What constitutes a "good race" in your eyes?

Biggreen695

Biggreen695

Team Owner
Joined
Jun 21, 2016
Messages
2,232
Points
423
We always see a wide range of ratings in the weekly "rate the race" threads. While some people may watch a race and think it couldn't have been much better, others think it was the worst race all year and the track should lose a date.

It seems some people like yellow fests, some people like long drawn out green flag runs, lots of passing, no passing, if they're driver doesn't have a good day think it was an awful race, etc.

Lets not make this a pissing match.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Easy answer - any one I'm attending.

I like plenty of passing, whether it's for the lead, back in the pack for position, or working through lap-down traffic.
If I can't get passing, side-by-side racing will do.
I like green flag pit stops. It emphasizes the pit crews' skills, and adds a bit of tension to see if everyone gets through before a caution.

I don't like wreck-fests. With the mandatory stage cautions, more then two or three additional cautions cuts into green flag racing.
Who wins or how my driver finishes doesn't factor whether I consider a race 'good'.
 
Talladega and Daytona are the only races where I will not miss a lap. I am completely
awe-stricken how they can even make one lap at those speeds and close quarters.

Use to think the big ones were neat but not anymore and that's coming from a guy
who has loved demolition derbys since I was 6.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Easy answer - any one I'm attending.

I like plenty of passing, whether it's for the lead, back in the pack for position, or working through lap-down traffic.
If I can't get passing, side-by-side racing will do.
I like green flag pit stops. It emphasizes the pit crews' skills, and adds a bit of tension to see if everyone gets through before a caution.

I don't like wreck-fests. With the mandatory stage cautions, more then two or three additional cautions cuts into green flag racing.
Who wins or how my driver finishes doesn't factor whether I consider a race 'good'.
Click to expand...
Charlie, I'm just going to copy yours and say "Ditto".
 
It has to end under green; no overtime, GWC, or any variation. That's the main thing for me. Bonus points if there is attrition, and I don't care if it's through accidents, mechanical failures, or fuel. Some attrition spices it up for me. There has to be at least one point in the last stage of the race where the eventual winner is seriously challenged by at least one, preferably more drivers. Other than that, I completely agree with Charlie Spencer. If I'm there, it's a 10.
 
I love high speeds and close racing. Why I love Daytona and Talladega. A good finish is always nice as well. Don't like the flat tracks and am not a big short track fan although can enjoy Bristol and Richmond.
 
Biggreen695 said:
We always see a wide range of ratings in the weekly "rate the race" threads. While some people may watch a race and think it couldn't have been much better, others think it was the worst race all year and the track should lose a date.

It seems some people like yellow fests, some people like long drawn out green flag runs, lots of passing, no passing, if they're driver doesn't have a good day think it was an awful race, etc.

Lets not make this a pissing match.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Truck race last weekend at Vegas, side by side, wide open, right on or sometimes a bit over the edge from trying a bit too hard.
 
@Charlie Spencer mentioned it earlier. Every race I have attended I really enjoy and all have been good that I have attended. I like speed and side by side racing that leads to repeated changing of position. I enjoy watching a driver work the car he is going to pass and set him up and then turn to the inside and go by going into a turn, Matt is very good at this, patient and methodical. The only short track I really really like is the Night Race at Bristol and it was the best live race I have ever been to, it was especially good when there was three fast grooves and a lot of side by side racing lap after lap.
 
- Tire wear
- Traffic and closing speeds.
- Rubbing (is racing)
- Two good cars and two great drivers is all it takes.
Running within inches at a place like Martinsville for a long time,.through green flag cycles.
Two cars with some tire marks on the door, nothing dirty just hard racing. No bump and run bull****.

It doesn't have to be a last lap pass, if they raced hard and somebody opens a a one second plus lead in the last few laps, it still is a great race.

Not required but the smell of racing gas, burnt rubber on a crisp autumn day is a bonus.
 
A race that doesn't have a restart televised from a car in 17th place. That was the worst thing I've ever seen.
 
I think the best answer is to research a period of racing where you think it was the best, make sure it passes the nostalgia test, and declare that. I need to do it myself to see if mine is legit.

My favorite period was possibly the late 80's into early 90's when the legends were still good and the young guns were emerging. Drafting was critical to passing on the big tracks. Lots of good tough drivers, great looking cars and challenging racing.
 
Three wide finish, one car on it's top and possibly on fire. Oh...and 100% of the parts are made in good old USA and will fit a bunch of the cars in the parking lot. <sarcasm>:partytime
 
Different leaders and contenders at the top
Late battles for high positions
Minimal crashes
Minimal aero dependency
NO restrictor plates
 
Something crazy. lol that's why we watch crazy people hop in very fast cars right?
 
Biggreen695 said:
We always see a wide range of ratings in the weekly "rate the race" threads. While some people may watch a race and think it couldn't have been much better, others think it was the worst race all year and the track should lose a date.

It seems some people like yellow fests, some people like long drawn out green flag runs, lots of passing, no passing, if they're driver doesn't have a good day think it was an awful race, etc.

Lets not make this a pissing match.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
no race is complete
without a post race
brawl
 
I know I've seen great racing when two cars are able to swap positions back and forth at least once within a full fuel run (the "passback" as Humpy Wheeler would call it). It means the racing was in the hands of the driver and their skill and not the car or setup. That rarely happens especially with the leader, maybe only once every 5 races or so, but I did see it at Dover this past week and so it was a good race in my mind. If only it could be like that every week.

Bonus points for:
Battles for the lead between two different manufacturers/teams
Crashes involving higher up teams
Reliability being a factor
Few cars wildly off the pace and laps down

I like about a 1:1 ratio of cautions to green-flag pit stops and seeing the leader have to play defense.
 
Any race that doesn’t see the cars get strung out to the point that the only passing/racing that occurs happens during restarts
 
green white wreckered with tempers flaring in post race interviews
 
Lots of passing, especially up front and a decent amount of lead changes.
 
The series has become 1st cousin of IROC. Cars are nearly identical. Engines are built off nearly same blueprint. Chassis ARE identical. Springs/shocks mandated/controlled by sanctioning body. I really don't know how to fix any of these issues. Less rules = more expense. They can't find sponsors now, so sure can't afford to spend more. It's gonna be like natural selection. At some point species die off. It's gonna be several years from now but it's coming.
 
Races where cars dont get stuck. Larson was fast at dover. However, when he fell to 5th, he went no where.

The older cars, he would have gotten back to the front if his car was that fast. Passing..sucking up to.other cars..comers and goers
 
First...get rid of the segment racing.
Then...all races have to end under green.
Go back to the bias tires (absolutely know that will never happen, but loved the speed differential and the race strategy). But the whole point was the tire wear like others have said.
Get rid of the lug nut debacle to a certain extent...fine them yes, but do not take a car out of the race because of it.
No "FIVE MINUTE CLOCK"...back markers and junk are GOOD, keep minimum speed though. More obstacles the better.

Hate pit road speeding penalties...longest line at the next caution is fine, but the pass through wrecks the race, maybe something like having to let two or three positions past during the race would be better. Miss the old days when they would fly in and out of the pits without impunity...

So...a good race, multiple contenders passing each other through out the race, multiple contenders still viable for contention to win on the last laps, race ending under green. Get rid of the backstretch line!
 
Towmater said:
A race that doesn't have a restart televised from a car in 17th place. That was the worst thing I've ever seen.
Click to expand...
That's not a problem with the race, that's a problem with the TV coverage.

And that's not what make a good race, it's what doesn't make a bad one.
 
OldTimer said:
... Hate pit road speeding penalties...longest line at the next caution is fine, but the pass through wrecks the race, maybe something like having to let two or three positions past during the race would be better. Miss the old days when they would fly in and out of the pits without impunity ... Get rid of the backstretch line!
Click to expand...
Uh, they got rid of the backstretch line several weeks ago.

I'm sure the pit crews would love to see a return to unrestricted pit road speed, with the cars running faster now than when the limits were imposed. :rolleyes:
 
Charlie Spencer said:
with the cars running faster now than when the limits were imposed
Click to expand...
Must have a different calendar than I do:

  1. Bill Elliott's 212.809 MPH lap at Talladega in 1987
  2. Bill Elliott's 210.364 MPH lap at Daytona in 1987
Surprisingly it was because of Mike Rich, Bill Elliot's crew member, that NASCAR instituted the speed on pit road.

NASCAR officials instituted pit-road speed limits after the death of crewman Mike Rich in a pit-road accident in the 1990 season finale. Beforehand, drivers barely slowed as they pulled off the track to pit lane.​

Granted that was over the top dangerous, but since 1991 NASCAR has went too far the other way. Three lane pits should allow for higher speeds in two of them and slower in the third for egress and ingress into the actual pit stall.
 
1. A contest of skill with a high degree of difficulty. The cars and the track are compatible to create a stern test of racing/driving skill. The cars are *not* the stars. The drivers are the stars. Nascar gets this, and F1 doesn't.

2. Close competition especially up front, includes some passing, some comers and goers. Passing is not easy, but is possible. (If passing is easy, then each pass is meaningless... you get an illusion of good racing, but not genuine good racing.)

3. It only takes two to make a great race *if* all the stars align, but a deep field of potential winners is a big plus. If it's the same two or three up front every week, that gets old in a hurry.

4. The outcome of the race remains in doubt until the end. If "my driver" wins or is in contention to win, that adds to my enjoyment of the race, but that doesn't make it a good race. If my driver utterly dominates, I'll enjoy the domination but admit it wasn't a great race. Same thing when my football team wins 38-0.

5. Plus factors, nice to have but not essential: an epic comeback; a really big race such as a crown jewel event or a championship-deciding race; an underdog upset winner.
 
OldTimer said:
Must have a different calendar than I do:

  1. Bill Elliott's 212.809 MPH lap at Talladega in 1987
  2. Bill Elliott's 210.364 MPH lap at Daytona in 1987
Surprisingly it was because of Mike Rich, Bill Elliot's crew member, that NASCAR instituted the speed on pit road.

NASCAR officials instituted pit-road speed limits after the death of crewman Mike Rich in a pit-road accident in the 1990 season finale. Beforehand, drivers barely slowed as they pulled off the track to pit lane.​

Granted that was over the top dangerous, but since 1991 NASCAR has went too far the other way. Three lane pits should allow for higher speeds in two of them and slower in the third for egress and ingress into the actual pit stall.
Click to expand...
You're comparing speeds at the restrictor plate tracks. Rusty Wallace turned in an unrestricted lap of 216+ at Talladega in 2004.

http://www.caranddriver.com/news/rusty-runs-unrestricted-car-news

The cars are faster today at every other track than those two you cherry-picked to make your point. With four other exceptions, all the other track qualifying records were set after 2013.

http://www.foxsports.com/nascar/video/1059298883766

As to three pit lanes, again, many tracks have only two. Even if they had three, we'll have to agree to disagree as to whether the safety is worth it. Any race where someone gets injured is a bad one, regardless of how fast they're running or how cool they look.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-10-3_18-23-26.png
    upload_2017-10-3_18-23-26.png
    298.6 KB · Views: 222
Charlie Spencer said:
The cars are faster today at every other track than those two you cherry-picked to make your point
Click to expand...

Really? Because those are the two fastest tracks. Who cares if a record speed at Martinsville is faster today than in pre 1991...the speed went from 95 MPH to 97 MPH...so what.
 
OldTimer said:
Really? Because those are the two fastest tracks. Who cares if a record speed at Martinsville is faster today than in pre 1991...the speed went from 95 MPH to 97 MPH...so what.
Click to expand...
They aren't the two fastest tracks today. Check Q speeds (the standard you used in your previous post) at Cali, Michigan, Texas, or Atlanta. They're faster than Daytona or Talladega are in 2017.

Because of the restrictor plates used at Daytona and Talladega, you can't use them to accurately compare the speeds of today's cars with those of Awesome Bill's runs. As I noted in the Rusty Wallace link, a 2004 UNRESTRICTED car ran 4 mph faster than Bill's, and that was 13 years ago. Cars haven't gotten any slower since.

As to 'so what', my point was that today's cars are faster than 30 years ago. 97 is faster than 95, so you've already agreed one track is faster. Now check the stats on the bigger tracks, like Michigan and California; I already gave you the link. Qualifying speeds are faster in the last four years on 17 of the 23 tracks. How is that NOT faster?

Either way, pit road speed limits are here to stay. If that's a requirement for a good race, you'll likely never see one again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom