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

He started 1st at Grandview and 2nd at Kokomo and didn't win either race....

That was some really good fierce racing on a tricky track. Kinda weird but I like seeing sprint cars race in the twi-night/ not quite dark early evening, they look good in that lighting. 

So, I'll ask the question again:  If Kyle shouldn't start on the front row,   1.  Where should the drivers who earn those spots start     2.  What incentive is there for being fast and racing in the heats?    

I'm so lost by the old logic of inverts in today's racing.  

I like to see fastest cars up front because they earned the right to start up front.  Nothing drives me crazy like seeing a car unload fast, get inverted for a conveyor belt heat race, and then finish 10th on a narrow, conveyor belt feature.  If you're fast, you should be rewarded for being fast.  I was in Jackson the night Paige Polyak won the 410 race.  Congrats to her, it was great to see.   However, she was the 8th-10th best car that night, got inverted to the pole, and ran away with a race that no passing occurred.  Meanwhile, Kerry Madsen, inverts to 8th and because the track is wet, narrow, and heavy, doesn't advance.  And he was CLEARLY the class of the field that night.  Where is the incentive for being fast?  The race was a snoozer, and might as well have been a snoozer with the right car winning the race.  I think the Knoxville Nats inverts are great because there is an incentive foe timing fast.  I don't get inverts AT ALL for one night shows.  

Earlier this year, Justin Peck got injured and had to sit out some races, came back gradully but he's near healing I think.   Did I just dream this ???

Every year there is a team or two that times in top 10 or so gets in an below average heat  and qualifies for the feature and finishes the A in top  half and makes the a main at the Nationals. Last year T Philips was the man and became a crowd favorite being local and running well. Drawing the number 1 in  dash at High Limit or WOO shows with the equality of the top cars is a definate advantage and is simply luck of the draw.Very seldom is there more than 3 0r 4 passes in the dash one reason being the clean air at the front and also being able to start race. The cream seems to rise to the top but after first 10 of the top cars usually find a way then there are many equal teams that need to have some racing luck thats what makes it fun. Some teams are expected and do well at most every race. The top WOO teams with exception of Kyle and Rico will always be favored to win the big ones . We all hope for a good storyline of a team that is lower budget and could use the money but that usually doesnt happen.Shark $1M win was an example but they are a really good team also that can win any night. There are a few teams that follow WOO that wouldnt be considered contenders at  weekly Knoxville shows but are following their dream which helps the car count in areas where 410 sprint cars have a hard time getting full fields.

I like to see fastest cars up front because they earned the right to start up front.  Nothing drives me crazy like seeing a car unload fast, get inverted for a conveyor belt heat race, and then finish 10th on a narrow, conveyor belt feature.  If you're fast, you should be rewarded for being fast.  I was in Jackson the night Paige Polyak won the 410 race.  Congrats to her, it was great to see.   However, she was the 8th-10th best car that night, got inverted to the pole, and ran away with a race that no passing occurred.  Meanwhile, Kerry Madsen, inverts to 8th and because the track is wet, narrow, and heavy, doesn't advance.  And he was CLEARLY the class of the field that night.  Where is the incentive for being fast?  The race was a snoozer, and might as well have been a snoozer with the right car winning the race.  I think the Knoxville Nats inverts are great because there is an incentive foe timing fast.  I don't get inverts AT ALL for one night shows.  

I'm still lost on how the invert has a place in today's racing other than people that are nostalgic and probably do not actually watch the races. In the 80s and 90s it probably had a place but today it is completely stupid and just screws over people who worked hard. I've watched a number of races from back in the day that had inverts that were complete snooze fests. This year's kings royal prime example, one of the worst races I have attended from a competitive standpoint. We have seen how many WOW moments that the Outlaws have produced, drivers coming from the back to the front, and races that go down to the wire with no invert but yet consistently on here I see people crying and complaining about them not using an invert. I highly doubt that the races and finishes that they have had the past 5-6 years would have been more exciting if an invert happened. As a matter of fact I am very confident that they would have been worse. 

"it is completely stupid and just screws over people who worked hard".  That's a pretty ignorant statement.  Maybe you didn't mean it this way but what you just said is the people who don't time fast haven't worked hard.  I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you've never worked on a race car in your life?  It sounds like you have no idea what goes into working on a race car, especially a sprint car.  But hey, you're the expert you watch it, the guys who run in the back are just lazy.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. Hey egras....how thick do you think the limb he's standing on is? What's the old saying about what happens when people assume?

Thanks buddy, I really needed that laugh. This right here puts into perspective for me why it sometimes is pointless to argue with people on here or on social media because they try to say things like this when they do not have a clue about you.

And to clarify rocket scientist,  I didn't say the people in the back were lazy, you read what I wrote, interpreted it completely wrong and viewed it that way. I was pointing out that there is a part of where your spot is Earned in qualifying and prior to that there is a whole process that goes into getting things prepared (not sure how I'd know that "never" have worked on a race car and just "watch") and keeping things organized. After qualifying there is a whole other process involved that........oh heck why am I even bothering explaining this, people are going to believe whatever they want to believe no matter if evidence is right in their faces  proving them wrong

I don't know what that means by "earned the right to start up front"?  Who says it was earned?  Who makes that call?  If the format says the fast timer starts 8th, then how do they "earn the right" to start up front?  This isn't the U.S. Constitution. Also as to "what's the incentive for unloading fast"?  Are you serious?  The incentive for having the fastest car is you have the best chance to win but you're still going to need a little luck too.  It still kind of goes back to my post saying that you think time trials should determine who is the winner, at least that's the way I read it.  However I get what you're trying to say here but I disagree (which is fine, we are all entitled to our own opinion).  But I think you and I can agree the real problem is the "conveyor belt" races.  I completely agree with you not liking to see a faster car be able to pass another car but I don't factor in who timed where on it bothering me.  

People like you make me chuckle.  You have an opinion (yes it's an opinion not a fact, does that sound like anyone else?), I challenge you on your opinion and instead of explaining your opinion or why you feel that way, you jump right into insults and name calling.  You're correct, sometimes it is pointless to argue with people on here or social media because people don't know how to have a conversation or debate.  No where did I call you names or challenge your intelligence for having an opinion, I've never done that to anyone on social media or here (UNLESS it's insulting a group of people or about safety, anyone who thinks someone else's safety is not something to take serious an idiot in my opinion and I have no problem with the name calling then).  Your exact words were "In the 80s and 90s it probably had a place but today it is completely stupid and just screws over people who worked hard."  I don't think it's too big of a stretch to say that many people would interpret that statement as you saying the people who have faster cars work harder than the people who don't have the budget of a WOO team.  And I stand by my statement that, that's an ignorant statement.  I even said that maybe you didn't mean it that way but you chose name calling instead of clarifying your statement.  I'm not saying YOU'RE ignorant, I'm saying YOUR STATEMENT was ignorant.

Since you wanted to go there, so will I.  I'm sorry you're not smart enough to debate me.

Oh hardon, where to begin.

I'll start first of all with your assessment of Nick.  You're 100% wrong.  I've known him for quite a while, and he and his son have raced multiple classes of cars for the past few years.  No, they are not 410 sprint car racers---yet.   He and I have discussed in person, and via text, his frustration over inverts.  His goal has always been to make his son's car faster.  However, if he shows up at an invert format race, times quick and runs well in the heat, he is inverted back to a position that makes it impossible to get through the field during the feature.  How does that reward him and his son for their hard work?  He understands this issue better than 95% of those on this forum. (including myself)  I can also assure you he is intelligent enough to debate you or anyone else on this forum.  (I actually know 3rd graders that could debate some on this forum)

As far as my comment "earned the right to start up front"----it means who unloaded the car and figured out the track and how to get around it faster than anyone else.  Don't get me wrong, from a fan's perspective, I used to love inverts.  Our track had a rule through the 80's and 90's----if you finished 1st or 2nd the week before, you had to tag the rear in the feature.  Every single week, the same guy would tag the rear in his late-model and hammer his way through the field and win.  As a teenager, I thought he was the greatest race car driver in the world!!  Fast forward to now.  It doesn't matter how good your car is, you're not coming through a field of these late-models every week in 20 laps.  That time has passed.  When I got a little older I realized he wasn't better than everyoe else.  He just raced during a time when innovation and money got you WAY more than they do now.  

So, Nick provides a unique perspective that most of us don't have.  He puts in the hours and time for his son to be fast.  He isn't always the fastest car, but when he is, and there's an invert, he's punished for it and given a starting spot where it's impossible to pass that many cars in so few laps.  I know the overwhelming response from the inbred mouth breathers is:  "well if he's so fast, why doesn't he just pass everyone and win anyways."  Once again, it's not 1985 anymore.  There are not 3 cars in every class head and shoulders above the rest that can just hammer their way through inferior equipment.  All of these cars are bought from the same catalogs or websites, use the same parts, and time so close to each other, starting position is at a premium in today's racing.   This same concept transfers to modifieds, late-models, sprint cars, NASCAR, you name it.  

If I were a car owner, and worked on my car and engine program, and showed up at Eldora in July and timed 1st only to be inverted out of the race, I'd be PISSED!  Does it make great racing for the fan?  Sure.  But from an owner/crew chief/driver's perspective, why work hard to be fast if you get rewarded to be "almost as fast?"  

Also, to be clear:  I love the invert and points system at the Knoxville Nationals.  Clear advantage for cars that time fast, and can work their way through the heats and mains.  Faster cars are rewarded AND have to race for it!  Best of both worlds!

Oh hardon, where to begin.

I'll start first of all with your assessment of Nick.  You're 100% wrong.  I've known him for quite a while, and he and his son have raced multiple classes of cars for the past few years.  No, they are not 410 sprint car racers---yet.   He and I have discussed in person, and via text, his frustration over inverts.  His goal has always been to make his son's car faster.  However, if he shows up at an invert format race, times quick and runs well in the heat, he is inverted back to a position that makes it impossible to get through the field during the feature.  How does that reward him and his son for their hard work?  He understands this issue better than 95% of those on this forum. (including myself)  I can also assure you he is intelligent enough to debate you or anyone else on this forum.  (I actually know 3rd graders that could debate some on this forum)

As far as my comment "earned the right to start up front"----it means who unloaded the car and figured out the track and how to get around it faster than anyone else.  Don't get me wrong, from a fan's perspective, I used to love inverts.  Our track had a rule through the 80's and 90's----if you finished 1st or 2nd the week before, you had to tag the rear in the feature.  Every single week, the same guy would tag the rear in his late-model and hammer his way through the field and win.  As a teenager, I thought he was the greatest race car driver in the world!!  Fast forward to now.  It doesn't matter how good your car is, you're not coming through a field of these late-models every week in 20 laps.  That time has passed.  When I got a little older I realized he wasn't better than everyoe else.  He just raced during a time when innovation and money got you WAY more than they do now.  

So, Nick provides a unique perspective that most of us don't have.  He puts in the hours and time for his son to be fast.  He isn't always the fastest car, but when he is, and there's an invert, he's punished for it and given a starting spot where it's impossible to pass that many cars in so few laps.  I know the overwhelming response from the inbred mouth breathers is:  "well if he's so fast, why doesn't he just pass everyone and win anyways."  Once again, it's not 1985 anymore.  There are not 3 cars in every class head and shoulders above the rest that can just hammer their way through inferior equipment.  All of these cars are bought from the same catalogs or websites, use the same parts, and time so close to each other, starting position is at a premium in today's racing.   This same concept transfers to modifieds, late-models, sprint cars, NASCAR, you name it.  

If I were a car owner, and worked on my car and engine program, and showed up at Eldora in July and timed 1st only to be inverted out of the race, I'd be PISSED!  Does it make great racing for the fan?  Sure.  But from an owner/crew chief/driver's perspective, why work hard to be fast if you get rewarded to be "almost as fast?"  

Also, to be clear:  I love the invert and points system at the Knoxville Nationals.  Clear advantage for cars that time fast, and can work their way through the heats and mains.  Faster cars are rewarded AND have to race for it!  Best of both worlds!