Discussion
For reasons I still don't entirely understand, NHRA switched to the current format recently (start of this season?). Basically, the first day's qualifying only has a 12 car field. The 13th and lower places have their times voided, and then the second day runs as a full 16 car field. So Urs' 3.951 on Friday should theoretically have been just good enough to qualify. But because it was voided, and his subsequent passes weren't quick enough, he didn't.
I seem to recall the logic being that the Friday night qualifying usually gives the best times, so if some of the big teams don't do well in that session they run the risk of not making the field. So the 16 car field on Saturday gives them a better chance to make it. But to me, that seems to be penalising the smaller teams, which doesn't seem healthy for the sport in the long run.
I seem to recall the logic being that the Friday night qualifying usually gives the best times, so if some of the big teams don't do well in that session they run the risk of not making the field. So the 16 car field on Saturday gives them a better chance to make it. But to me, that seems to be penalising the smaller teams, which doesn't seem healthy for the sport in the long run.
Tet said:
For reasons I still don't entirely understand, NHRA switched to the current format recently (start of this season?). Basically, the first day's qualifying only has a 12 car field. The 13th and lower places have their times voided, and then the second day runs as a full 16 car field. So Urs' 3.951 on Friday should theoretically have been just good enough to qualify. But because it was voided, and his subsequent passes weren't quick enough, he didn't.
I seem to recall the logic being that the Friday night qualifying usually gives the best times, so if some of the big teams don't do well in that session they run the risk of not making the field. So the 16 car field on Saturday gives them a better chance to make it. But to me, that seems to be penalising the smaller teams, which doesn't seem healthy for the sport in the long run.
It is an utterly arse about face rule. The playing field is theoretically level without any mucking around with it, this appears to be pandering to the commercial pressures of the top teams and their sponsors at the expense of the underdogs and is yet another example of why I think the NHRA has lost its way. The top guns already have an advantage as they are well funded, why give them another? I seem to recall the logic being that the Friday night qualifying usually gives the best times, so if some of the big teams don't do well in that session they run the risk of not making the field. So the 16 car field on Saturday gives them a better chance to make it. But to me, that seems to be penalising the smaller teams, which doesn't seem healthy for the sport in the long run.
I must admitt i agree with you guys,It matters a F$%k not if your not in the field on fridays small field because if you have a good baseline from fridays runs then you will probably get in sats show on the 16 car field.All that matters is that your in the 16 show by the end of sat?I really feel that the NHRA is a little lost.Would Wally have heard of all this nonsense? Lets just drag race!
I fear NHRA is going the way of most American sports, and becoming what they would call "sports entertainment" its not about the racing anymore, its all about trying to make things exciting for simpleton "fans"
If you're a traditional drag racing fan it looks like the places to go are IHRA, ADRL and the nostalgia scene
If you're a traditional drag racing fan it looks like the places to go are IHRA, ADRL and the nostalgia scene
- I apologise for over use of quote marks, but they seemed applicable
Hi Guys. To understand the way the NHRA thinks and the policies behind their decission making, you would have to know the corporate way of the U.S. It is not like the U.K. or Europe. The only similarity is they speak English, well almost. I have lived here now for over 20 years and I still learn every day. I have had many conversations with current pro racers and 100% of them agree that 9 times out of 10, the system in effect now works and is the best for sponsors, racers, TV and the spectators in the stands. Now I am not going to give a complete run down on the current system, not today anyway, but will try and answer specific questions of how and why it's the best way. However lets keep it calm, the first sign of people getting personal about anything and I'm done.
Regards Bob J.
Regards Bob J.
Hi Bob
Always good to hear from a properly informed source on these matters. I cannot say I know a great deal about the new system, and I am sure it was put into place by people who know what they are doing. However (and I appreciate I am looking at this in a simplistic fashion), to take a recent forinstance, the guy who qualified on the bump (3.952) in TFD at Vegas yesterday could not run quicker all weekend than the guy who finished up in 17th place (3.951 on Friday). I know that we have perhaps scrutinised this a bit more closely because it was Urs who lost out this time, but this cant be the first time it has happened.
How do the NHRA justify this to these racers who are perhaps less well funded than others and who feel that their chance of a bit of exposure for themselves and their backers has been taken away?
edited for spelling
Always good to hear from a properly informed source on these matters. I cannot say I know a great deal about the new system, and I am sure it was put into place by people who know what they are doing. However (and I appreciate I am looking at this in a simplistic fashion), to take a recent forinstance, the guy who qualified on the bump (3.952) in TFD at Vegas yesterday could not run quicker all weekend than the guy who finished up in 17th place (3.951 on Friday). I know that we have perhaps scrutinised this a bit more closely because it was Urs who lost out this time, but this cant be the first time it has happened.
How do the NHRA justify this to these racers who are perhaps less well funded than others and who feel that their chance of a bit of exposure for themselves and their backers has been taken away?
edited for spelling
Edited by Jon C on Monday 3rd November 00:44
Jon C said:
Hi Bob
Always good to hear from a properly informed source on these matters. I cannot say I know a great deal about the new system, and I am sure it was put into place by people who know what they are doing. However (and I appreciate I am looking at this in a simplistic fashion), to take a recent forinstance, the guy who qualified on the bump (3.952) in TFD at Vegas yesterday could not run quicker all weekend than the guy who finished up in 17th place (3.951 on Friday). I know that we have perhaps scrutinised this a bit more closely because it was Urs who lost out this time, but this cant be the first time it has happened.
How do the NHRA justify this to these racers who are perhaps less well funded than others and who feel that their chance of a bit of exposure for themselves and their backers has been taken away?
edited for spelling
Hi Jon. Good to hear from you with a very relevant question. OK. Do we agree that the best teams, the best drivers and best crew chiefs should have the best chance of winning? I do. Bit of background info first from a few years back. What was happening at almost every event (Specially the hot tracks) was the Friday night cool air was making it a one shot deal to get a good number and being it was know as Funny Car Friday (Because on Fridays the FC's run before the TF's) the TF's were getting the better deal. The points leaders from the previous race went last so that was even better for them. BUT occasionally they would not get a time through no fault of their own because 1) It may rain or get damp before the end of the session. 2) There could be a timing malfunction. 3) The car in the other lane could hit the timing mirrors and so negate both runs. Now the next day comes along, 3800ft corrected air, 130 deg track temp and 80 + water grains of humidity. The smart teams should be able to figure how to run in these conditions but the underfunded teams, no chance. So if for example Dixon does not get a time Friday he has now got to deal with the these conditions and he has to run first in the session, (Slowest in previous session goes first in the next session) so he cannot watch what others teams run and adjust accordingly so it has a knock on effect into the second session of Saturday. With me so far? A suggestion was made to have the top 10 in points automatically seeded (like in Tennis) to occupy the first 10 Qual spots. That would be really tough on the low buck teams, so now we have the current situation. Fridays top 12 keep their postions until Saturday and 4 spots are left open for the others teams to get in or move up even further. If it were not for this system then Schumacher may have not qualified for a few races this year. After all the NHRA want the best 16 cars racing on Sunday in conditions that are similar to Saturday. Not a team that can run good in the cool air Friday and smoke the tires or shake on their other 3 attempts. Not sure you realise this but if there is only 2 or less sessions because of weather, then the top 10 teams do get seeded. BJ.Always good to hear from a properly informed source on these matters. I cannot say I know a great deal about the new system, and I am sure it was put into place by people who know what they are doing. However (and I appreciate I am looking at this in a simplistic fashion), to take a recent forinstance, the guy who qualified on the bump (3.952) in TFD at Vegas yesterday could not run quicker all weekend than the guy who finished up in 17th place (3.951 on Friday). I know that we have perhaps scrutinised this a bit more closely because it was Urs who lost out this time, but this cant be the first time it has happened.
How do the NHRA justify this to these racers who are perhaps less well funded than others and who feel that their chance of a bit of exposure for themselves and their backers has been taken away?
edited for spelling
Edited by Jon C on Monday 3rd November 00:44
Bob Jarrett said:
Fridays top 12 keep their postions until Saturday and 4 spots are left open for the others teams to get in or move up even further. If it were not for this system then Schumacher may have not qualified for a few races this year. After all the NHRA want the best 16 cars racing on Sunday in conditions that are similar to Saturday. Not a team that can run good in the cool air Friday and smoke the tires or shake on their other 3 attempts.
Hmmm. So Schumacher might not have qualified at a race or two. Good. That means one of the underdogs will get a shot. If the current situation is allowed to stand, what incentive is there for the less well funded teams to go racing at all, when the odds are so stacked against them? The only outcome I can see is ever decreasing numbers of entrants at each race. And then when a multi car team pulls out, as has happened on a couple of occasions, who will fill their places if the less well funded teams aren't there any more?I can appreciate that the NHRA wants the bigger teams running on Sunday for the spectacle and to take the championship down to the wire. But the chances of the less well funded teams displacing more than 1 or 2 of the 16 are so slim that it's not going to siginificantly affect things. Particularly if, as you suggest, they're likely to go up in smoke in the first round anyway. And if the Sunday only has 14 of the top 16 cars, and a couple of underdogs, are the crowd really going to be that bothered? I can't see it myself.
I understand what they're trying to achieve with this rule, and I'd say they've probably succeeded. Indeed, it's certainly a better solution than seeding the top 10 places. But what I struggle to see is the need to try and achieve that end in the first place. To me it seems to be pandering to short time financial needs at the expense of being genuinely detrimental to the sport in the long run.
Having run an underfunded car in the UK, we were happy to go racing partly because we knew that on a good day, we could qualify mid pack, and maybe upset a few of the bigger teams. If we were unlikely to qualify at all due to the rules being biased towards the better funded teams, would we have bothered to enter in the first place? I'm not so sure. If nothing else, the qualifying and first round money made a difference towards making the whole thing economically viable. If we were unlikely to even get that, I have my doubts that we'd have been running at all.
Tet said:
Bob Jarrett said:
Fridays top 12 keep their postions until Saturday and 4 spots are left open for the others teams to get in or move up even further. If it were not for this system then Schumacher may have not qualified for a few races this year. After all the NHRA want the best 16 cars racing on Sunday in conditions that are similar to Saturday. Not a team that can run good in the cool air Friday and smoke the tires or shake on their other 3 attempts.
Hmmm. So Schumacher might not have qualified at a race or two. Good. That means one of the underdogs will get a shot. If the current situation is allowed to stand, what incentive is there for the less well funded teams to go racing at all, when the odds are so stacked against them? The only outcome I can see is ever decreasing numbers of entrants at each race. And then when a multi car team pulls out, as has happened on a couple of occasions, who will fill their places if the less well funded teams aren't there any more?I can appreciate that the NHRA wants the bigger teams running on Sunday for the spectacle and to take the championship down to the wire. But the chances of the less well funded teams displacing more than 1 or 2 of the 16 are so slim that it's not going to siginificantly affect things. Particularly if, as you suggest, they're likely to go up in smoke in the first round anyway. And if the Sunday only has 14 of the top 16 cars, and a couple of underdogs, are the crowd really going to be that bothered? I can't see it myself.
I understand what they're trying to achieve with this rule, and I'd say they've probably succeeded. Indeed, it's certainly a better solution than seeding the top 10 places. But what I struggle to see is the need to try and achieve that end in the first place. To me it seems to be pandering to short time financial needs at the expense of being genuinely detrimental to the sport in the long run.
Having run an underfunded car in the UK, we were happy to go racing partly because we knew that on a good day, we could qualify mid pack, and maybe upset a few of the bigger teams. If we were unlikely to qualify at all due to the rules being biased towards the better funded teams, would we have bothered to enter in the first place? I'm not so sure. If nothing else, the qualifying and first round money made a difference towards making the whole thing economically viable. If we were unlikely to even get that, I have my doubts that we'd have been running at all.
Bob Jarrett said:
Tet. I accept, up to a point, all of what you said above, but why is it "Good" that Schumacher may not have qualified? I can see that you support the underdogs over the well funded teams and would appear to be more happy being involved with an underfinanced than a well funded team.
It's good only in the sense that if, after four qualifiers he hasn't made it down the track in the top 16, it makes room for someone else that has done so, and earned the place fair and square. To me, it's a farce if the 16 qualifiers aren't the 16 cars with the lowest ETs of the qualifying rounds. If Schumacher or Force don't qualify at one meeting, then that's a big deal, and will presumably make them all the more determined to remedy that at the next meeting. I don't see that they'd have much to complain about if they weren't able to get into the top 16. I don't support the underdogs per se. All I really want is for them to get a fair shot, the same as any other racer that's paid their entry fee. The odds are stacked enough against them due to the lack of funding as it is, without the rules further minimizing their chances.And trust me, I would much rather be involved with a team with a massive budget than an underfunded one, but they've few and far between over here...
Bob Jarrett said:
Bottom line is we should focus on how the UK Europe scene can be improved and not keep trying to re-structure the NHRA nor what it's corporate sponsors want to see.
Yep, I'll agree with that. I do think they've made some strange decisions, which aren't beneficial to the sport (even if they may be, in the short term, beneficial to those who make their living from it). I'm not trying to restructure the NHRA. But it's worth remembering that much of what happens in the NHRA filters down to us in a year or two, so it's worth keeping an eye an what's happening over there.May I ask a potentially naive question? How does the IHRA compare to NHRA in terms of rules, standard of teams, funding etc? My impression is the IHRA is less overtly corporate, so does that make it more akin to the situation in Europe? Would European teams benefit from running at IHRA events? Indeed, have any considered it?
Tet said:
Bob Jarrett said:
Tet. I accept, up to a point, all of what you said above, but why is it "Good" that Schumacher may not have qualified? I can see that you support the underdogs over the well funded teams and would appear to be more happy being involved with an underfinanced than a well funded team.
It's good only in the sense that if, after four qualifiers he hasn't made it down the track in the top 16, it makes room for someone else that has done so, and earned the place fair and square. To me, it's a farce if the 16 qualifiers aren't the 16 cars with the lowest ETs of the qualifying rounds. If Schumacher or Force don't qualify at one meeting, then that's a big deal, and will presumably make them all the more determined to remedy that at the next meeting. I don't see that they'd have much to complain about if they weren't able to get into the top 16. I don't support the underdogs per se. All I really want is for them to get a fair shot, the same as any other racer that's paid their entry fee. The odds are stacked enough against them due to the lack of funding as it is, without the rules further minimizing their chances.And trust me, I would much rather be involved with a team with a massive budget than an underfunded one, but they've few and far between over here...
Bob Jarrett said:
Bottom line is we should focus on how the UK Europe scene can be improved and not keep trying to re-structure the NHRA nor what it's corporate sponsors want to see.
Yep, I'll agree with that. I do think they've made some strange decisions, which aren't beneficial to the sport (even if they may be, in the short term, beneficial to those who make their living from it). I'm not trying to restructure the NHRA. But it's worth remembering that much of what happens in the NHRA filters down to us in a year or two, so it's worth keeping an eye an what's happening over there.Edited for typo.
Edited by Bob Jarrett on Friday 7th November 03:33
hornet said:
May I ask a potentially naive question? How does the IHRA compare to NHRA in terms of rules, standard of teams, funding etc? My impression is the IHRA is less overtly corporate, so does that make it more akin to the situation in Europe? Would European teams benefit from running at IHRA events? Indeed, have any considered it?
Not a naive question at all. The IHRA rulebook is very similar to the NHRA except they do not insist on a lot of the current construction rules. FC chassis for example NHRA is now 10.5 (Thick tube main chassis rails being the bigest change) since July, while the IHRA will still accept, as in Europe the 10.1E spec which is the 2007 spec with a lot of modifications to re-inforce certain areas, including a 7 point seat belt setup. Personally I think that being the IHRA cars run very similar E.Ts to Europe, we should adopt their rulebook rather that the FIA book which is almost a copy of NHRA. The funding of IHRA is a lot less than NHRA but more that Europe, but I cannot see where that would benefit EU racers in any way shape or form. Especially now, as at this time IHRA are not running FC in 2009, mostly due to the financial problems of Evan Knoll who put up the funding for both TF & FC this year. Time will tell on that one.Gassing Station | Drag Racing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff