Bill
Nitro Member
There was a lot of speculation earlier this year about the difficulty in filling up 16 qualifying slots in the T/F and F/C ranks.
Well, we HAVE "full fields," but upon closer inspection it would appear that the quality of the cars represented at the bottom half of these qualified fields isn't what it used to be.
Just to see what kind of close competition these fields might produce, I took a representative race (the one in progress now at St. Louis) and compared the elapsed time difference between the #1 and the #16 qualifier in T/F and F/C.
Here's what I learned:
St. Louis e.t. differential between #1 and #16, in 2006 and 2009.
T/F in 2006: .248, slowest to quickest.
T/F in 2009: .578, slowest to quickest
F/C in 2006: .207, slowest to quickest
F/C in 2009: .629, slowest to quickest
It would seem that there are a lot of "filler" cars that are not really competitive... they're only there to ensure a "full field."
I am aware that this is "old news," and not anything that most folks are unaware of; it was just interesting to see the numbers, I thought.
Well, we HAVE "full fields," but upon closer inspection it would appear that the quality of the cars represented at the bottom half of these qualified fields isn't what it used to be.
Just to see what kind of close competition these fields might produce, I took a representative race (the one in progress now at St. Louis) and compared the elapsed time difference between the #1 and the #16 qualifier in T/F and F/C.
Here's what I learned:
St. Louis e.t. differential between #1 and #16, in 2006 and 2009.
T/F in 2006: .248, slowest to quickest.
T/F in 2009: .578, slowest to quickest
F/C in 2006: .207, slowest to quickest
F/C in 2009: .629, slowest to quickest
It would seem that there are a lot of "filler" cars that are not really competitive... they're only there to ensure a "full field."
I am aware that this is "old news," and not anything that most folks are unaware of; it was just interesting to see the numbers, I thought.
Last edited: