There was some great racing up front. I haven't ever seen that many
cars running so close for such a long time in RASCAR. There were as
many as five to eight cars in contention for the lead at any given
moment.
I think 5 cautions for 16 laps (out of a possible 80) is pretty close
to what I would call acceptable. It could stand improvement, but
much better than the last few races.
RASCAR Michigan race recap and incident dispute
John Simmons praised close racing at the front of the RASCAR Michigan race, with five cautions he deemed acceptable. Drivers discussed fuel strategy and the upcoming Bristol race with its pace-car quirk. When a driver complained about being hit, Simmons checked the replay and judged the driver had slowed and turned down in front of Neil Charlton.
online racing/leaguesNASCAR Racing 2003 Season
Automated summary.
"John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Those of us that didn't pit during the last caution with about 45 to go sure
could have used one more besides with 2 to go.
Kyle
Quoted text (9 lines)
> There was some great racing up front. I haven't ever seen that many > cars running so close for such a long time in RASCAR. There were as > many as five to eight cars in contention for the lead at any given > moment. > > I think 5 cautions for 16 laps (out of a possible 80) is pretty close > to what I would call acceptable. It could stand improvement, but > much better than the last few races. >In article <URB%a.4330$[email hidden]>, res1dja7
@REMOVEverizon.net says...
Yup, I was one of those that could have used either 10 more laps or
another caution.
Quoted text (15 lines)
> > "John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > There was some great racing up front. I haven't ever seen that many > > cars running so close for such a long time in RASCAR. There were as > > many as five to eight cars in contention for the lead at any given > > moment. > > > > I think 5 cautions for 16 laps (out of a possible 80) is pretty close > > to what I would call acceptable. It could stand improvement, but > > much better than the last few races. > > > > Those of us that didn't pit during the last caution with about 45 to go sure > could have used one more besides with 2 to go.On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 02:35:32 GMT, "Kyle Roberts"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
Well, I hated too see the caution come out with 1 to go, I wanted one
more stab at Ginger but probably wouldn't have changed the out come,
except Jan probably would have finally made it around me. There was
some really good racing today. Michigan is a fun track, because you
can actually pass or hold someone off on the outside and we had some
pretty good side-by-side battles today.
BTW, did I miss something? Has it been decided the previous weeks
winner must start in the back?
Brian Oster
Quoted text (16 lines)
> >"John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> There was some great racing up front. I haven't ever seen that many >> cars running so close for such a long time in RASCAR. There were as >> many as five to eight cars in contention for the lead at any given >> moment. >> >> I think 5 cautions for 16 laps (out of a possible 80) is pretty close >> to what I would call acceptable. It could stand improvement, but >> much better than the last few races. >> > >Those of us that didn't pit during the last caution with about 45 to go sure >could have used one more besides with 2 to go. >whats the chances of Bristol being acceptable. As we say here in
Australia.... Two chances...Buckley's and none.
:-) Which is our way of saying, a snowballs chance..
While you guys up front were battling away, we were having some good fun
down the back. Especially with the faster lapped cars towards the end.
Steve
"John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (10 lines)
> There was some great racing up front. I haven't ever seen that many > cars running so close for such a long time in RASCAR. There were as > many as five to eight cars in contention for the lead at any given > moment. > > I think 5 cautions for 16 laps (out of a possible 80) is pretty close > to what I would call acceptable. It could stand improvement, but > much better than the last few races. > >
"Steve Whitty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:3f3f1924$0$14561$[email hidden]...
Who or what is Buckley and why doesn't it have a chance?
Just curious.
Kyle
Quoted text (8 lines)
> whats the chances of Bristol being acceptable. As we say here in > Australia.... Two chances...Buckley's and none. > :-) Which is our way of saying, a snowballs chance.. > > While you guys up front were battling away, we were having some good fun > down the back. Especially with the faster lapped cars towards the end. > > Steveok. good question Kyle. Most Aussies don't even know the origin
of"Buckley's and none" so here goes. got the following from a web page.
In 1802, after 14 years of progress with its colony in New South Wales
(Sydney, Parramatta, Toongabbie, Windsor, Newcastle), the British Government
had resolved to set up a new penal settlement in Bass Strait at Port Phillip
Bay (the current site of Melbourne), and Lt-Col. David Collins was placed in
charge.
Among the 300 convicts was William Buckley (1780-1856), who had been
transported for receiving a bolt of cloth knowing it to be stolen. On
Christmas Day, 1803, he and two others escaped. Soon they were starving and
Buckley's companions decided to return to the settlement, but were never
heard of again.
A month later, Collins, having already concluded that the site was
unsuitable, departed with his prisoners to establish a settlement (now
Hobart) in Van Dieman's Land.
Buckley, in the meantime, had managed to survive by living off the land, and
was soon made welcome by the Wathaurong-speaking Koories, whose country is
around present-day Geelong.
Perhaps because of his pale skin colour and his height (he was nearly two
metres tall), they regarded him as a reincarnated man of authority, a
position that afforded him rights and also responsibilities. In the 32 years
he spent with these people, he was taught their language and acquired an
intimate, detailed knowledge of their ritual and customs. The tribe also
gave him a wife.
In July 1835 Buckley surrendered to a survey party led by J. H. Wedge, in
order to prevent some Aborigines from robbing a visiting ship and murdering
the crew. By now Buckley had almost forgotten how to speak English and could
only be identified by his initials tattooed on his arm.
Wedge thought Buckley would make a useful interpreter between the local
Aborigines and Europeans, and managed to obtain a pardon for him.
As an interpreter, Buckley was no great success, but in the years to come he
would grow to be famous as a guide for white settlers who wished to see the
wonderful scenery along the Barwon River, particularly the Falls that now
bear his name. Buckley's account of his time among the Wathaurong was
published in 1852, and is an important source of information about the
Aboriginal people in the region south-west of Melbourne.
In this way was the legend of Australia's first wild white man born - a man
whose chance of survival in the bush had indeed been "forlorn" and "slim",
but who beat the odds dramatically, and maybe even gave his name, not only
to a waterfall, but more significantly for Australian sceptics and word
lovers alike to the very idea of having all probabilities stacked against
one.
hows that? about as clear as mud?:o)
Steve
"Kyle Roberts" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:oMF%a.6834$[email hidden]...
begin 666 Spacer.gif
K1TE&.#EA`0`!`( !`````/___R'Y! $```$`+ `````!``$`0 ("3 $`.P``
`
end
Quoted text (19 lines)
> > "Steve Whitty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3f3f1924$0$14561$[email hidden]... > > whats the chances of Bristol being acceptable. As we say here in > > Australia.... Two chances...Buckley's and none. > > :-) Which is our way of saying, a snowballs chance.. > > > > While you guys up front were battling away, we were having some good fun > > down the back. Especially with the faster lapped cars towards the end. > > > > Steve > > Who or what is Buckley and why doesn't it have a chance? > > Just curious. > > Kyle > >oops.sorry about the post with the attachment guys. just cut and pasted
from a web page and it brought some spacer gif. sorry
Steve
In article <[email hidden]>,
bgoster@swbell**nosmap**.net says...
> BTW, did I miss something? Has it been decided the previous weeks
> winner must start in the back?
It was just something we were trying. Ginger has to start in the
back next week at Bristol. :)
In article <3f3f1924$0$14561$[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...
> whats the chances of Bristol being acceptable. As we say here in
> Australia.... Two chances...Buckley's and none.
> :-) Which is our way of saying, a snowballs chance..
>
I was hoping the patch would have come out long before we got back to
Bristol. Pitting is dicey because it's easy to pass the pace car as
you're moving down pit road, and the patch is supposed to address the
problem. It's up to everyone to be aware of this quirk of the track
because we won't be removing "bogus" black flags.
"John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
If the patch isn't out, John, just make sure you as admin add the !yellow
command at the 'one to go' call, that way you don't get black flags....
Quoted text (13 lines)
> In article <3f3f1924$0$14561$[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] says... > > whats the chances of Bristol being acceptable. As we say here in > > Australia.... Two chances...Buckley's and none. > > :-) Which is our way of saying, a snowballs chance.. > > > > I was hoping the patch would have come out long before we got back to > Bristol. Pitting is dicey because it's easy to pass the pace car as > you're moving down pit road, and the patch is supposed to address the > problem. It's up to everyone to be aware of this quirk of the track > because we won't be removing "bogus" black flags. >
"John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Another FFRL invention :-))))))
Quoted text (7 lines)
> In article <[email hidden]>, > bgoster@swbell**nosmap**.net says... > > BTW, did I miss something? Has it been decided the previous weeks > > winner must start in the back? > > It was just something we were trying. Ginger has to start in the > back next week at Bristol. :)In article <aeL%a.4247$[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...
I was doing it in IGPS2 in 1998. :)
Does that pre-date FFRL's "invention"? :)
Quoted text (15 lines)
> > "John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > In article <[email hidden]>, > > bgoster@swbell**nosmap**.net says... > > > BTW, did I miss something? Has it been decided the previous weeks > > > winner must start in the back? > > > > It was just something we were trying. Ginger has to start in the > > back next week at Bristol. :) > > Another FFRL invention :-)))))) > > >
"> > > There was some great racing up front. I haven't ever seen that many
> > > cars running so close for such a long time in RASCAR. There were as
> > > many as five to eight cars in contention for the lead at any given
> > > moment.
Was fun running at or near the head after qualifying 3rd. Would have liked
to have been up there at the end as well. Who the hell ran into me in T1 as
though I was not even there? Driving for 50 laps at speeds 30-40 mph down on
the whole field was a waste of time and I really don't know why I bothered.
Go for a move if you will but drive round a car, NOT THROUGH IT!!
MS
In article <bho5ea$jf7$[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...
If you don't have a replay, or haven't downloaded the server replay,
you shouldn't be complaining. What lap? Who was involved? Don't ask
who it was, because that's just shy of being pointless.
Quoted text (13 lines)
> > "> > > There was some great racing up front. I haven't ever seen that many > > > > cars running so close for such a long time in RASCAR. There were as > > > > many as five to eight cars in contention for the lead at any given > > > > moment. > > Was fun running at or near the head after qualifying 3rd. Would have liked > to have been up there at the end as well. Who the hell ran into me in T1 as > though I was not even there? Driving for 50 laps at speeds 30-40 mph down on > the whole field was a waste of time and I really don't know why I bothered. > > Go for a move if you will but drive round a car, NOT THROUGH IT!! >
>
> If you don't have a replay, or haven't downloaded the server replay,
> you shouldn't be complaining. What lap? Who was involved? Don't ask
> who it was, because that's just shy of being pointless.
Sorry John. I find this hard to take from one of the most vocal venters in
the whole place.
MS
In article <bhog67$b5v$[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...
The difference is that when I vent, I have specific info.
Quoted text (8 lines)
> > > > > If you don't have a replay, or haven't downloaded the server replay, > > you shouldn't be complaining. What lap? Who was involved? Don't ask > > who it was, because that's just shy of being pointless. > > Sorry John. I find this hard to take from one of the most vocal venters in > the whole place.In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...
And, it was Neil (#96) on lap 29.
However, it looks like a miscue on your part because:
1) You went high going into the turn had slowed to 10mph slower than
everyone around you.
2) Neil was coming up behind you and you turned down in front of him
(still slowing, and still 10mph slower than everyone around you)
3) Neil had no place to go because he had already started his turn-
in.
IMHO, you were at fault for not staying high even thouygh you knew
you were severely slower than everyone around you at that point in
the turn.
BTW, on the prior lap, you drifted high coming out of turn 2 and
pushed the 27 car into the wall.
I think:
1) You're driving a bit too aggressively
2) You have to learn to back off to maintain control of your car
3) You need to not assume that someone's going to be able to keep
from hitting you and that you are equally responsible for avoiding
contact.
When someone looks like they might be able to get their nose under
me, I stay high even if my spotter hasn't said anything.
You're fast - all you gotta learn is how to drive smart.
Quoted text (13 lines)
> In article <bhog67$b5v$[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] says... > > > > > > > > If you don't have a replay, or haven't downloaded the server replay, > > > you shouldn't be complaining. What lap? Who was involved? Don't ask > > > who it was, because that's just shy of being pointless. > > > > Sorry John. I find this hard to take from one of the most vocal venters in > > the whole place. > > The difference is that when I vent, I have specific info. >Quoted text (10 lines)
> "John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > There was some great racing up front. I haven't ever seen that many > > cars running so close for such a long time in RASCAR. There were as > > many as five to eight cars in contention for the lead at any given > > moment. > > > > I think 5 cautions for 16 laps (out of a possible 80) is pretty close > > to what I would call acceptable. It could stand improvement, but > > much better than the last few races.My apologies to Sean for punting him on the last restart. Ya slowed a bit
after the start, and I wasn't able to react in time :)
-Larry
"John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
