Four Wide and Pro Board (1 Viewer)

[my friends call me Zappy]

Tim Chalet is right. How can "PRO" say they are against it because of safety.
Then say they will run it as an "all-star" or "exhibition" .

It's either unsafe, or not. Points awarded have nothing to do with safety.

(speaking of safety) Robert just drove the car TOO far. It happens, called driver error. 4-wide had nothing to do with it. A driver could make the same mistake in 2-wide.

 

[Zak]

how many times has PRO said in articles they were going to band together
and act on an issue, be it the "C", 1000', nitromethane....... and now 4-wide!?
61-2....please, humor me more
let's see the list of names.

I saw the list at the time Terry signed it - it was late Sunday - 2 pages long and at that time only 1 driver/owner said he was good with it

 

[my friends call me Zappy]

The vote was takin Fri. Why not wait till the race was over????

 

[the zone]

I posted ther easons in my first post here as to why PRo does not like the deal (those three answers would be the real reasons they don't like it, not the pc ones they gave), and like Tim said, saying safety being a concern does not wash, simply because they would agree to an non points old winston type deal. very hypocritical of pro.

Here is something that you can think about as well. The winner of the race could conseivably lose in his or her first two rounds, by being second best, but then be the quickest in the final and win the race.
A 1-2 record instead of a 4-0 record and walk away with the most points for the weekend
or you could go 0-3 for the weekend and be runner-up
How about setting the national record in the event but losing all three rounds (2nd in all three) but walking away with the same amount of points as the winner.
I think you should be 3-1 to deserve the runnerup position
THat is a much more important issue imo. (someone may have already stated that though)
Many times you see a round were the second quickest car overall in round one loses because he or she happened to face the best car of the round, and then you get two pairs who can't get down, but the guy who pedals best gets the break.
That is what racing is all about, and has been since the start of the sport. It is better to be lucky than good sometimes.


Now in one sense you could say that the 4 lane format ensures the best cars make it for the reason I stated earlier. A car might not have won an earlier round but they were very quick and did enough to get to the final.

Which format is better: personally I think you must win a round to advance, not just be one of the two best cars.
That is why four lane is best kept an exhibition. IMHO

Dean Murdoch
SPEEDZONE MAGAZINE ONLINE

 

[Toejam]

If some of the members who voted against it on Friday, but had second thoughts come Sunday. Don't you think they would speak out about it?

 

[Marchboom]

It was not spectacular in person, just louder, I can't watch 4 cars in 4 seconds, I needed some TV replays just to see what happened.

And that's the BIG problem. TV viewers (the vast majority and the folks who get to watch the commercials) have a hard time following what's going on. The solution? Endless replays. 10 replays of a run (even an eventful one) is way too much. I like Mike Dunn's commentary but can only watch a run so many times.

Never thought I would say it but this was one boring race.

 

[Rollout96]

good answer Dean....

So... they shouldn't do it at all then right? Or is money the solution?

Maybe the reason they said they would "discuss" doing it again is to have a chance to address their issues first. I agree that the reasons don't add up but I think there is a lot that has to go unsaid to keep the peace.

 

[Rollout96]

NHRA didn't bother to contact PRO prior to announcing the 4-wide format and most of the teams were against it then. It's too bad Bruton spent all that extra money (and says he's going to ruin Las Vegas also) without asking the driver/owners/teams if they would race 4-wide.

Yeah, one would hope that Bruton sees using it for many other races besides the NHRA National Events!!!

 

[my friends call me Zappy]

Now folks this is much ado over nothing. We all know that "PRO" is a paper tiger. I don't think anyone really believes that "PRO" will boycott the next 4-wide race. If anyone thinks so they are more than an APRIL FOOL.

 

[Dave]

One scenario I haven't seen addressed and I haven't found anyone to give me an answer to my question.

Lane one car gets out in front of the other three, gets to the finish line and takes out the timing block. Lane two and one, or both of the others is too close to call. Lane two doesn't get a time because the timing block is no longer there.

How is it determined who moves on to the next round? Is it just too bad for the car in lane two even though he may have crossed the finish line a fraction of a second before one of the other cars?

I have seen many races decided by less than .001 seconds and there is no way to tell who really won the race without the timing system.

 

[none]

Now folks this is much ado over nothing. We all know that "PRO" is a paper tiger. I don't think anyone really believes that "PRO" will boycott the next 4-wide race. If anyone thinks so they are more than an APRIL FOOL.

I have to admit I was thinking the same thing............

 

[twok4hd]

One scenario I haven't seen addressed and I haven't found anyone to give me an answer to my question.

Lane one car gets out in front of the other three, gets to the finish line and takes out the timing block. Lane two and one, or both of the others is too close to call. Lane two doesn't get a time because the timing block is no longer there.

How is it determined who moves on to the next round? Is it just too bad for the car in lane two even though he may have crossed the finish line a fraction of a second before one of the other cars?

I have seen many races decided by less than .001 seconds and there is no way to tell who really won the race without the timing system.

That's why I think you should have only one winner from each pair of lanes advance.

 

[my friends call me Zappy]

One scenario I haven't seen addressed and I haven't found anyone to give me an answer to my question.

Lane one car gets out in front of the other three, gets to the finish line and takes out the timing block. Lane two and one, or both of the others is too close to call. Lane two doesn't get a time because the timing block is no longer there.

How is it determined who moves on to the next round? Is it just too bad for the car in lane two even though he may have crossed the finish line a fraction of a second before one of the other cars?

I have seen many races decided by less than .001 seconds and there is no way to tell who really won the race without the timing system.

Great question Dave. under your scenario lane one is atuomaticly out for crossing the center. So that leaves it a three car race. (or round)
Now IF one of the three is clearly the LAST to the line, no problem, the other two both advance. If all three are too close to call, then I say do a re-run of those three.
If a re-run is not possible then I say let the two highest qualifyers advance.
(JMO)

 

[my friends call me Zappy]

That's why I think you should have only one winner from each pair of lanes advance.

I agree 100%. That would be the best way.

 

[Husky]

I agree 100%. That would be the best way.

Capps made the point that despite knowing what the guy next to him was doing, he had no idea what was going on in the other lanes so he'd have to stay in it, even if his lane mate went up in smoke or red lit. I still don't care for it in eliminations, but 1 winner from each pair of lanes seems to make more sense. Plus you'll get 4 rds of eliminations that way, the final being the traditional heads up race.

 

[d'kid]

Capps made the point that despite knowing what the guy next to him was doing, he had no idea what was going on in the other lanes so he'd have to stay in it, even if his lane mate went up in smoke or red lit. I still don't care for it in eliminations, but 1 winner from each pair of lanes seems to make more sense. Plus you'll get 4 rds of eliminations that way, the final being the traditional heads up race.

Nope, you'd still only have three rounds, 16, 8, 4(1,2,3.4)....

I'd like to see only 4 winners in round 1, round two the finals, and everyone could go home by 2PM.... Live TV... Big Bucks Payouts 100K to win, 50k R/U, 35K 3rd & 4th, and 15K each for the other 12... x2 nitro classes.
P/S at 75%, PSM at 50%

And NO POINTS!!!!!

d'kid

 

[Dave]

That's why I think you should have only one winner from each pair of lanes advance.

That could work if it was done correctly. In the quad with qualifiers 1, 8, 9, and 16, let #1 choose a lane and put #16 on the same pair, then #8 chooses and #9 gets the other lane in that pair and just carry it forward from there. This way everyone runs who they should run and one from each pair will move forward.

 

[Dave]

Nope, you'd still only have three rounds, 16, 8, 4(1,2,3.4)....

I'd like to see only 4 winners in round 1, round two the finals, and everyone could go home by 2PM.... Live TV... Big Bucks Payouts 100K to win, 50k R/U, 35K 3rd & 4th, and 15K each for the other 12... x2 nitro classes.
P/S at 75%, PSM at 50%

And NO POINTS!!!!!

d'kid

I like this idea...especially the no points. Make it an invitational, bring in 8 or 16 each of TF, FC, PS, PSB, PM, maybe the alcohol cars, and four jet cars. I know jet cars aren't really racing, but the crowds love them.....and they would really add to the circus atmosphere..........

 

[Husky]

Nope, you'd still only have three rounds, 16, 8, 4(1,2,3.4)....

I'd like to see only 4 winners in round 1, round two the finals, and everyone could go home by 2PM.... Live TV... Big Bucks Payouts 100K to win, 50k R/U, 35K 3rd & 4th, and 15K each for the other 12... x2 nitro classes.
P/S at 75%, PSM at 50%

And NO POINTS!!!!!

d'kid

If each pair of lanes provides a winner, we'd have 8 Winners in the 1st rd, 4 in rd 2, 2 in rd 3 and 1 in rd 4. It has to be that way if each pair of lanes has a winner.

 

[Rollout96]

Great question Dave. under your scenario lane one is atuomaticly out for crossing the center. So that leaves it a three car race. (or round)
Now IF one of the three is clearly the LAST to the line, no problem, the other two both advance. If all three are too close to call, then I say do a re-run of those three.
If a re-run is not possible then I say let the two highest qualifyers advance.
(JMO)

I hate the whole scenario but I think you have laid it out as the best possible scenario.