|
|
|
|
|
Topic: Trey Starks Wins His First at Knoxville Wednesday at Nationals!
|
Email this topic to a friend |
Subscribe to this Topic
| Report this Topic to Moderator
|
|
Page 4 of 4 of 73 replies
|
|
|
|
|
August 09, 2019 at
08:58:47 AM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
11/23/2004
|
|
Posts:
|
3943
|
|
|
Reply to:
Posted By: W2Motorsports on August 08 2019 at 02:12:26 PM
I agree it should be hard.
Which is why I'm wondering why qualifying 23rd overall and finishing 3rd in your heat (after passing 1 car) rewards you with the pole in the feature?
After starting on the pole this same car dropped 3 positions to 4th (23rd overall, passed a total of -2 on the night) and is 11th in points.
Meanwhile, Kyle Larson as an example qualified 9th, started and finished 7th in his heat, started 7th in the B and finished 6th for a total of +1 on the night after qualifying 14 positions better than the above car. He sits 21st in points.
Brady Bacon (Timed 5th, -1 position on the night) 16th in points
Danny Dietrich (Timed 4th, net 0 positions on the night) 15th in points
The above is fine, as long as there are not several anomoly's -
Paige Polyak (Timed 14th, -15 on the night) 14th in points
Sheldon Haudenschild (Timed 18th, +1 position on the night) 7th in points
James McFadden (Timed 22nd, +1 position on the night) 8th in points
Those are just to name a few.
|
The Invert as you are aware is 8. When the majority of those 8 don't transfer from their heats to the A-Main they just go to the next qualifier who did make it 9th and on down. It's all about transferring in your heat and then moving forward in the A. I hope yoou notice that most of your examples are now in the B for Saturday after the 2nd night of points are figured in. Don't jump the start and wait until after BOTH nights and you will get a much clearer picture. This Friday as the potential of 80 cars and I sure hope there is not that money, if there is I predict a one lap qualifying effort only. This could very well be a good night of racing but look for the cream to rise again, there are some stout cars in here.....
|
|
|
|
|
August 09, 2019 at
10:59:53 AM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
09/14/2010
|
|
Posts:
|
7617
|
|
|
Reply to:
Posted By: W2Motorsports on August 08 2019 at 10:53:36 AM
I just don't see how it is logical to start the quick timer in the heat outside of a transfer spot. Does that happen anywhere else? I see a lot of people saying we shouldn't make it easy on them, and they should have to prove they deserve to qualify but the problem is by making it hard on them you are making it easy on someone else. For every one of those top 10 who didn't make it someone who timed mid-pack got to start up front and fininsh top 4 in for the most part no passing heat races and meander their way into the feature. Schatz, Larson (or Dietrich, or the majority fo the remaining top 10 in TT) are right to say they got beat by the format. The biggest mistake Dietrich made last night was timing 4th, had he timed 15th (as Starks did) he likely would have had a much easier night, and if he had done in even better (by that I mean, timing worse) he may have got to start on the pole of the feature.
|
That how I feel too
|
|
|
|
|
August 09, 2019 at
11:01:41 AM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
09/14/2010
|
|
Posts:
|
7617
|
|
|
Reply to:
Posted By: W2Motorsports on August 08 2019 at 02:12:26 PM
I agree it should be hard.
Which is why I'm wondering why qualifying 23rd overall and finishing 3rd in your heat (after passing 1 car) rewards you with the pole in the feature?
After starting on the pole this same car dropped 3 positions to 4th (23rd overall, passed a total of -2 on the night) and is 11th in points.
Meanwhile, Kyle Larson as an example qualified 9th, started and finished 7th in his heat, started 7th in the B and finished 6th for a total of +1 on the night after qualifying 14 positions better than the above car. He sits 21st in points.
Brady Bacon (Timed 5th, -1 position on the night) 16th in points
Danny Dietrich (Timed 4th, net 0 positions on the night) 15th in points
The above is fine, as long as there are not several anomoly's -
Paige Polyak (Timed 14th, -15 on the night) 14th in points
Sheldon Haudenschild (Timed 18th, +1 position on the night) 7th in points
James McFadden (Timed 22nd, +1 position on the night) 8th in points
Those are just to name a few.
|
Good points
|
|
|
|
|
|
August 09, 2019 at
11:08:10 AM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
04/18/2008
|
|
Posts:
|
1267
|
|
|
|
I love the Nationals and I think the format is just fine albeit all formats should be available to small tweaks. I would like to see some sort of economical approach to unlocking the cars though as that would most definitely help with closer racing action. Wednesday nights show wasn't very good in my opinion due to track conditions and the inability to maintain close parity in the heats. The sunday Cappy race was by far the best so far this whole week and that had a lot to do with track conditions but the format helped too. Still I have enjoyed the racing overall and I'm sure Saturday will be great.
Cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
August 09, 2019 at
02:50:26 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
03/02/2017
|
|
Posts:
|
292
|
|
|
This message was edited on
August 09, 2019 at
02:55:55 PM by W2Motorsports
Reply to:
Posted By: MSPN on August 09 2019 at 08:58:47 AM
The Invert as you are aware is 8. When the majority of those 8 don't transfer from their heats to the A-Main they just go to the next qualifier who did make it 9th and on down. It's all about transferring in your heat and then moving forward in the A. I hope yoou notice that most of your examples are now in the B for Saturday after the 2nd night of points are figured in. Don't jump the start and wait until after BOTH nights and you will get a much clearer picture. This Friday as the potential of 80 cars and I sure hope there is not that money, if there is I predict a one lap qualifying effort only. This could very well be a good night of racing but look for the cream to rise again, there are some stout cars in here.....
|
I wasn't expecting some of them to lock into the A, I was comparing them to other drivers from their own qualifying night. Relative to Bacon, Larson, and Dietrich, Polyak still scored more points and will start ahead. SHaud is locked into the A and J-Mac the pole of the B. Bacon, Dietrich and Larson timed better, were inverted to the back on a one lane track and their week is essentially over because they were expected to pass more cars than J-Mac, Haud and Polyak (who all scored more points, significantly more on some cases) did all night combined. I understand this show should be hard to make and I agree, as long as it is hard for all the drivers, which certainly wasn't the case on Wed.
The bottom line IMO is that this format could be better, and it could be worse, but one thing is for sure if you are going to invert 8 cars the track needs to be racey. If it isn't racey then the system is rigged for slow drivers and against fast drivers -- heavily. Last night was better and you can tell because there really aren't any drivers who scored well that didn't deserve it. However the Wed. show produced several ridiculous scenarios some of which I highlighted in my previous post.
|
|
|
|
|
August 09, 2019 at
03:00:51 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
03/02/2017
|
|
Posts:
|
292
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't this be more logical?
TT- 150, 148, 146, 144, 142, 140, etc
(Invert 6) Heat-150, 148, 146, 144, 142, 140, etc
Feature: Top 20 overall in points + 4 from B Main-200, 198, 196, 194, 192, etc
Less weight on time trails (which is good), slightly smaller invert, must be fast both times you hit the track in order to make the A Main.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
August 09, 2019 at
03:16:05 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
05/31/2007
|
|
Posts:
|
4393
|
|
|
Reply to:
Posted By: W2Motorsports on August 09 2019 at 03:00:51 PM
Wouldn't this be more logical?
TT- 150, 148, 146, 144, 142, 140, etc
(Invert 6) Heat-150, 148, 146, 144, 142, 140, etc
Feature: Top 20 overall in points + 4 from B Main-200, 198, 196, 194, 192, etc
Less weight on time trails (which is good), slightly smaller invert, must be fast both times you hit the track in order to make the A Main.
|
No, because it would encourage sandbagging your time trials.
Time trials have to be equal to the a main in order to prevent this. I'm also not convinced a 6 car invert will be any better. They tried a 6 car invert at the Cappy the first year and no one could get into a transfer because the cars who qualify 21-30 are faster than those who qualify 41-50.
The fact remains, the format is awesome, the track conditions need to be great to support it, but the cream rises and will again this year.
|
|
|
|
|
August 09, 2019 at
03:28:28 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
05/31/2007
|
|
Posts:
|
4393
|
|
|
|
Also, for all the talk about this format rewarding mid pack qualifers, I looked at the 2 groups of top 10 for each night. Of the 20 drivers who had to start 7th and 8th in their heats:
10 made the A main on Saturday
4 made the B main on Saturday
So 70% are locked in for Saturday, in the top 26 overall
|
|
|
|
|
August 09, 2019 at
07:10:28 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
11/23/2004
|
|
Posts:
|
3943
|
|
|
|
I think 8 out of the top 10 qualifoers missed on both nights, I rest your case.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
August 10, 2019 at
09:14:56 AM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
09/03/2017
|
|
Posts:
|
364
|
|
|
Reply to:
Posted By: MSPN on August 09 2019 at 07:10:28 PM
I think 8 out of the top 10 qualifoers missed on both nights, I rest your case.....
|
Better question: How many of the top 10 qualifiers ened up being top 10 in points? You know, the thing that actually counts for making the feature on Saturday night.
Case? What is the case? What argument are you trying to make?
|
|
|
|
|
August 10, 2019 at
10:28:01 AM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
09/14/2010
|
|
Posts:
|
7617
|
|
|
Reply to:
Posted By: W2Motorsports on August 09 2019 at 03:00:51 PM
Wouldn't this be more logical?
TT- 150, 148, 146, 144, 142, 140, etc
(Invert 6) Heat-150, 148, 146, 144, 142, 140, etc
Feature: Top 20 overall in points + 4 from B Main-200, 198, 196, 194, 192, etc
Less weight on time trails (which is good), slightly smaller invert, must be fast both times you hit the track in order to make the A Main.
|
I like it...
|
|
|
|
|
August 10, 2019 at
10:30:35 AM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
09/14/2010
|
|
Posts:
|
7617
|
|
|
Reply to:
Posted By: dsc1600 on August 09 2019 at 03:16:05 PM
No, because it would encourage sandbagging your time trials.
Time trials have to be equal to the a main in order to prevent this. I'm also not convinced a 6 car invert will be any better. They tried a 6 car invert at the Cappy the first year and no one could get into a transfer because the cars who qualify 21-30 are faster than those who qualify 41-50.
The fact remains, the format is awesome, the track conditions need to be great to support it, but the cream rises and will again this year.
|
"No, because it would encourage sandbagging your time trials." I don't think so
You still want to make the inversion, & I doubt anyone could pinpoint exact time between 6th & 7th, tenths or even hundredths of a second
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
August 10, 2019 at
11:08:06 AM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
06/20/2017
|
|
Posts:
|
498
|
|
|
Reply to:
Posted By: MSPN on August 09 2019 at 07:10:28 PM
I think 8 out of the top 10 qualifoers missed on both nights, I rest your case.....
|
Might want to take a look at the results again. On Thursday 5 of the top 11 qualified through the heat, and that’s with the fast qualifier Stewart crashing.
Here’s where the A main cars qualified:
Reutzal- 2
Gravel- 9
Saldana- 5
Shaffer- 2
PPM- 3
Sweet- 15
TK- 3
McMahon- 6
Marks- 11
Pittman- 4
Starks- 15
Juhl- 10
Eliason- 16
I Madsen- 1
Sheldon- 18
Dewease- 11
|
|
|
|
August 10, 2019 at
02:23:12 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
07/24/2016
|
|
Posts:
|
1724
|
|
|
|
Interesting. Starks and Sweet both time in 18th and Starks gets 1000 comments about either how lucky he is or unfair it is. Sweet gets zero either way.
I'm cheering for the underdogs and it looks like about a 20ish in 24 chance we see an 1sttime winner.
Even though I may not know you, I
care what most of you think!
|
|
|
