264 replies to this topic

[Todd Green]

NASA format... I actually like parts of it.. The time commitment is much better than a 10-11 days we will spend in Daytona.  I think the qualifying races and the pressure on all to advance in NASA contributes to unnecessary carnage.

 

Maybe in a perfect world..

 

1)qualifying

2) qualifying race

3) qualifying race 2

 

Take your best two finishes and that determines your qualifying position for the big race? That way if you break or get taken out, you can discard that session.  Just a thought

Are all sessions mandatory?  I can see doing well enough in the first two and opting out of the 3rd because it wouldn't be worth the risk.  NASA might not want a half empty grid for the second quali race.  Also then how do you grid if say someone got a 1st and 2nd in the first two sessions and someone got 2nd and 1st in the 2nd and 3rd sessions.  They'd be tied.  (Granted that can happen now, but it'd be more likely if you can skip sessions that those who do run them are going to be higher placed than if they were all mandatory with full fields.)  Of course if they were mandatory and I'd already placed high enough, I'd just start from the back and stay out of the carnage.   Anyway I agree that some combination of raw qualifying speed should be incorporated into the grid points systems they use.  Perhaps two quali (time) sessions and one quali race?  It just seems like way too many cars get taken out during the quali races.

[dfuser]

This doesnt make sense...Danny S for example gained 20 spots and finished 8th in qual race 2. He had the 3rd fastest lap in qual race 1??

 

MCCallion, Charb, Ross, Ellis all had huge gains in race 2....??

Ron,

 

They used the fastest lap only from Race 1 to start Race 2.  Then the combined points based on finishes from Race 1 and Race 2 to start the Final Race.

[Jim Drago]

Are all sessions mandatory?  I can see doing well enough in the first two and opting out of the 3rd because it wouldn't be worth the risk.  NASA might not want a half empty grid for the second quali race.  Also then how do you grid if say someone got a 1st and 2nd in the first two sessions and someone got 2nd and 1st in the 2nd and 3rd sessions.  They'd be tied.  (Granted that can happen now, but it'd be more likely if you can skip sessions that those who do run them are going to be higher placed than if they were all mandatory with full fields.)  Of course if they were mandatory and I'd already placed high enough, I'd just start from the back and stay out of the carnage.   Anyway I agree that some combination of raw qualifying speed should be incorporated into the grid points systems they use.  Perhaps two quali (time) sessions and one quali race?  It just seems like way too many cars get taken out during the quali races.

No ties now as one race( I believe second) counts for more than first.  So that would likely be the best bet, weigh the last race a little heavier to make sure people run it etc. Not perfect, but all should be forced to run or start at back at in the big race? Surely with a few minutes thought a good solution incorporating all three would be a good fix.

Jim

[MPR22]

I believe I have posted several times to the ++ and -- of both formats...and as I said before, pick your poison. Not debating either.

 

I just wanted to hear from those who were there if they felt this particular situation would be considered "normal racing...shit happens" or was this really a freak thing that warranted a deviation from the written rules?  As John requested...feedback is welcome. In hindsight, did NASA make the best call...did they serve all there customers fairly? Cant change the outcome but a future scenario may be handled different depending on what will or already has shaking out of this particular mess.

 

I didn't get an answer to a previous question about 2nd qual race grid. Was it set by finishing position of qual 1? If that is the case, NASA was not consistent between West and East coast Champs...West coast grid was set by fast lap. Maybe this was because it was mostly just CA drivers? 

What happened in Qual Race 1 was not normal however not sure with the information they had at hand they could have made a different decision.  I was not crazy about being stuck in gravel trap with several others while the field was circulating under yellow.  That created a situation of mixing faster and slower cars throughout the field in the final race.  I think the conduct of the racers was good for the two qual races, I didn't see much in the way of bad behavior from where I was.  The championship race was another story.  Not sure the mix contributed to the bad behavior or if it was the general desperation of "this is the championship".  I have seen the exact same craziness on Sunday's of SCCA Majors races so I think I will lean more towards the wrecker or checker mentality.  I like Dragos suggestion which rewards consistency but allows for some mishap not to put you behind the entire field.  

[MPR22]

This doesnt make sense...Danny S for example gained 20 spots and finished 8th in qual race 2. He had the 3rd fastest lap in qual race 1??

 

MCCallion, Charb, Ross, Ellis all had huge gains in race 2....??

Racehero had it wrong, they showed me starting in 31st for qual race 2, when in reality I started 15th based on lap time from previous finish. 

[dfuser]

Racehero had it wrong, they showed me starting in 31st for qual race 2, when in reality I started 15th based on lap time from previous finish. 

Race Hero need more work to be where race monitor is now.

[Todd Green]

 

IMO more than a DQ should have been handed down on Palermo.  And people wonder why many have no interest in Nats.  It's one thing to make a mistake, it's another to intentionally run people off the track.

[chris haldeman]

Top 6 fastest wet times from qual race 1
Cefalo 2:30.731
Haldeman 2:31.158
Clements. 2:31.247
Palermo. 2:31.275
Steyn. 2:31.372
McCallion 2:31.?

[Johnny D]

Wow. A little hard on the side drafting ?  

J~
 

 
IMO more than a DQ should have been handed down on Palermo.  And people wonder why many have no interest in Nats.  It's one thing to make a mistake, it's another to intentionally run people off the track.

[suck fumes]

IMO more than a DQ should have been handed down on Palermo. And people wonder why many have no interest in Nats. It's one thing to make a mistake, it's another to intentionally run people off the track.

I was going to say did anyone see that video!?

I think everyone is guilty of being aggressive at a champ race including myself but....on the straight?

[LarryKing]

At the inaugural NASA Champs in 2006 the officials announced that ANY contact could result in a DQ for that session and possibly the event. They meant it and they enforced it.

 

We had an almost contact free event.

[Jim Drago]

I was going to say did anyone see that video!? I know palermo and personally know he is a nice guy but the driving i saw in that video was of desperation to win with no regards for safety or anyone elses car. Completely reckless trying to run someone off on the straight!

Lots have said the same... I consider Blake and mark friends.. don't know Palermo at all. So my opinion is probably contrary to what most would think. 

 

I didn't see as much wrong as most did. It was the last lap and the guy going for the win for NASAs biggest race.  

 

With contact with Blake.. If Blake doesn't get put off and it is just the door to door contact, I would have no issue with it and call it racing. Blake probably feel the same? Putting him off was over the line and not acceptable.  

 

With Drennan, the jerking and weaving of the wheel wasn't acceptable, but moving over, squeezing him at the line, even touching before the line to slow his progress..  That's racing IMO.  

 

I'm sure that wont sit well with most or many here, but just my opinion

[suck fumes]

I think it was more of a double slam not just a "touch" haha

[Johnny D]

J~

[Jim Drago]

I think it was more of a double slam not just a "touch" haha

probably

[john mueller]

 

IMO more than a DQ should have been handed down on Palermo.

 

The DQ was for the tech infractions.

[Johnny D]

The DQ was for the tech infractions.

But repositioned for contact if not DQ'd.
J~

[john mueller]

But repositioned for contact if not DQ'd.
J~

 

Yeah at minimum.  Largest penalty overrules smaller so the tech infractions was easy to DQ over any reposition considered (even it that was to DFL).

[Todd Green]

The DQ was for the tech infractions.

Does not match this:

 

Official message at 2015-09-06 20:08:06
Car #13 Per RD/IRB DQ for punt and for mehanical non-compliance

 

Edit: But that is besides the point.  DQ for non-compliance, suspend for on track behavior.

[Todd Green]

 

With Drennan, the jerking and weaving of the wheel wasn't acceptable, but moving over, squeezing him at the line, even touching before the line to slow his progress..  That's racing IMO.  

That's a very slippery slope.  I'm really surprised after your comments on Dale Jarrett that you'd say that.  IMO no intentional contact in order to improve/defend your position is ever acceptable.  (Worded to allow for bump drafting which is intentional contact per se.)