Forum: HoseHeads Sprint Car General Forum (go)
Moderators: dirtonly  /  dmantx  /  hosehead

Tuff guy you are.  I nearly didn't go last nite and it crossed my mind to leave after the heats.  How do you like me now?

Agreed. A soaking wet track sucks. It needs to slick off some through the middle and widen out or it's just as one lane as a rubbered up track. And there must be a cushion. I had the pleasure of sitting through another garbage track surface at Williams Grove last night. One of the worst tracks I've seen in a long time.  It was so dry that they were even having trouble getting down the straights. They didn't even attempt to fix it. The only thing they did all night was beat the cushion to death with the water trucks which only made it worse. I'm thinking they can take their $30 WoO tickets next weekend and shove them up their asses. I have better things to do than watch what I saw (and have seen far too many times) last night. Pathetic.

He was on the track racing, so he has every bit as much right (if not more) to offer his opinion, than any of us keyboard commandos

That said, I have no opinion on track prep. I can only tell if the race is good or bad

Weird that Eldora is held to a different standard than other tracks. No one complains when Knoxville is won on the bottom. 

Its supposed to rain there on Saturday anyway

I'm looking at weather reports & trying to decide

Whats its like if it rains most of the day & then stops?

Whatever makes you happy.... if I was there, i'd stick around. Tonite might be different....

Of course he was.....but exageration is just that. I have very little opinion on track prep, my post had more to do with his attitude than his statement. That was a very exciting race, and he did a hell of a job.  But......I've heard drivers who say they prefer a heavy track.......so is there a right or wrong when hearing the opinion of one diver.....on one nights results?

Which drivers did you hear say preferrd a tacky track? Jason Johnson is the only one I've heard say that. A couple years ago when Natalie seather was with the outlaws she did a video skit with all of the outlaws called 10 question with ____. Asked all of them 10 questions and one question was do they prefer dryslick or wet- tacky track and I believe every one said dryslick.

Agreed. A soaking wet track sucks. It needs to slick off some through the middle and widen out or it's just as one lane as a rubbered up track. And there must be a cushion. I had the pleasure of sitting through another garbage track surface at Williams Grove last night. One of the worst tracks I've seen in a long time.  It was so dry that they were even having trouble getting down the straights. They didn't even attempt to fix it. The only thing they did all night was beat the cushion to death with the water trucks which only made it worse. I'm thinking they can take their $30 WoO tickets next weekend and shove them up their asses. I have better things to do than watch what I saw (and have seen far too many times) last night. Pathetic.

NO SHIT! The Outlaw drivers prefer a dry slick track! Who the hell has to ask THEM that? And as a rule, the Outlaw driver that's out front that finds the rubber first likes a rubbered down track (though he'll deny it)......the rest of course hate the rubber because catching the guy out front is usually out the window. The Outlaws always want the advantage, and dry slick gives them that. 

I'm confused about a lot of this. Race fans confuse me quite a lot. They seem to talk out of both sides of their neck. 

"The Outlaws want a slick trick because it gives them the advantage." But I thought the Outlaw format favors the big engine, big money teams, so wouldn't they want a bit of a tackier track, to take advantage of the extra HP?

Dry, slick tracks suck. But I thought a lot of you complain about "how the cars nowadays are too locked down.  They're like slot cars." So wouldn't it stand to reason that a slicker track would help to "unhook" the cars?

Theres not a lot of passing in today's sprint cars.  Again, doesn't a tackier track usually end up a bit narrower and follow the leader? Shouldn't you want a wider track with more lanes to choose from?

The safety doesn't seem to match up with the speed. Inevitably when people bring up safety measures, some people talk about how new precautions may be too expensive for teams or tracks, making them cost prohibitive. What makes a track safer (that's a relative term) and won't cost the teams or tracks any additional money? Slowing the track down by making it a bit drier and slicker.

Look, we would all like to have a tacky, multi-grooved track where guys are running high speeds, passing each other all over the track, but most times we ain't gonna get that.

I'm not saying tracks should be super, super slick. A natural reaction to my post would be to run to the extreme and say, "Well this asshole only seems to like tracks that are super slicked off and slow." Not the case. (My abiliity to enjoy myself at the track just seems to be more malleable than some). I get the appeal of the sprints are the speeds. I love the high speeds as well, but there should be a balance.  A lot of this is me just stirring the pot just to mess with you guys, but fellow race fans, help me understand some of your contradictory beliefs.

I'm confused about a lot of this. Race fans confuse me quite a lot. They seem to talk out of both sides of their neck. 

"The Outlaws want a slick trick because it gives them the advantage." But I thought the Outlaw format favors the big engine, big money teams, so wouldn't they want a bit of a tackier track, to take advantage of the extra HP?

Dry, slick tracks suck. But I thought a lot of you complain about "how the cars nowadays are too locked down.  They're like slot cars." So wouldn't it stand to reason that a slicker track would help to "unhook" the cars?

Theres not a lot of passing in today's sprint cars.  Again, doesn't a tackier track usually end up a bit narrower and follow the leader? Shouldn't you want a wider track with more lanes to choose from?

The safety doesn't seem to match up with the speed. Inevitably when people bring up safety measures, some people talk about how new precautions may be too expensive for teams or tracks, making them cost prohibitive. What makes a track safer (that's a relative term) and won't cost the teams or tracks any additional money? Slowing the track down by making it a bit drier and slicker.

Look, we would all like to have a tacky, multi-grooved track where guys are running high speeds, passing each other all over the track, but most times we ain't gonna get that.

I'm not saying tracks should be super, super slick. A natural reaction to my post would be to run to the extreme and say, "Well this asshole only seems to like tracks that are super slicked off and slow." Not the case. (My abiliity to enjoy myself at the track just seems to be more malleable than some). I get the appeal of the sprints are the speeds. I love the high speeds as well, but there should be a balance.  A lot of this is me just stirring the pot just to mess with you guys, but fellow race fans, help me understand some of your contradictory beliefs.

The outlaws like a slick tracks because they like slick tracks and the non outlaws like slick tracks so they can motor with the outlaws

I'm confused about a lot of this. Race fans confuse me quite a lot. They seem to talk out of both sides of their neck. 

"The Outlaws want a slick trick because it gives them the advantage." But I thought the Outlaw format favors the big engine, big money teams, so wouldn't they want a bit of a tackier track, to take advantage of the extra HP?

Dry, slick tracks suck. But I thought a lot of you complain about "how the cars nowadays are too locked down.  They're like slot cars." So wouldn't it stand to reason that a slicker track would help to "unhook" the cars?

Theres not a lot of passing in today's sprint cars.  Again, doesn't a tackier track usually end up a bit narrower and follow the leader? Shouldn't you want a wider track with more lanes to choose from?

The safety doesn't seem to match up with the speed. Inevitably when people bring up safety measures, some people talk about how new precautions may be too expensive for teams or tracks, making them cost prohibitive. What makes a track safer (that's a relative term) and won't cost the teams or tracks any additional money? Slowing the track down by making it a bit drier and slicker.

Look, we would all like to have a tacky, multi-grooved track where guys are running high speeds, passing each other all over the track, but most times we ain't gonna get that.

I'm not saying tracks should be super, super slick. A natural reaction to my post would be to run to the extreme and say, "Well this asshole only seems to like tracks that are super slicked off and slow." Not the case. (My abiliity to enjoy myself at the track just seems to be more malleable than some). I get the appeal of the sprints are the speeds. I love the high speeds as well, but there should be a balance.  A lot of this is me just stirring the pot just to mess with you guys, but fellow race fans, help me understand some of your contradictory beliefs.