Darby says modifications are possible to Top-35 qualifying rule

[Jonesi]

It took them until now to figure this out, it wasn't obvious back in February?? :rolleyes:

http://sports.espn.go.com/rpm/news/story?seriesId=2&id=2935556

[dwboogityfan]

The top 35 rule is the worst rule in NASCAR right now. The only drivers who should be allowed to use a provisional are the 12 drivers in the Chase and the defending champion. Its wrong that someone can be potentially 9th fastest and go home.
Look at Mikey. I know we have all had a laugh at his troubles in qualifying this season but without the top 35 rule I guess he would have made about 6/7 more races.

[blakebeatty]

Well, if anyone brought about the change, it will have been mikey.

I think the top 35 rule is entirely necessary.

[trumperZ06]

The so-called Top 35 rule has been a scam to insure the Sponors that they will have their team shown on T V, week to week !!!

Everyone should have to pass tech. and if they do.... should be allowed to qualify... based on time !!!

The top teams would still make the field > 90 % of the time... while allowing everyone a fair chance to make the race.

[Jonesi]

I was more refering to the idea of qualifing all the non "top 35" cars together to be fair. Run them before the others so if qualifing gets rained out, but they got through the 15-20 cars they could use those times to determine the 8 others that get in.
As far as the "top 35" goes, its much EASIER to track than the old provisional system, but with the current car count the old system would probably be more FAIR for most teams.

[Sparky1329]

But Darby doesn't say the Top 35 will not still be locked in. He sounds pretty firm about that.


"We ain't changing it," Darby said.

That doesn't mean, however, that NASCAR isn't contemplating some alterations to the current rule that guarantees a position in the race field to every team ranked among the top-35 in owner points that week.

One possibility is grouping "go or go home" cars together during the qualifying session, so all are faced with similar track conditions during their laps. Since a hotter, slicker track typically makes for a slower lap during time trials, a team that qualifies early may be at a disadvantage compared to one that qualifies late in the session.

Darby likes that idea.

"We're talking about that a lot," he said. "It makes it truly a head-to-head competition that way."

[Jonesi]

Note to Sparky1329, your sig: "There goes Loren Wallace the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."

Per the commercials Closed Captioning its "Lauren Wallace" ;-)

[Sparky1329]

Note to Sparky1329, your sig: "There goes Loren Wallace the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."

Per the commercials Closed Captioning its "Lauren Wallace" ;-)

Well then Lauren it will be. :D

Thanks!

[blakebeatty]

The so-called Top 35 rule has been a scam to insure the Sponors that they will have their team shown on T V, week to week !!!

This is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY! The financial contributions to the sport by the sponsors is likely more than the fans, teams, broadcasters or NASCAR itself. Should their opinion not be considered?

Do you like watching live races, in widescreen 5.1 High Definition? There is a reason why this occurs.

[Jonesi]

This is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY! The financial contributions to the sport by the sponsors is likely more than the fans, teams, broadcasters or NASCAR itself. Should their opinion not be considered?

Do you like watching live races, in widescreen 5.1 High Definition? There is a reason why this occurs.

I understand the necessity of Nascar supporting sponsors. However the most recent previous provisional system: {Top 36 in on speed, then highest 7 (or 6 & CP) in owners points, 1 prov per 4 starts,} really did about the same thing without the verticle cliff that 35th vs 36th is now. In theory it only guaranteed the top 7 cars, but in practice the top 30 almost always got into the race. The cars 30-35 usually got in but might miss 1 or 2 races during the year, making a more gradual taper to the points.

[NASCARWidow]

I understand that the rule came about to make sure that the fulltime sponsored teams got into the race. But now there are more than 43 fulltime sponsored cars. Is Ginn's sponsor more important than NAPA and UPS? If they want to guarantee spots, guarantee 25 spots, that's the number of teams that get bonus money each week. That would give 18 spots for the other teams to fight over. That would be a little fairer while keeping the top sponsors happy.

[muggle not]

Hmmmm, this sure beats the chit out of the way it was a few years ago with the field fillers. :D

[Mark in Oshawa]

Muggle, that was because the last 4 cars were teams that were only there to run 10 laps and then retire before they had to pay for a second set of tires. Now we have 50 plus cars showing up for races. To see guys out qualify half of the top 35 cars and still be going home sort of flies in the face of all logic......

[Lee Roy]

If the 35/8 rule is so bad, can anyone explain why the car count each weekend has gone up since the rule was instituted.

Looks like the people who actually race don't seen to agree with everyone's assessment of this rule.

[blakebeatty]

Exactly. It seems that the NASCAR community likes it just fine

[Sparky1329]

Exactly. It seems that the NASCAR community likes it just fine

John Darby pretty much said that. He said with 49 or 50 team vying for a spot somebody is going to go home no matter what they do.

[Alexamateo]

If the 35/8 rule is so bad, can anyone explain why the car count each weekend has gone up since the rule was instituted.

Looks like the people who actually race don't seen to agree with everyone's assessment of this rule.

Not to rain on your parade, but IIRC the 35/8 rule was done in response to the fall Atlanta race in 2004. There were a lot of one-offs for that race and they were fast. The seven provisional spots were used up, and Scott Riggs and Scott Wimmer did not qualify. Sponsors and owners complained, because they were heavily sponsored , so they came up with the 35/8.

I am not sure Red Bull and MWR would agree that the rule is good. When there are more than 43 heavily sponsored teams, once out of the 35, it's almost impossible to race your way in. I wonder if the old provisional system would not somehow be "fairer" now, although no system is perfect.

[Sparky1329]

Not to rain on your parade, but IIRC the 35/8 rule was done in response to the fall Atlanta race in 2004. There were a lot of one-offs for that race and they were fast. The seven provisional spots were used up, and Scott Riggs and Scott Wimmer did not qualify. Sponsors and owners complained, because they were heavily sponsored , so they came up with the 35/8.

I am not sure Red Bull and MWR would agree that the rule is good. When there are more than 43 heavily sponsored teams, once out of the 35, it's almost impossible to race your way in. I wonder if the old provisional system would not somehow be "fairer" now, although no system is perfect.

MWR, Red Bull and BDR knew very well what the rules were coming in. They just underestimated their performance compared to the other already established manufacturers. The only one I hear constantly whining about the rule is Michael Waltrip.

[Sparky1329]

I understand that the rule came about to make sure that the fulltime sponsored teams got into the race. But now there are more than 43 fulltime sponsored cars. Is Ginn's sponsor more important than NAPA and UPS? If they want to guarantee spots, guarantee 25 spots, that's the number of teams that get bonus money each week. That would give 18 spots for the other teams to fight over. That would be a little fairer while keeping the top sponsors happy.

There will still be teams that go home. Those sponsors are just as important as the top 25 teams' sponsors so it works both ways.

[Lee Roy]

Not to rain on your parade, but IIRC the 35/8 rule was done in response to the fall Atlanta race in 2004. There were a lot of one-offs for that race and they were fast. The seven provisional spots were used up, and Scott Riggs and Scott Wimmer did not qualify. Sponsors and owners complained, because they were heavily sponsored , so they came up with the 35/8.


Not to rain on your parade, but if you were to actually do some research you'd see that the number of cars that were showing up for races the year before the 35/8 rule was implemented had dropped to barely 43, sometimes only one or two more than that . . . . and the number was continuing to drop.

I remember tracking the numbers because on another website the folk there were predicting all the awful things that would happen with the implementation of the 35/8 rule (as is the usual way people do when anything new is introduced). The reality was just the opposite.

[Alexamateo]

Not to rain on your parade, but if you were to actually do some research you'd see that the number of cars that were showing up for races the year before the 35/8 rule was implemented had dropped to barely 43, sometimes only one or two more than that . . . . and the number was continuing to drop.

I remember tracking the numbers because on another website the folk there were predicting all the awful things that would happen with the implementation of the 35/8 rule (as is the usual way people do when anything new is introduced). The reality was just the opposite.

Honestly, there are other market conditions that contribute to car count. The race I mentioned had 58 cars show up.

Also, wasn't 2005 the last provisional year? Car counts at most races were 47 to 50 cars (Although it was Mike Garvey, Morgan Shepherd and Carl Long going home, not Michael Waltrip and Dale Jarrett.) Early 2004 had some low 43-45 car counts, but by the end of the year most had 48-50+. I think the rule is irrelevant to car counts.

I don't have any problem with the 35/8 rule and if there were say 45 cars show up at every race, there would be no complaints. Right now, the number of fully funded cars is much greater than the 43 spots availible, so you have well funded teams going home each week.

It's just a question of what is fair, and I am sure Nascar will look at it just like they look at other rules. I just pointed out the race that caused the rule to be implemented (Riggs and Wimmer were 27th and 29th before that race) It was not thought to be fair that drivers that far up in the standings did not qualify. The solution then was the 35/8 rule. Now it may be time to revisit the rule and not guarantee so many spots is what many are saying.

[Jonesi]

Another interesting article on the subject:
http://www.thatsracin.com/242/story/5549.html