128 Car Field Qualifying

[Lynn A McCarty]

There are good points on either side of this issue, so in America we vote!

[Mark Yacavone]

Sorry ,Lynn .I won't vote for those choices. Class winners don't " bump " into the field.

[Lynn A McCarty]

Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone

Sorry ,Lynn .I won't vote for those choices. Class winners don't " bump " into the field.

Mark,

Use whatever term you wish, I think most people know what I meant. No malice intended.

442,

Do you own poll, see what you get.

[Bruce Noland]

Mark,

For ten years or more nhra has used the term class winners bump-in to fill the field. As you know, they like to call the shots around here. Like old Dylan said "the times ... they are a chang'n"

[Jason]

Originally Posted by Bruce Noland

Mark,

For ten years or more nhra has used the term class winners bump-in to fill the field. As you know, they like to call the shots around here. Like old Dylan said "the times ... they are a chang'n"

They have also used the term "NHRA-accepted aftermarket" when speaking of way too many parts in Stock and S/S. Thats what put us in the fix we are today. Of course a few on here that have agendas would probably want to do a poll on that subject too.

[Bill Koski]

This latest abandoning of tradition simply takes some more gloss off of a class win.
It wouldn't be surprising in the least to see the contingency money for a class win go the way Comp Eliminator qualifying money went this year.
Apparently the "change artists" won't be satisfied until they have a 128 car qualified bracket race with nary a heads up race!

[Mark Yacavone]

Originally Posted by Bruce Noland

Mark,

For ten years or more nhra has used the term class winners bump-in to fill the field. As you know, they like to call the shots around here. Like old Dylan said "the times ... they are a chang'n"

Bruce, I didn't realize that. I was looking for that section in an 05 rule book last night, and couldn't find it. Can someone point me to it?

Lynn, Of course ,I knew what you meant. But , how a question is phrased in a poll ,sometimes contributes to the outcome that the poll-er wants.
We know this from politics, right boys?

[Lynn A McCarty]

Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone

Bruce, I didn't realize that. I was looking for that section in an 05 rule book last night, and couldn't find it. Can someone point me to it?

Lynn, Of course ,I knew what you meant. But , how a question is phrased in a poll ,sometimes contributes to the outcome that the poll-er wants.
We know this from politics, right boys?

Yes Mark,

However, I have been around Indy and the US Nationals & the Indy 500 my whole life.

I think you are trying establish a meaning to a personal objection which is fine, but real stretch of the imagination and political spin on your part. I think the term is valid as we all use it and know what it means.

I absolutely hate poll spin, and I think your point is reverse spin, not spin on my part.

[442OLDS]

Originally Posted by Lynn A McCarty

There are good points on either side of this issue, so in America we vote!

This is America,
Not enough options to vote on.....

1) CLASS WINNERS only
2) ALL CLASS WINNERS and low qualifiers to make up a 64 car field
3) ALL CLASS WINNERS that WIN CLASS and run .5 under and beat an opponent (No Single)
4) Only the fastest 64
4) Only the fastest 32
5) Anybody that can run index
6) Anybody that can run one second under index
7) Anybody that can run .75 second under index
8) Anybody that can run .50 second under index
9) Maximum of 32 Chevrolets in the 128 car field
10) Allow anybody that paid $260 entry fee to race (ALL RUN)

[rtaylor3410]

I see and understand both sides of the argument. I disagree with the statement that this will create less heads up runs though. I think it will actually create the possibility for more heads up runs in eliminations as some of the single class cars might not be in the eliminator now.