Sorry, but until you can show me you've been complaining elsewhere that qualifying (not "time-trials", but actually qualifying for the race) in other series isn't artificially manipulated by the sanctioning body, I have to accept this a just typical "NASCAR bashing". In other words, you're essentially saying that it's okay if other series do it, but it's bad if NASCAR does the same thing.

Not one of those series sends cars home. Formula one. nope, Indycars- Only at the 500 IF there are more than 33 cars. Sportscars? All are setting the running order. If ther is a mandated maximum allowed in the field, the slowest cars go home. Not in NASCAR. Provisionals send faster cars home EVERY WEEK.

[Lee Roy]

Give me a break. When a driver's only way into the field id to take a provisional because his time is several seconds slower and bumps a faster driver OUT OF THE FIELD because He DOESN'T have a provisional, that is blatant undisquised manupulation of the field. Prove to me how it is anything else? All of the other scenarios are a procedure where EVERYONE gets in, it is simplyhow they set the order. Call it a freakin Mulligan if you want. I don;t like it at all, never have and NO I am not a NASCAR BASHER But ther eis plenty of just criticism warranted. Provisionals are BS.

Hey, look at the other side of the coin, at least NASCAR allows other competitors to try to make the field. This is something that other top series don't allow. And the "provisionals" in NASCAR are mostlyt earned. (I know there are exceptions when teams are bought, but racing is a business and it adds value to a team to have a top 35 position from the previous year.)

It may not be pretty, and I'm not sure I support the current "top 35 provisional system", but I find it EXTREMELY humorous when we get the occasional visitor from other boards who open a vein over it. Especially when they completely ignore how other racing series make a mockery of racing by not allowing cars to try to make the field at all.

BTW, NASCAR's top 35 provisional system could be said to come from Formula One's old days of pre-qualifying.


If your car and driver isn't good enough to be in on time alone, it shouldn't be in the field.

I love how you make these broad proclaimations. How good of a time do you need to make to qualify for a Formula One race? (They no longer have the old 107% rule.) How good of a time do you have to make to qualify for the 24 Hours of Le Mans? How good of a time do you have to make to qualify for the regular run of the mill IRL race.

Face it, like the "top 35 provisional system" or not, NASCAR remains the only racing series where the entire field isn't already "qualified" before they even show up at the race track. The rest essentially run "time-trials".

[Lee Roy]

If ther is a mandated maximum allowed in the field, the slowest cars go home.

Can you give me an example of this "mandated maximum" in big time racing? (Racing with multi-million dollar budgets involved.) So far, outside of the NHRA, that concept is just a theory.


BTW: In the 1990's, when the IRL could attract more cars than starting spots, they had a provisional system in their rules to protect the regulars. Not sure if it's in their book now that more cars than a "full field" is a moot point for them.

[nigelred5]

33 cars in the Indy 500? The rest go home.

Nascar has 43 car fields. The rest go home.\

F1 has a set number of cars per season and a maximum 26 cars allowable entry into the championship. All run per the oft changing qualifying format to determine the starting order.

[Lee Roy]

33 cars in the Indy 500? The rest go home.


That is correct. However you have to keep a couple of things in mind. The Indy 500 has a 33 car field for a series that has about 20-22 regular competitors. That's like having around 70-75 starting spots for the Daytona 500 for the 45-47 regular NASCAR competitors to qualify for. (With unlimited attempts to qualify over 4 days.)

Also, for the last few years, they wouldn't have had more than 33 competitors (and some years, even 33 competitors) if the owner of the track hadn't fielded a 2-3 car team himself.

The glory days of powerhouse teams like Penske and Bobby Rahal with the new Honda not making the field are a distant memory for that race.

[nigelred5]

I just explained that. NASCAR wants to ensure every driver gets equal track conditions. When it rains, tracks are in a constant state of flux.

I think raintires could work on a short track, but we'll need someone with the balls to test them first.

Then put them all on track at the same time and the top 43 lap times sets the field, fastest to slowest. It's pretty simple actually. NASCAR chooses to ensure qualifying fills at least two hour time slot.

I heard one time big Bill could only read one micky mouse watch at a time, but that's just heresay ;)

[nigelred5]

That is correct. However you have to keep a couple of things in mind. The Indy 500 has a 33 car field for a series that has about 20-22 regular competitors. That's like having around 70-75 starting spots for the Daytona 500 for the 45-47 regular NASCAR competitors to qualify for. (With unlimited attempts to qualify over 4 days.)

Also, for the last few years, they wouldn't have had more than 33 competitors (and some years, even 33 competitors) if the owner of the track hadn't fielded a 2-3 car team himself.

The glory days of powerhouse teams like Penske and Bobby Rahal with the new Honda not making the field are a distant memory for that race.

As you said, there are 45-47 NASCAR regulars that show up at the track, (Though some we know show up for appearance money and even a few that make the field show up for last place money to keep the lights on back at the shop.) So that's at least two cars going home, and those two AREN'T always the slowest two cars that take to the track and post an official qualifying time, correct? That's my problem with provisionals. How they get there is of less concern to me than WHO is in the field. It's like showing up to get your ticket at the dragstrip and saying, what do you mean I lost, "don't you know who I am?" and getting a pass to the next round. Pedal that rod a little faster there next time chief!

Sure, Open wheel numbers are down for a sometimes mindnumbingly large number of reasons, but no matter how they do it at Indy, even with the modified qualifications, at 5pm on the last day of qualifications, only the fastest 33 are in the field. There's never a car in the field slower than a car that took the checkers on a faster qualifying time.

[Lee Roy]

That's my problem with provisionals.

That's cool.

But then you're okay with series that run a closed shop and don't allow people to compete, other than the people that the organizers have personally chosen?

[nigelred5]

Not entirely, no, but the logistics of teams driving 47+ cars in haulers around north america and the series transporting 22 cars to all corners of the globe are a touch different.

[Lee Roy]

Not entirely, no, but the logistics of teams driving 47+ cars in haulers around north america and the series transporting 22 cars to all corners of the globe are a touch different.

What's to stop a team in Europe from just running the "drive-to" events? Other than Bernie and Max saying that they can't because they don't want them to. The maximum number of cars for an F-1 race is 26. There are still 4 open spots on the grid.

[nigelred5]

IIRC, the conditions of the Concorde agreement require that a team commit to contesting the entire schedule, and thus, prove the financial wherewithal to adequately line Bernie's pockets. We can see, that is finally showing some slight hint at changing. No, I don't agree with the status quo in F1 at all, however I understand they have agreements with race promoters to provide a minumum field and the dollars involved by all are significantly higher, so IMHO, the series should at least have guaranteed minimum commitments for all of the races. It's grapes and watermelons.
That said, and we're getting off topic, I would have no problem with a few limited participation teams at all. I've actually suggested that, as well as allowing single car first year teams several times in the past To be honest, It was like that all throughout the 70s with teams and drivers coming and going throughout the season. It sure put a premium on race program sales. The problem is due to the money involved,
F1 teams will simply drop out once the championship is out of hand with little chance of winning. I could barely buy a top F1 driver for the average Nascar season budget. Unfortunatley, that changes things. Alot. Which is better? I think we simply differ greatly in opinion, but I'm in full agreement with most but not all of the changes aimed at drasticly reducing costs in F1.

Personally, I think Nascar should shorten more of the Cup races. It was a good move when they wnet down to 400 milers. 500 miles at Dovar was brutal and great for a mid afternoon nap after a few beers. I would have gone to 300 miles max at most tracks and saved 500's strictly for the 2.5 mile tracks

[race_director]

I just explained that. NASCAR wants to ensure every driver gets equal track conditions. When it rains, tracks are in a constant state of flux.

I think raintires could work on a short track, but we'll need someone with the balls to test them first.

thanks for the infor . quick surprised that no team ready to test in wet condition in oval . i thinking it time for nascar to race in wet.

we are in gobal warming . in few years we will have 24 hours rain :)

[nigelred5]

Think for even a split second about the total lack visibility of driving on a wet 1 mile oval track with 30 degree banking and 42 other cars. I won't get into the impacts with the walls, poor visibility of cars to the tv audience, etc... I will say confidently it will Never happen in NASCAR. Maybe they can give it a shot in one of the european series at Rockingham and see how it works.

[race_director]

Think for even a split second about the total lack visibility of driving on a wet 1 mile oval track with 30 degree banking and 42 other cars. I won't get into the impacts with the walls, poor visibility of cars to the tv audience, etc... I will say confidently it will Never happen in NASCAR. Maybe they can give it a shot in one of the european series at Rockingham and see how it works.

nascar is not a open wheel racing. there are many racing events in this world that run in pouring rain. with no viper and spray covering the visor of the driving. with driver most of the times driver racing with his gut feeling and trusting with his life with guy in the front and back of him into totally blind corners even during summer time.

Nascar with a closed car always can make things better with good wind shield/viper/tire's

There is no way i feel that one of the the major tire companies if give some time and testing can produce a tire which gives a comfortable grip to race on oval track.


It is nearly around 50 years we put a man on moon and around 10 yrs from one going to some other planet.




i would not buy this story of spray. visibility, tires any day.

[call_me_andrew]

Open cockpit cars are designed to direct air away from the driver. The driver never gets wet (at least until he pits).

Spray is dependent on how wet the track is and how fast the car is going. Tracks aren't just wet or dry; there are many subtle levels.

[Lee Roy]

Open cockpit cars are designed to direct air away from the driver. The driver never gets wet (at least until he pits).

Spray is dependent on how wet the track is and how fast the car is going. Tracks aren't just wet or dry; there are many subtle levels.

Thanks c_m_a, you've always got great information. I don't think race_director has a clue as to what he's talking about.

[Mark in Oshawa]

nascar is not a open wheel racing. there are many racing events in this world that run in pouring rain. with no viper and spray covering the visor of the driving. with driver most of the times driver racing with his gut feeling and trusting with his life with guy in the front and back of him into totally blind corners even during summer time.

Nascar with a closed car always can make things better with good wind shield/viper/tire's

There is no way i feel that one of the the major tire companies if give some time and testing can produce a tire which gives a comfortable grip to race on oval track.


It is nearly around 50 years we put a man on moon and around 10 yrs from one going to some other planet.




i would not buy this story of spray. visibility, tires any day.


You ever see a NASCAR Cup race live? On an oval? Till you do, don't tell us who have how the NASCAR drivers are wimps because they wont try it.

No race car on the planet is as undertired and overpowered as a Cup car. Putting 43 of these guys on any oval in anything beyond a mist would create a cloud of spray so thick that the specatators wouldn't see crap, the drivers wouldn't see each other, and every event would be about 50% yellow flags and most of the field would be wrecked. Sorry, I pay money to watch an actual race, not a demolition derby that oh by the way I would be paying to watch getting soaked to the @ss. Think...when really was the last good f1 race you ever see in the wet. You know..ones with passing? Oh right...f1 isn't about passing, it is about who has a good in lap into the pits....

[Mark in Oshawa]

AS for this discussion the top 35 and how people with faster times are sent home than some in the top 35, provide the actual proof. I know it may have happened, but I am usually in the truck and listen to the qualifying show on MRN/PRN on the Sirius every Friday. The guys going home are usually NOT slower than any of the regulars. Furthermore, no promotor in his right mind would be happy if say Matt Kenseth was sent home so we would see Larry Gunselman's "Start and park" effort quit after 10 laps.

The other fact many who attack the top 35 forget is that teams work more on race setup because they KNOW they are in the field. If you had no provisionals, no support, believe me, the poor teams that have a shot now would have a perennial view of the back of the well funded efforts infront of them. As it is now, the "go or go home" guys all qualify at the back of the order, and they are all fighting for that last 8 spots. They are not actually worrying about having to compete with Hendrick or Roush. They actually have a better chance of qualifying and doing better because the big teams don't pull out the stops to get fast times. It means you can make the pole like Patrick Carpentier did last year at New Hampshire and make a splash. If that top 35 rule wasn't around, Pat woudln't have had a crack at it believe me.

I am not a huge fan of the top 35, but I get why they brought it in, and I have seen how teams that are regularly outside of the top 35 are given a realistic chance to make races, and what is more, if they keep trying, and are coming to every event, in the event of rainouts they get their spot in the field. NASCAR always is rewarding consistency and showing up to every event. They want full fields and they will favour teams that give them that. Lets face it, the way it is now, a small team starting out doesn't have to out qualify Tony Stewart and Jeff Gordon. The best driver they will have to beat will be whomever is in the 21 if it is there, or maybe Scott Speed. What is really more realistic?

[call_me_andrew]

Faster cars being sent home mostly happens at plate tracks.

I think the only real problem the pre-top-35 rule had was that no one understood it. All you would hear is, "Darrel Waltrip took a provisional. Hut Stricklen took a provisional. Darrel Waltrip is out of provisionals. Darrel Waltrip has an extra four provisionals now." There was never any explanation to how you got a provisional, when you could use it, how many you could have in a season, or in what order provisional drivers start. The driver's qualifying time was listed as "Provisional".

But the good thing about that system was that the fastest 36 always started the race. And then I think the top 6 in owners points plus the most recent champion were locked into the race.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Faster cars being sent home mostly happens at plate tracks.

I think the only real problem the pre-top-35 rule had was that no one understood it. All you would hear is, "Darrel Waltrip took a provisional. Hut Stricklen took a provisional. Darrel Waltrip is out of provisionals. Darrel Waltrip has an extra four provisionals now." There was never any explanation to how you got a provisional, when you could use it, how many you could have in a season, or in what order provisional drivers start. The driver's qualifying time was listed as "Provisional".

But the good thing about that system was that the fastest 36 always started the race. And then I think the top 6 in owners points plus the most recent champion were locked into the race.

They codified the system that was in place in other words.

What people need to remember is NASCAR rewards teams and owners and tracks that show loyalty to it.

IN the case of teams, if you run all year or try to run all year, you likely will be protected in case of rain out, and if your driver is good enough, and they put your team in the top 35, you are assured of a spot. THat leaves 8 spots for the rest. Most weekends, no more than 9 to 12 teams try for those 8 spots. If you cant beat 8 out of 12 guys who are not already in the top 35, you deserve to go home REGARDLESS of what the cars in the top 35 do.