Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich
On the flip side, and with all due respect Terry, under the previous system, let me get THIS straight:
Car A competes for the class win against 4-5 other cars, runs 12.50 or quicker, and runs more than .85 under, does NOT win class, however, does qualify as one of the 128 quickest cars.
Car B singles for class, runs 15.0 or slower, and barely runs 0.51 under the index, and does NOT qualify as one of the 128 quickest cars, but in fact is 168th out of 180 cars.
Car A is sent home with a DNQ  , Car B bumps into the field as a "class winner"  .
We went to Indy last year, and I hung my head in shame as we posted a DNQ with a weak engine. But there were cars that were over 2 tenths slower than us who got in, and guys in our class who were faster and got sent home. We didn't get in on time, I can accept that, and I bear the responsibility for that. But the guys who got in on time and then got bumped by cars 3 tenths slower got cheated I think. |
Whenever this argument comes up it some people like to use the slwer indexed cars as an example of the unfairness of the system.Us poor unwashed throgolites either cant afford or are unwilling to spend our retirement money to get in a pissing contest with some (not all) of the upper indexed cars.So we build the slower cars because they are maybe 1)cheaper to build and maintain 2)are less class populated 3)and fun to drive,especially when putting out some of the toterhome,stacker,filet mignon crew.Not all are but there is an element of them with more money than common sense.
I personally could care less about what NHRA does in this situation because I'll probably never attend Indy,but I think class winners shold get first preference.
Ed F,
Possibly 1.00 under in good weather
with a 30 mph tail wind.