 | |
Did Knaus Screw Up
Nascar NASCAR and other professional stock car racing (rec.autos.sport.nascar)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Did Knaus Screw Up -
08-05-2009
, 08:08 PM
|
"John McCoy" <igopogo (AT) ix (DOT) netcom.com> wrote in message news:Xns9C5EC44CDFBA7pogosupernews (AT) 216 (DOT) 168.3.30... Chuck_Steak (AT) nospam (DOT) com (Chuck Steak) wrote in news:Vmmem.766$nh2.366 (AT) nwrddc02 (DOT) gnilink.net: What I do like about not racing back, is that it does not 'force' (for lack of a better word) a driver to race through a possible unsafe area/situation, in order to maintain that important track position... Or worse... try to advance. Yeah, what I'd really like is two different flags - one for when someone spins in turn 2 and doesn't hit anything, and one for when 6 cars pound the wall in the tri-oval and the only clear path is down pit road. Race back on the first, don't on the second. Unscientifically, I'd say 80% of yellows can be raced back on with no risk to anyone. Don't be introducing logic and reason here McCoy. And... you're getting awful close to the notion of using localized cautions. What? you say... Not every caution needs to be a full course caution... |
Not only could a mistake mean injury, there would be arguments about
decisions every week imho.
#22
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 20:43:46 -0400, J Morgan <JohnMorg (AT) email (DOT) non wrote: Tim Shelton wrote: There should not be any lucky dog to begin with. If you are a lap down or two or more, that is your tuff luck, race them back. you're a weirdo go hang yourself If the object is to race and the winner is the one who gets there first, tell me how a guy who has a shit car for the day, and can get x number of lucky dog laps to stay in a race where he cannot keep up with the rest of the field, tell me wise one just how that makes sense. |
as much of a dumbass as Tim usually is, I do agree with his assessment of
the "lucky dog" pass... If you lose position on the track, you need to get
it back *on the track*...
#23
| |||
| |||
|
|
I think they might be hesitant to bring in a judgement call rule like that. Not only could a mistake mean injury, there would be arguments about decisions every week imho. |
injury. And definately it would lead to arguments (what in NASCAR
doesn't). But I think it'd be worth it if we didn't have good
racing on track broken up by meaningless cautions (of course,
another solution would be to simply not throw the yellow for
every harmless scrape of the wall or piece of trash on the track).
John
#24
| |||
| |||
|
|
"John McCoy" <igopogo (AT) ix (DOT) netcom.com> wrote in message news:Xns9C5EC44CDFBA7pogosupernews (AT) 216 (DOT) 168.3.30... Chuck_Steak (AT) nospam (DOT) com (Chuck Steak) wrote in news:Vmmem.766$nh2.366 (AT) nwrddc02 (DOT) gnilink.net: What I do like about not racing back, is that it does not 'force' (for lack of a better word) a driver to race through a possible unsafe area/situation, in order to maintain that important track position... Or worse... try to advance. Yeah, what I'd really like is two different flags - one for when someone spins in turn 2 and doesn't hit anything, and one for when 6 cars pound the wall in the tri-oval and the only clear path is down pit road. Race back on the first, don't on the second. Unscientifically, I'd say 80% of yellows can be raced back on with no risk to anyone. Don't be introducing logic and reason here McCoy. And... you're getting awful close to the notion of using localized cautions. What? you say... Not every caution needs to be a full course caution... -- -Mike- mmarlowREMOVE (AT) windstream (DOT) net Localized Cautions? Ya mean like at Watkin's Glen for about 1or2 years? |
Also look for someone getting caught by a yellow entering pitroad
well after they have committed to pitting.
Armpit in the post 'Caution Flags' has THE answer--lite on dashboard.
CRU-who thot a caution for Ragan's brush of the wall at Poco was absurd!
& definitely believes they oughta be racin' back to the yeller, except for
Robbie Gordon who broke the Gentleman's Agreement in '03.
#25
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Nancy2" <nancy-doo... (AT) uiowa (DOT) edu> wrote in message news:5fb71edd-375f-4c17-91b1-d76728d98fda (AT) d32g2000yqh (DOT) googlegroups.com... Menard got 3, Stewart got the 1st one, Stremme the last. Apparently this is the latest controversy with Racin Writers-- should there be a limit to Lucky Dogs? Yes. Zero. I think with the safety of the COT, they could safely race back to the caution like in the old days and get rid of the lucky dog altogether. I don't think the COT is all that much safer than the old cars, but that doesn't matter - I'm going to agree with you just on the principle of racing back to the green. -- -Mike- mmarlowREM... (AT) windstream (DOT) net |
the excess stuffing in the side walls, that absorb hard hits.
N.
#26
| |||
| |||
|
|
Well, the experts say they are safer partly or mostly because of all the excess stuffing in the side walls, that absorb hard hits. |
but I don't think anyone would say that makes a major increase in
the safety of the car (it does seem to make the car much more
damage resistant on the right side when hitting the wall, so that
guys can bounce off & keep racing, but that's a different issue).
It seems to me that the major safety gain of the CoT is the bigger
window, which makes it quicker and easier for a driver to get out.
John
#27
| |||
| |||
|
|
One of the problems I have with the "experts" is that few of them are really experts. |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan
I got a new Matco tool box for my wife.
Best trade I ever made...
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.