Rick Hendrick's teams have won seven of this year's 10 races and all four of the "car of tomorrow" races. Chevrolets have won nine of 10 races. And a bunch of drivers are finding it difficult to even make races.
Should NASCAR "do" something?
Where you stand on that likely depends on who you pull for. Hendrick fans, for instance, think Jimmie Johnson, Jeff Gordon and Kyle Busch have won races and are all in the top six in points because they have good teams. Hendrick haters are convinced NASCAR is somehow stacking the deck.
Ford and Dodge fans have good reason to be unhappy about how things have gone this season. Nobody enjoys getting whipped. It's easier to believe that's happening because something fishy is going on than it is to say, "Hey, our guys need to suck it up and get better."
The folks on the down side of this debate can certainly point to places in the NASCAR timeline when, if things were this out of whack in terms of results, the sanctioning body would have stepped in to alter the rules to move things back toward a balance.
But that's not what has happened in the past few years. Even before the COT was introduced, the cars are so much more alike than they've ever been NASCAR is limited on what it can do. The new cars, regardless of make, are all measured under the exact same massive template set that looks like "Skeletor." How does NASCAR change that to benefit one make or take the advantage away from one that has it?
Let's say NASCAR could take 10 percent of something away from the Hendrick cars. Well, wouldn't that also take 10 percent from Joe Gibbs Racing and Richard Childress Racing? How would that make a difference on the track?
It is true, on the other hand, that it seems to be Toyota and Ford teams that find themselves struggling most just to make races. But when Johnny Benson qualifies to run a Toyota at Richmond for a team that doesn't run full-time in the Cup Series, how do you make the point that Michael Waltrip and Dale Jarrett and Jeremy Mayfield need help? Brian Vickers missed Richmond, too, but A.J. Allmendinger qualified 13th in cars built by the same team. How do you figure that?
Back when NASCAR did change the rules, it seemed, every six weeks or so, fans clamored against that. Set the rules before the season and live with then, many fans said. Usually, they were fans of the team or make that was winning.
Now that NASCAR is doing precisely that, it's not working for some fans, either.
What should NASCAR do? In my opinion, nothing.
If you're getting beaten, whether it's in qualifying or on race day, there is really only one thing you can do about. Go faster. Race better. Beat somebody.
The more teams that do that, the better off they -- and the sport -- will be.
Monday, May 07, 2007
Tinkering with rules a tricky business now
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
127 comments:
Right on David, imagine changing the rules "back in the day" when Richard Petty was so dominant. The fact of the matter is, successful teams work together, share information, and communicate on and off the track. Perhaps the Toyota teams should take this one step further and share information with OTHER Toyota teams. Hendrick, Gibbs, and Childress have proven that no single team is an island. Another important aspect that these teams share is loyalty. You don't see wholesale changes or firings when things aren't going particularly well.
You and Nascar (did I really say Nascar?) are right on this one. It is time for all the whinning to stop and JUST DO IT. We all went to school with one particular kid who always seems to kick our butts come test day, and you didnt see the teacher giving them harder tests than the rest of us.
Hope you enjoyed your weekend at the course. I'm sure the change in atmosphere and decible levels were welcomed. Lynn Dozier, Slidell, LA
I agree too. There are enough competition flags on the track, we don't need one at the shops either. It was inevitable that a few teams would perfect the CoT much sooner than the rest of the field. I'm curious if people would be complaining as much if it was Gibbs or RCR that was winning all the races.
Why penalize a team for doing their homework? Remember the teams 'whining' about the COT during the development stages? The Ford teams refused to R&D the COT using the 'too expensive' excuse, and now they are paying for it.
Remember when Roush had 4 teams in the chase in the same year? I think Mr Hendrick did, and has spent a few years doing something about it.
I could not agree with you more. Why should HMS be penalized becasuse they have done the work back at the shop to be winning all of these races and poles? The answer is they shouldn't be. Every team has the opportunity to put in the work that HMS has, if they had or would start who knows maybe they would enjoy as much success.
It's funny I don't remember too many people complaining a few years back when Jack Roush from the Ford camp had all five of his drivers in the Chase for the Nextel Cup. No one was begging for rules changes and considerations then. This season is no different, it is just a different team experiencing the dominating success.
Shut up and go to work!
Actually, anonymous, I remember NASCAR springing into action when Roush had five teams in the Chase, instituting the limited number of cars per team rule. They actually said it wasn't directed at jack Roush, even though he was the only team affected.
I'm with Dave, but I was also of the same opinion back when Roush was dominating. The case could be made that NASCAR will cut down Ford when they dominate, but not Chevy.
Couldn't agree with you more on this one, David. Hard work should be rewarded, not punished. These aren't the days when there are aerodynamic advantages. These almost seem like IROC cars that the teams build themselves.
I agree...do nothing. When Michael Jordan was dominating in the NBA did they NBA tell him he had to sit out a quarter to let the other team catch up? Or tie one hand behind his back to make it more fair?
Yes, NASCAR should do something, because the sport's competitive package has been poor for many years now. That Hendrick is all but monopolizing the sport now isn't just because of faulty approaches by Ford and Dodge, though these certainly play a role. But blaming the sport's competitive imbalance on bad decisions by the other brands doesn't cut it, because those other brands and other teams aren't that inferior (if at all) to Hendrick in talent.
When you consider how biased the rules package has been toward Chevrolet in general - and for decades; name the last major rules package that wasn't biased toward Chevrolet - and more recently toward the biggest multicar teams in particular, then the sport's competitive imbalance becomes worse.
"The cars are so much more alike than they've ever been that NASCAR is limited on what it can do." That's nonsense - it can give Dodge and Ford extra airdam and spoiler; it can let those other brands test more. Aero-matching/common templates has been a costly failure, with only ten teams (one, PPI, now disbanded) winning races in the four-plus seasons the sport has had this package - contrast this with the 26 winners among 14 teams the sport had in the two seasons before common templates.
"How would that make a difference on the track?" The same way rule changes generally do - they tighten the competition to where the teams and drivers can race each other harder and more competitively.
"If Johnny Benson makes the race, how can you make the point that Michael Waltrip, Dale Jarrett, and Jeremy Mayfield need help?" Simple - Johnny Benson's qualifying run isn't particularly relevent; what is relevent is the depth involved. If so few Toyotas are making races, part of it is organizational problems in the Toyota effort, but also part of it is a fundamentally bad NASCAR rules package.
"What should NASCAR do?" Numerous things, a few of which are presented below -
** Scrap the COT - it is an unqualified failure.
** Let the teams struggling right now test above the seven-test-per-team limit.
** Give the non-Chevrolets more downforce and less drag than they presently have.
** Expand the starting field to 50 cars (and don't give me this crap about "the tracks can't handle it," because that argument is bunk).
You can't depend on exhorting teams to "Work harder, go faster!" anymore when the rules package impedes so many teams' ability to do just that.
All You NASCAR overs know that if Ford or Dodge was dominating to even half the point that chevy is now, rule changes would come. NASCAR can not have their faces they stuff up on every ad or commercial not winning (chevies "love" children got more exposure even after kenseth's and busch's cups). Sooner you'all wake up and realize this is series is purely for entertainment at this point, the better off you'll be. No will ever convince me (and many many others) otherwise with the officiating body also running the "league".
The domination we are seeing is a multi-faceted equation that is tempered by the COT, as it has now been in 4 of the 10 races. Of those 4 races, Hendrick Motorsports is showing it’s edge in staff talent & determination. Available funding can’t hurt either, but once NASCAR goes to the COT permanently, funding should be a bit less of an issue, and ingenuity will become prevalent.
The COT is anything but a failure. It’s a work in progress designed to temper the costs of racing, and raise the safety level for the drivers. It is a platform that is now distinguishing drivers from drivers and teams from teams.
The COT is the same shape for no matter what manufacturer, and it eliminates the competitive ‘body shape edge’ arguments altogether now and if everyone tests out at the engine h.p. tests, then the only advantage any team has is expertise and skill.
It’s as simple as that, and any other argument seems moot. To me, the COT will bring the true wheelmen to the front.
I may not like the shape or look of the COT, but once they are all packed into a race, it’s all the same at that point. Driver and machine against the competition.
NASCAR ain't NASCAR anymore....
It's just "showtime" and big money!
Like watching the "bumper cars" at an amusement park in the 1950's.
The only difference was the color.
Old Dirt-Tracker Williams Grove PA
brusimm is correct.
even the drivers interviewed agreed that the COT is more of an equalizing force. I am not for giving ford, dodge, toyota a different template because their engines cant hack it.
And I bet that that Ford, Dodge, Toyota dont want to see the commercial that Checvy puts out that Nascar started grading on a curve to support the competition, um, lesser competition.
The fact that Matt Kenseth and Kurt Busch are competitive every week is proof that the other manufacturers are up to snuff.
hendrick's rise is due to its policy of team sharing.
chevy leads because of the number of teams involved with Chevy.
How can you say "If you're getting beaten, whether it's in qualifying or on race day, there is really only one thing you can do about. Go faster. Race better. Beat somebody." but still support the top-35 rule?
Mr. Poole, Whatever gave you that silly idea, of changing rules, so the other cars that may not be as competitive, can "close the gap"?
If you are looking at NASCAR for changing rules, look no further....when the Lumina was introduced and GM had to beg, borrow and steal for rules changes so they "would" have a car that carried the "bowtie" symbol.
Those "real" fans, who have been around NASCAR long enough to remember that, know, that was when NASCAR re-wrote their rule book entirely, to "accomodate" the Lumina, so Chevy would have something to run. It's been going on ever since. Where was the Monte Carlo...no, the Impala, no the Monte....no the Imp, then?.....you get my drift.
If you have been around NASCAR, like I have, you know what sits in the NASCAR Daytona Beach parking Lot Headquarters.
Now, tell me again.....where do we stand when it comes to Chevy, Dodge and Ford (toyota excluded/ too new in the sport) "new" head design and "new" block design approvals for the rule book the past 10, 15 or 20 years? I thought so.....Chevy "ALWAYS" gets their new toys approved and Dodge and Ford are left out in the cold.
Mr. Poole, try finding the "real truth" of just "why" that is? Your report or blog should be quite interesting, to those race fans, that only want to see what they want to.
I wonder what NASCAR will do when the 2007 Nextel Cup is a blowout before race 18? So much for the chase. TV ratings are way down because of NASCAR over-hype. 2-3 hours plus of pre-race hype before each race. Ridiculous!
To the poster who stated that chevy has somehow had an easier time getting parts apporoved by nascar they should remenber that the new chevy engine apporved this year is the first new engine for chevy since 1996. New designs where turned down by nascar in 1996 and 2003. Dodge was given approval for its new nose this year and still cant improve finishes. There are many examples of nascar being fair to all brand and chevy does not have an easier time getting parts approved.
Chevy has had three new designs approved since 1990. Whatever they were running before the SB2, the SB2 and now this SB7 engine....hmmmmm......anyone know where SB3-6 are? I count at least two block designs and three head designs since 1990. Oh....by the way...according to Page 45, Sec. 20 Para. 5.6 and Page 43, Sec. 20 Para. 5.4 & 5.5. of the current NASCAR rule book.
Ford has only had one new head approved since 9/9/91 according to Page 45. Sec. 20. Para. 5.6. and No, None, Natta, ZERO new blocks approved since way, way back when. Over twenty years plus!! (All of these rule books in front of me do not lie.) Not to mention how many design changes were submitted to NASCAR by Yates, Roush and before them, Ernie Elliott and all but ONE was TURNED DOWN!!! Which is the current head that Roush/Yates submitted and Ford is using now. It was approved for use in 2004. That replaced their old head design, that Yates submitted and all other teams used and was approved on 9/9/91, according to my rule books from 1992 thru 2003.
NASCAR Loves it this way...They Love Rick to death and they always kiss his behind.
Its not called NASCAR anymore its called Hendrick's Racing.
The new chevy engine is called the RO7 not sb7. The 07 comes from the engine being introduced in 2007. There were no such egines named sb3-06 but there were the R99 introduced in 1999 that was not approved and the RO3 introduced in 2003 that was also not apporved. The biggest issue with the conspiracy's surrounding nascars handling of the rules is that if ford is treated so badly and then why dont they say something, why would one of the worlds biggest automakers allow itself to be mistreated by a sanctioning body when it could publicly denounce it and move onto a different series. If it was so unfair they could have left a long time ago along with evreryone else who isnt treated equally by nascar. Ive never heard any team or manufacture say nascar wants hendrick to win and that the races are staged to their advantage. It is also hard for me to believe the races are in any way fixed due to the number of people involved in the races. If it was true nascar fixed races someone who worked for a team or nascar would speak up because it would be a HUGE story that if that person could prove he or she could profit imensly from and get all the attention they wished. Just because nascar doesnt approve parts does not lead to the conclusion they are biased.
NO MORE SO THAN TRICKY HENDRICK MONEY, A SPORT HAS RULES IN PLACE MAKE THE RULES KEEP THEM IN PLACE OR NASCAR WILL ALWAYS BE ENTERTAINMENT NOT A SPORT
I think that they study the design and know how to take it easy. Thats why they are so good. remember last year they had lots of brake and engine probs
uIt's not about Hendicks. It's about Chevy, chevy drivers, Chevy commercials, Chevy trinkets. And money, lots of money. The reason there are so many Chevy teams as compared to Ford, is that owners and drivers are not fools. They're going on the track with whatever has the advantage, so they have a better chance of winning. You know, it's not been that long ago that Ford had 20 or more teams on the track, and they were winning. But unlike now, then Nascar gave Chevy several rules changes, even to the point of letting them try a rules change on track to see if it worked before giving it to them. Nascar has been working for decades to have an all Chevy show, and I think they've got it nailed down now. But never let it be said that Chevy has done it own their own. there are too many people alive who remeber all the Nascar gifts to Chevy over the years for that to be preached as gospel. If Nascar is going to let things continue as they are, let them stop this crap of saying that the playing field is level. Nothing could be further from the truth. I could stomach it better if they'd just come out and say that they favor Chevy because that's where the most fans and the most money is. There is not a soul alive that follows racing that don't know that if the current situation were reversed "Ford 9 wins--Chevy 1 win" that Nascar wouldn't have already been spewing rules changes for Chevy like a shook-up can of coke. And it's an insult to the other teams for Nascar to say that Chevy has better drivers, teams, pit crews, etc., like they've recently said. What Ford has always heard from Nascar is "y'all just need to work harder". Why haven't they ever told Chevy teams that? Personally, I hope they don't do anything and Chevy wins 28 or 30 races, just to prove once and for all to the Chevy faithful how how unfair, biased, and money hungry Nascar really is. Of course, I know the Chevy fans will be crowing like usual about how great Chevy is. If Nascar didn't favor Chevy, they wouldn't win 5 races per year. What a crock Nascar is!
To add to the posts pointing out the manifest rules bias toward Cehvrolet, consider the mid-2002 reduction in cylinder width by NASCAR, a change aimed at Dodge.
brusimm is wrong about the COT - it has accomplished none of the goals laid out in its favor. Far from tempering costs, it has increased them, shown in Roush's admission to falling well behind Hendrick in computer engineering for the COT. It is not distinguishing anyone from anyone; instead it has made the aeropush worse and worse and pushed the other teams farther behind Hendrick.
The body shape edge argument, far from being eliminated, has been exacerbated because the rules package has biased toward Chevrolet. In the two years beofre common templates, there were 26 winners among 14 teams; from the start of common templates onward there have only been ten winning teams, one of which (PPI) is now disbanded.
No objective analysis can call the COT a success.
NASCAR has to do something, and now.
monkeesfan.......you need to take off your blinders dude.
Either that or you are a mushroom....you know the rest.
tks,
Gotta ask the question: Are they really that good, or is there a reason they're really that good? And I'm talking about Chad Knaus. He's been found guilty before for infractions. Is he guilty now? And how about the rest of the organization. Least we forget, Rick Hendrick himself was pardoned by then President (suck me) Clinton for felony charges. If those guys owned a repair car shop, I'd take my business elsewhere.
Nascar hates Ford. Bill France himself said back in the late 60's that he hated Ford. And it certainly hasn't changed one iota since then. A perfect example of Nascar's hatred for Ford, and favoritism of Chevy, is the first year that Ford ran the Taurus, 1997 I believe. Chevy won the first 4 or 5 races, and after each race, won by a Chevy, all the Chevy owners gathered up at the Nascar trailer, whining and crying. Why? Because there were too many Fords in the top 10 at the finish of the race! Can anybody believe it? What did Nascar do? They chopped an inch or two off the sides of the Ford spoiler. When there were still too many Fords in the top 10 at the next race, they chopped some off the top of Ford's spoiler. Ford finally won one after the 4th or 5th race, and they chopped some more. eventually, although Ford won several more races, Chevy still won the drivers championship and the Manufacturers trophy for most wins that season. Nascar has even changed the rules for Chevy for a particular race track just because Ford won there in the spring race. In the late 90's, Dale Jarrett beat Dale Earnhardt by 7 or 8 seconds in the World 600 at Charlotte in the spring. When they came back to that track in the fall, Nascar made Ford lay their spoilers back at a greater angle to lessen their rear downforce. It produced the desired results, a Chevy win. Nascar is a farce, unequaled in this world, even by wrestling. There are numerous other examples of their favoritism, too many too mention. Why don't some of the sports reporters expose Nascar for what they really are? A money hungry, mafia like operation with no regard for fairness in competition.
Tim Robinson, I never wear blinders. The COT is junk - that is the objective truth of the matter. If you don't want to believe it, then cite to me one fact that argues in its favor. ONE FACT. No one else - not NASCAR, not the Race-Stream Media, no one - has been able to cite one fact in support of the COT, so what about it, Tim?
Boo hoo. For as "rough and tough" as all you Hendrick haters try to act, I think it's hillarious how you're all a bunch of cry babies. Tissue, anyone? NASCAR is not "stacking the deck" as David Poole wrote, Mr. Hendrick is stock-piling talent. Period. Especially all you LITTLE E fans, what do really expect? Junior has never been that good anywhere but the plate races. At the End of the day, it's gonna be Gordon, Johnson, Stewart and Kenseth. Deal with it.
Monkeesfan...you are gonna have to do better than "give me one fact", that's elementary schoolyard logic. I agree with some of your points, but you seem arrogant when you dismiss others views, and then your points are lost...
Here's a tidbit for all of you: If you honestly believe Nascar is crooked, favors makes, and "hates" some drivers and/or manufacturers...stop watching. Why anyone would want to watch a sport that they believe to be "rigged", is beyond my logic...Move on to another sport! I stay perturbed at Nascar for various things, but it is their sport to run. The minute I believe they "favor" and "fix", the sport part of the issue is dead, and I will not watch.
COT races have been interesting and pretty exciting...is that a fact worthy of your attention, Monkee?
Being a follower of NASCAR since the 50s has really made my take pause of what has been going on in the sport in the last 6,7 years.
Common templates,CoT,gear rules,aero rules,tire rules,unleaded fuel,one engine rule,on and on.
The first question is why? Second question,who benefits?It all seems to have worked to the end result of making all the cars the same,taking away the greatest feature of NASCAR racing,creating the fastest engine,the slickest body,the best balanced car. Building a car with the optimum amount of downforce. In other words let NASCAR build the car,take all those innovations and ideas out of the hands of the manufacturers and teams.
No more whining from any of the manufacturers and/or teams. There it is,live with it!
I chuckle when I think about the Elliott clan coming out of the hills of North Georgia and embarracing the bajesus out of the GM teams on the superspeedway in 1985 and the harassment they went through at the hands of NASCAR for all that success.Ol' France didn't like the Elliotts "stinkin'up the show".But nothing was said about JG doing it over a decade later.Difference,JG was driving a GM car,Elliott wasn't!
The next year Buick and Olds were permitted to use,for the first time in NASCAR history,a front wheel drive body on a GN chassis.Chevy and Pontiac also got a gift also,the "bubble back' rear glass.One of many "gifts" given to GM in the next 20 years after that 1986 "break through".
The SB2 was run,for the first, in 1998 as was the Taurus body.
Fords cylinder heads approved for 1992 weren't changed until 2004.
After all the changes and "gifts" NASCAR has finally got it right,Chevys is dominating and there appears to be no end in sight that it will change anytime soon.
Iknow,I know,it's better driver and better teams.More Chevys in the field,blah,blah,blah. Also those other three lazy brands don't work hard enough.:)
NASCAR gifts to GM/Chevy through the years. 1. Allowing the Lumina to race even though it was a "front wheel" drive car and "No" V-8 engine was available in it from the factory. NASCAR re-writes the record book so the bowtie would have something to race after the success of the Monte Carlo. 2. Allowing the Chevy and the Pontiac the bubble back rear glass and it's fastback design to help with aerodynamics to stay competitive with the T-bird. 3. Allowing Chevy to have a new engine design; SB2 after their original small block entry into NASCAR in the early 70's. Note:(Ford was still running their original small block entry until the C3 entry was approved on 9/9/91. Remember...Ernie Elliott's head design was "NOT" shared with other Ford teams and NASCAR had not re-written their rule book to clarify head limitations until the late 80's or somewhere around 1991. Remember Dale Earnhardt and Darrell Waltrip whing about getting their butts beat? On 9/9/91 NASCAR gave approval for a new head design that all Ford teams had to run....a modified version of the Ernie Elliott head that Yates modified and was approved. This was the standard Ford racing head for Cup, until the new Roush/Yates design approved in 2004). 4. Chevy gets approval for a new engine and head design dubbed the R07. NASCAR approves it. How many is it that? the orignal SB chevy engine from the early 70's, the SB2 engine and now the R07 engine. That is three compared to the original small block Ford engine and just two new head designs since the early 70's! 5. GMroid's string pulling now, trying to get NASCAR to go to ethanol????? Why. NASCAR just switched to unleaded fuel. 6. NASCAR's blatant attempt to call the Elliotts cheating back in the 80's...BUT NEVER FOUND ANYTHING! Frances ultimate hate for Ford and the Elliott's because they found a way to beat the Chevies before the rules were changed. 7. Go to NASCAR headquarters and you will see the bigwigs drive GM vehicles. My daughter worked their several years and GM gives NASCAR "big discounts" on new cars to buy GM. Other mfgs. have tried to offer NASCAR employees discounts and France family will not allow it. My daughter is still driving the Pontiac to this day. 8. NASCAR rule book is evolutionary...meaning what changes that took place 20 years ago have an impact on today's rule book and how it is today. Don't be fooled just because those older cars are no longer around! 9. Why did GM/Chevy take their toys home in the early 60's and leave NASCAR? The impact of that decision is still felt today. 10. Look at the cars that were running in the late 60's, early 70's and up until the mid 80's when GM got their big fastback rear window rule approved. That my friends and the Lumina opened the "Can of worms" that NASCAR still plays with today. 11. Why hasn't NASCAR changed the records books? Why is NASCAR still considering this the "Modern Era" compared to 1948-1971 when it comes to stats? I guess they wanted Chevy to be on top and finally catch up on the all-time wins list, which they did...finally....several years ago and many favorable rules changes. Now the COT is considered..."Modern Era"? Compared to a stock car from 1969?? 1970?? 1972????? Or 1983??? 20??. Or the entry of a foreign car in Cup racing? Don't even go there rice burning Jap race fans? 12. Look for NASCAR real soon to start a new Era for stats and records, now that Chevy is on top on just about all categories.
I think if you were to check articles written by this very blog writer, you would see many articles with the work parity.
What?
Yes, parity. That is where things are more “on a level playing field?”
So here you go look at STATS, not theory since Hendrick came into NASCAR:
1984 - Junior Johnson 7 wins; 12 different owners; HMS 3
1985 - Harry Melling 11 wins; 9 different owners; HMS 0
1986 - Rick Hendrick 9 wins; 13 different owner wins
1987 - Richard Childress 11 wins; 9 different owner wins; HMS 3
1988 - Harry Melling & Raymond Beadle 6 wins; 12 different owner wins; HMS 4
1989 - Rick Hendrick 8 wins; 9 different owner wins; HMS 8
1990 - Richard Childress 9 wins; 14 different owner wins; HMS 1
1991 - Robert Yates & Leo Jackson 5 wins; 13 different owner wins; HMS 3
1992 - Robert Yates & Junior Johnson 5 wins; 12 different owner wins; HMS 1
1993 - Roger Penske 10 wins; 10 different owner wins; HMS 1
1994 - Roger Penske 8 wins; 10 different owner wins; HMS 5
1995 - Rick Hendrick 10 wins; 10 different owner wins; HMS 10
1996 - Rick Hendrick 12 wins; 9 different owner wins; HMS 12
1997 - Rick Hendrick 11 wins; 8 different owner wins; HMS 11
1998 - Rick Hendrick 14 wins; 9 different owner wins; HMS 14
1999 - Rick Hendrick, Jack Roush, Joe Gibbs 8 wins; 8 different owner wins; HMS 8
2000 - Joe Gibbs - 10 wins; 9 different owner wins; HMS 4
2001 - Rick Hendrick & Robert Yates 6 wins; 14 different owner wins; HMS 6
2002 - Jack Roush 10 wins; 11 different owner wins; HMS 6
2003 - Rick Hendrick & Roger Penske 8 wins; 9 different owner wins HMS 8
2004 - Rick Hendrick 13 wins; 8 different owner wins; HMS 13 wins
2005 - Jack Roush 15 wins; 8 different owner wins; HMS 10
2006 - Rick Hendrick 9 wins; 6 different owner wins; HMS 9
2007 – Rick Hencrick 7 wins; 3 different owner wins; HMS 7…
So far.
Is this parity? Hmmmmm…
Parity WAS IROC. Even steven cars. How many IROC wins does Hendrick have?
5.
Hendrick/Evernham/Gordon, still hold the largest CHEATING fine in NASCAR.
Gary Nelson, Smokey Yunick, Rick Hendrick, Mark McGuire, Barry Bonds, Bill Clinton, OJ Simpson, Richard Nixon, House of Representatives 1992.
It’s only cheatin’ if ya get caught! Given an unfair advantage makes it pretty darn hard to get caught.
If they tinker another group of fans will start carping..the other manufacturers need to step it up..maybe if Roush hadn't spent so much time whining about Toyota and concentrated the resources on the COT like Chevy did the bowtie boys wouldn't be waxing the field...
Remember Roush Racing having all but one of their drivers in the Chase a couple of years ago? Why no uproar? Hendrick has spent money researching, practicing and hiring the best. Other teams simply need to give more money to win more money.
It's really funny how the GM camp of fans always resort to the talk of Ford owners, drivers, not working hard enough when Chevy is wiping the floor with everybody. The Ford teams evidently spend every available minute partying, going on cruises, and enjoying life, while the Chevy teams are working like ants flipping switches, turning wrenches, crunching numbers to be able to win. Really people, it's an insult to even suggest such things. What you're saying is that Ford don't care, Ford teams don't care, and Ford fans don't care about winning. Only Chevy and those associated with them care about winning. It's a crock. It's hard to win when everything is about Chevy. If you notice, just about every commercial is about Chevy, Chevy drivers, Chevy vehicles. Almost all pace cars are Chevy. It's all Chevy, all the time. It's easy to be happy and accuse others of whining when you're on top all the time, simply because Nascar loves Chevy. There is no doubt that Nascar favors Chevy-GM, and has for decades. It's useless to argue otherwise. There is too big a volume of evidence to do otherwise. What's next? Why, common engines, of course! Won't be too long before all cars running will have a version of the famous Chevy small block engine, or they won't be running. Which brings up something else. How much horsepower can anybody possibly get out of an engine. Chevy is constantly finding more horsepower in their engine. I would think they've found enough in it by now to put the shuttle into orbit. But, nobody can do that except Chevy. Ford just can't seem to find more of anything in their engine, or anywhere else. Wait, I know! They just don't care, and don't work hard enough. Give me a break!
We NASCAR fans are so predictable. No patience, no view of the long term, just the here and the now. Guys are missing races - let's change the qualifying rules (with only 43 spots 7 or 8 are going to miss it no matter what the rules). Hendrick is winning too much, let's change the rules. The Chevys are dominating, they must have an advantage let's change the rules.
For the record I hate the COT and wish they would scrap it (fat chance that would be admitting they were wrong) BUT IT's NEW PEOPLE! Someone was going to come out of the gate with it figured out better than the rest. I will guarentee that by this time next year enough teams will have caught up to Hendrick and Chevy that this will be a non-issue. But as is the nature of all fans, drivers, owners and teams, we are all whiners the minute something doesn't go our way.
Listening to other drivers on TV they seem to just believe the Hendrick organization really invested a lot more into the COT testing etc. than other teams.
Should we punish them for that? The drivers for the other teams didn't think so... they said we just need to get better.
anonymous #28, it's a simple question - defenders of the COT have to cite one realworld fact to buttress their argument. If it's arrogant to dismiss the arguments for the COT, it's because the whole project is such a misbegotten mistake that its defenders do not deserve much in the way of courtesy - they've pushed a project that insults the intelligence of racing and has done nothing but hurt it.
Why do people always drag out the tired and phony "then stop watching" argument? It's an excuse to not listen to reality and do something about it. Not watching is not going to fix the sport's problems; only pointing out these problems and telling the sanctioning body to clean up its act will do that. The COT races have been terrible - that is a fact worth pondering.
josh, Hendrick isn't stockpiling talent as much as stockpiling the resource edge he has over most teams.
sorry monkee, but your argument is lame. As is the argument that Nascar hates Fords..As is your argument that you can change Nascar by challenging them to publish a fact satisfactory to you that the COT is a good thing.
All these teams have the same rules, and should work to ensure that whatever car they are driving is the best they can make it...If you can't make it good enough to win, then accept your loss and give credit to the winner. Much as I don't like Hendrick / Gordon / Johnson, I have to admit they are onto something this season, so far.
The COT? I'm not a fan of it, but you can't convince anybody to change it by challenging them to give you one fact...thats asinine. You put up some facts, instead of carping about subjective "Facts" like your opinion of poor races...obviously others think the racin's been good.
Looks like Dale Jr. wants something to change with COT? My, my, rules changes in the middle of the season for such a "good"(?) CHEVY driver? His daddy whined and cried also when he didn't win races. The only thing Dale Sr. knew how to do....was to wreck someone to get them out of his way.
Hey..Mr. Poole....how can that be? A Chevy driver wants rules changes? How come? They are doing all of the winning. I guess Chevy doesn't have enough "trick" parts to supply all of the teams?
I agree with Dave to some point. What needs tweaking is qualifying. It should be go or go home for all of the teams, doesn't matter if you are Jr, Gordon, Waltrip, Benson or Charlie Brown. If you are one of the 43 fastest cars, you are in the show. It's a travesty that the 20 and 28th fastest cars don't make the show and someone that is 10 miles per hour slower gets in because of his sponsor!
Afraid I disagree with Dave on Johnny Benson though. That team has been working on that 1 race for months, whereas the teams that show up EVERY Week are focused on that weeks race. And that's fine. If Johnny ran that fast in qualifying, he should get in. But just because he got in doesn't mean the other guys don't know what they are doing.
But to the whiners that have been griping about these new cars (of which Dale Jr. now joins) we the fans say.. SHUT UP AND DRIVE!! You are racers, GO RACE! These cars look like and run like the cars of the 70's and 80's when NASCAR racing was less about aeordynamics and more about power and driver skill. Just watch "Back in the Day" or ESPN Classic sometime and see what I mean.
When a whiney little snot nosed idiot stands in victory lane and says, "these cars suck!", Well if you don't like it, then go race in the ARCA series (and that goes for Dale Jr too!). I imagine Dale SR would have called all these guys a bunch of "candy-asses", and then he would have done the class thing and dealt with it behind closed doors.
If it was easy, we would all be doing it!
gsmithmmee, qualifying should be changed to - you start where you qualify; no send-homes. It's the only fair way to do it.
Anonymous #39, what's lame is your inability to offer any kind of reason to believe in the COT or any kind of reason not to protest it. What is lame about saying "NASCAR hates Fords?" When was their rules package ever not biased toward Chevrolet? And what is lame about demanding one realworld fact to justify the COT? Name one - name a fact that justifies the COT.
Why should we give credit to the winner when the resource gap, a biased rules package, a bad racecar design, and the refusal of the sanctioning body to adequately address any of these issues plays into the winner's hands? Would you really be so blase about it if the rules package biased toward Dodge?
You can convince people to abandon the COT by continuously cutting through Robin Pemberton and John Darby's BS and telling the truth about it. What's asinine is you don't have one fact to support the COT.
"Obviously others think the racing's been good." Don't lie to me, pal - no one thinks that.
gsmithmme, I just re-read your post, because I had to see that you actually wrote what you wrote - "these cars look like and run like the cars of the '70s and '80s."
You actually think that? What NASCAR racecars from the 1970s and '80s ran short noses, bulky rooflines, and a gapped airdam? What cars ran wings other than the Superbird and Daytona? And where did those cars make the racing better?
"...when NASCAR was less about aerodynamics and more about power and driver skill." Huh? NASCAR was as much about aerodynamics then as now; spoiler changes became a way of life back then because the cars needed it. And driver skill? Those cars didn't impede ability to race, which is what the COT does, so where's the so-called skill? And about power - power became a dirty word as the 1980s advanced because it helped make the drivers and grandstands unsafe until power was restricted at the end of that decade.
BTW, I have a huge library of race films and tapes from that era, so I know what you think you mean.
Dale Junior didn't handle the issue any different from Dale Senior - his "candy ass" comments were showboating, not sincere analysis.
Some of you are pathetic and sad. Wasn't it Kurt Busch who pitted at the last caution and cost himself a shot up front? Wasn't it Kevin Harvick who ran into trouble on pit road and cost himself the lead? The Hendrick drivers have talent and have been lucky so far this season. Who exactly does Ford have that has any talent? Matt Kenseth, the only Ford driver to win a race this year. Mark Martin and Kurt Busch both left for opposing manufacturers, which reminds me Penske looked pretty strong, which is funny because I don't think they drive for Chevy. The only Ford team that has been any good in recent history has lost the majority of its drivers, and I don't think that's a reason to cry about some sort of Chevy conspiracy. Even look at the last five years of championships....two Fords and three Chevys, only four different drivers. If Hendrick is paying to cheat, he obviously wasn't paying enough, because Jimmie lost some close ones the past five years. But you know what, I enjoy NASCAR, even with the things i disagree with, which there are many, so you guys can complain, because it apparently makes you feel better.
Ever look at the past 10 Championships? Fords 3 Chevies 7!
Past 15, 20, 25 years? I think that would be only two(?) more for Ford; Kulwicki and Elliott's.
Yep, Chevy has won almost all the drivers championships and maufacturers trophies. It's all about Chevy-GM. If you want to see what advantage Chevy has on Ford, look no further than Mark Martin. He gets in a mid-packer Chevy and has the Daytona 500 won until right at the end, his first race in a Chevy. If that don't make a statement, I don't know what does. Lets face it, all these drivers are capable of winning a Nascar race if they're in the right car, with the right perks. Look at the plate tracks. Nascar has given the plate tracks to Chevy. Ford may as well just stay home on the week-ends they run the plate races. They could come as near winning a plate race at home as they could by being on the track. And save their money too. The COT is just the next step in having an all Chevy show, like what we see happening now. No figures posted by Nascar on dyno tests or wind tunnel tests, at least none that I've seen. You used to could find the figures on TR or Jayskis, but no more. Nascar just says they did the tests and they're all equal. Yeah, I believe that. Back several years ago they blew up Ernie Irvans engine on the dyno trying to find out why Ford was winning then. Nascar gets anxious when Ford manages to win despite the help they give Chevy. And they'll keep testing Fords until they find what it is and make sure Chevy has enough more of whatever it was to get them back on top. It's pitiful really, when you think about it. I know people are prejudiced about certain things, But I think the mafia that runs Nascar has taken prejudice to the next level. I can't wait until this week-end to see which Chevy is gonna win. Will it be an HMS car, or will DEI or Gibbs break through with a win? Please don't bet any money on a Ford, Dodge, or Toyota(GAG).
Some of you Ford fans have made some outlandish statements about NASCAR favoring Chevy. I've followed this sport since the early 60's, and there have been years I was really frustrated because it looked to me like they were favoring FORD, not Chevy. That could have been because none of my favorite drivers were winning in a Chevy - a lot like the situation you current Ford fans find yourself in today. I've heard Ford fans and Ford teams whine in the past until rules were changed to favor them, so don't tell me NASCAR favors Chevy. The COT is supposed to be the same body for every manufacturer, except for the nose piece, and of course the engine. One template fits all. Tell me what rule you want changed to disadvantage the Chevies. Some of made claims that NASCAR had approved 2 or 3 new blocks for Chevy since the early 90's. Bull&%%@^^!!! If Ford wanted a new block, let them request a change. I'm no fan of Toyota being in NASCAR, but Jack Roush needs to stop complaining and whining about Toyota and get his own team in order. You people need to listen to one of your own drivers. Matt Kenseth said he did not believe the Chevies had and advantage. He said his team and all the others need to start working harder to catch up to the Chevy teams, mainly the Hendrick teams. Matt is part of the daily grind of NASCAR, and he doesn't see a conspiracy or an unfair advantage toward Chevy, so why should you Ford fans, except for the fact that your favorite driver isn't winning.
seriously.....I remember the plate tracks used to be Jimmie, Jeff, and Kurt Busch when he was in a FORD, the three of them would team up because KURT BUSCH HAD NO HELP, becuase the Ford drivers arent good at plate tracks. The last 15 years were dominated by Chevys because they have had two, if not four, of the greatest drivers in NASCAR history, Jeff and Dale Earndhardt. This is the most rediculous thing ever, NASCAR could never do anything right in some of your opinions, because no matter what car you give him David "Lucked Into A Cup Ride" Gilliand sucks....and he would suck if you gave him a jet engine on a car out there.
Yeah, Ford fans have made some outlandish comments as far as Chevy fans are concerned, I'm sure. And I've kept up with Nascar since the mid-fifties, so I know a little about what I speak of. All a person has to do, any person, is think back to all the rules changes made by Nascar and who they were for. If a person is honest, they can't help but admit that 90% of the time, when a rules change is handed out, it goes to Chevy. Chevy quit racing back in the mid-60's because they couldn't run with Ford, Dodge, and Plymouth. They would only come back in racing in 73-74 if Nascar would make the rules to favor them. I know it's a hard pill to swallow, but that's how it was, and is. Nascar has already said this year that there will be no rules changes, the teams are all equal, and those not winning should just work harder. They said the reason Chevy was winning was because Chevy had better teams, drivers, and more cars in the field. That sounds reasonable don't it? Problem is, when Ford had 20 or 22 cars in the field, they never won 9 out of 10 at any time, and they never won 22 races in a season. If something like that happens, by golly it'll be Chevy doing it, and they've done it a lot. When Matt Kenseth won the first Ford drivers championship in years, what was Nascar's response? Answer: The racing had to be changed to a chase system, where the top 10 in points after 26 races were the only ones who were eligible for the championship. All because Matt was consistent in finishes and had only one win that season. Nevermind that Chevy drivers had won it that way before. When Roush had 5 Fords in the chase, what was Nascar's response? Owners would be limited to a maximum of 4 teams. Who was the only owner with 5 teams? Answer: Roush, with Fords. When a couple of the most popular Chevy drivers failed to make the chase, what was Nascar's response? Answer: the chase field has to be expanded to 12 drivers, instead of 10. So, you see how it is that a Ford fan can seriously believe that Nascar favors Chevy? And that's just a small part of what Nascar has done for Chevy over the decades. I'm not saying they've never done a thing for Ford. I'm saying they've done far more for Chevy, and what little they have done for Ford was done begrudingly, because they hate Ford.
All you have to do is just ask yourself, if this seasons situation were reversed(Ford 9 wins--Chevy 1 win), do you seriously think Nascar wouldn't have already done something to correct that situation? If you're honest about it, you know what the answer is.
When a sport changes, some get left behind. When bowling went to a new surface on the bowling ball, about 15% of the top stars faded into the ether.
“NASCAR should do something, because the sport's competitive package has been poor for many years now.” Duh, that would be called the COT.
Supporting to success TWO types of race cars is expensive.. Once the COT is the only car out there, the costs drop. Let’s try to be factual when ranting.
If the COT is not distinguishing anyone, then why are other teams farther behind Hendrick, Monkee?
Just because the drivers say it doesn’t turn, what are they comparing it to? The car they are used to. A car that literally turns itself. (If you’ve ever driven one, you’d know what I mean.)
“It all seems to have worked to the end result of making all the cars the same, taking away the greatest feature of NASCAR racing, creating the fastest engine, the slickest body, the best balanced car.” – True, but then the other brands and fans make whiney noises.
“..maybe if Roush hadn't spent so much time whining about Toyota and concentrated the resources on the COT like Chevy did the bowtie boys wouldn't be waxing the field...” Well said.
But wouldn’t Hendrick be stockpiling from the all the wins his teams are posting. Would that not be from… talent?
The rules bias is going away with the COT.
“Name one - name a fact that justifies the COT.” Gee, could it be safety? Bigger driver compartment? Less aero for slower speeds, forcing the drivers to make the car work?
“Those cars didn't impede ability to race, which is what the COT does, so where's the so-called skill?” You must be right. Then anyone could be in those machines, huh?
Chevy outnumbers the other brands, and hence, dominate the stats in racing.
Look at the last five years of championships....two Fords and three Chevys, only four different drivers.
“The COT is just the next step in having an all Chevy show, like what we see happening now.” So the bowtie symbol will cause the car with the identical shape charge ahead of the pack? Cool, I want one for my VW!!
Really folks, isn't about the racing? Come on, admit it.. as long as the race is good enough to draw us in to watch, that's what it's about!
Well, you can't have two number ones. Can ya? When you say should Nascar do something , do you mean should the Frances do something? I agree - nothing should be done. But if the almighty dollar has something to say then something may change. You gotta look at it from the viewpoint of "NASCAR".
descrier, the COT is not "doing something" about the sport's poor competition package, it's an excuse for the sanctioniong body to seize more control over the racing. "Once the COT is the only car out there the costs will drop." No way - the tighter the envelope gets, the higher the costs always go; that has been the lesson of the last ten or so years. "Let's try to be factual when ranting." Yes, descrier, let's try to be factual.
Why are the other teams farther behind? Because the COT package has increased Hendrick's edge. That's not distinguishing anyone or anything, that's biasing the rules package for one team.
It isn't just because the drivers say it doesn't turn - it's that the cars push worse now than they did before, so ability to pass has been impeded more, not improved. And all the testing done on the COT showed the drivers, the teams, and the sanctioning body that the cars would push worse than before.
"Would that not be from talent?" No, because Hendrick doesn't have a talent edge - he has a technology edge, one that caught even Roush flat-footed.
The rules bias is NOT going away with the COT, it is making it worse.
Your attempt to name "facts" in support of the COT are bunk. Safety? BS. Bigger driver compartment? It isn't. Less areo for slower speeds? The speeds aren't appreciably slower and less aero means greater impediment to passing. Forcing the drivers to make the car work? A flat-out lie - it cripples their ability to race.
You're doing nothing but talk in ragtime. The simple fact is the Car Of Tomorrow is a total failure. The sooner the sport gets out of denial about this fact the sooner it can address the issues of its poor competitive package with some level of realism.
descrier, why don't you take a shot at answering those 3 recent examples of Nascar favoritism for Chevy that I mentioned? It's easy to sit back and condemn others for complaining when your ox is never being gored. Nascar will never do anything to cut off the money, and the money is in Chevy fans. There are more of them than there are fireants. You know, the Jr. nation, etc. I'll point out something else for you Chevy fans. Chevy and Ford both fought against Nascar going to the common body for years. But once Ford came with the Taurus body, and Nascar couldn't supply enough rules changes to get Chevy back on top, suddenly Chevy turned and supported the common body. The reason they did was because the common body was the Taurus body, the same body Nascar gave Dodge when they came back. Now Chevy had the Taurus body, and to make certain they would be king of the hill, Nascar allowed Chevy that park bench nose you saw that they still run now when they're not running the COT. Nobody else got that nose, although Nascar came close to giving the Dodge one, but theirs only has the extended lip under the headlight decals on each side. Chevy's goes all the way across the front. What that did for them, and you can see it in the races, was to have more front downforce in the corners. You can see by watching that the Chevys can drive right on through the corners without hardly lifting. The Fords can't do that without the front end sliding up the track and the Chevys passing them on the bottom. That's why you hear the Chevy drivers complaining that the Ford drivers won't get out of their way when they come up on them in the corners. The Fords have to let up to keep from wrecking and it does hold the Chevys up because they can drive through there without having to lift. Tell me that's not the way it is! And Nascar gave that to Chevy, and nobody else. The Ford nose is straight down from the front edge of the hood. No lip, or park bench. It's useless to deny that Nascar favors Chevy.
The only "people" who will get rich when the COT is phased in full-time is NA$CAR. The teams can only buy the chassis parts for the COT from an approved vendor. That approved vendor is NA$CAR. And like all good manufacturers, they sold some teams defective parts which didn't meet specs so they had to buy new chassis parts and start over. NA$CAR's already raking in the cash on the COT.
Take a good look at the Rolex Daytona GT Prototype and the specs for it. Then compare it to the COT. It's no coincidence the two have a lot in common. Jim France, Brian's uncle, runs the Grand Am Series. It makes it easier for foreign manufacturers to make the transition. Maybe that might explain why Toyota is here. That and the money they paid under the table to NA$CAR to secure the broadcast contracts for favors to be named later.
NA$CAR has mandated the rear end gears, the transmission gears, and issues rear springs and shocks to the teams. The only thing left for the teams to do is work on the engine, camber, and the front shocks and springs. It's really close to being an IROC car, no matter what brand.
There is still talk of a crate engine program. GM keeps pushing for that since they have an existing program for other racing series. Another step closer to an IROC when they all have the same engines.
NA$CAR is wanting to make certain engine parts interchangeable between the brands. So who's parts do you use as the master template? Ford? GM? Dodge? Toyota? It moves closer to a common engine like IROC.
In 1964, Ford complained about the Hemi. It was banned at the beginning of the 1965 season. Track attendance dropped. Richard Petty and other Mopar drivers were sitting in the stands watching the races. Bill France Sr re-instated the Hemi to fill the stands back up.
When the Taurus was introduced, it hadn't even run on the track and GM was demanding concessions on aero. When GM introduced the "new" Monte Carlo, the special project that Dale Sr was involved in, they were demanding concessions. And the car hadn't been raced. Plus they threatened to pull out if they didn't get them. Guess who gave in?
All the manufacturers have played the "pull-out card" at one time or another. It's just the GM has been the one to scream the loudest and longest about it and has been the most recent one.
As to the France's car of preference, Brian drives a Lexus which is made by Toyota, Bill Sr & Jr drove GM cars. They also gave them away to select individuals. One track owner had 2 GM cars given to him by both Bills. They both had less than 1000 miles on them. The car the track owner preferred had over 100,000 miles on it. It was a Ford.
You want to talk about giving a manufacturer something? When is the last time you saw a two door Taurus or Fusion? Nascar let Ford make two door cars out of a four door sedan SO THEY COULD HAVE SOMETHING TO RACE. Ford actually designed a race car from a four door sedan and NASCAR let them do it.
monkeesfan,
now you can see why your logic is so child-like...when anybody cites a "fact" in favor of the COT, you immediately dismiss the writer as completely wrong, or call his "fact" a lie. And you do it all while citing "facts" of your own, such as the COT is not a safer vehicle, etc..
Who in the world do you think you are? Where in the world could you come up with "facts" to support your arrogant statements such as this? And why in the world do you think that such silly rhetoric will pursuade any intelligent fan, let alone Nascar?
Good grief, man. Give the rest of us uneducated, moronic, delusional fans a break...while we wait a few more races to learn the "facts" you obviously knew all along.
Same rules...same cars...same talent...looks like the best team is destined to win every week, just like it should be.
Personally, I'm a Ford person, if truth be known, but I don't need Ford to win. They're outnumbered on an uphill battle.
A lot of what you folks post seems pretty interesting. In fact interesting enough to level an anti-trust suit in NASCAR's direction. This blog show's lot's of proof to that.. if the facts are correct and can be supported, so why hasn't anyone?
And you've guys heard that the teams want to see the COT full time next year, right?
Or that with the COT, the average speed difference from the Pole winner to the 40th overall qualifier has decreased by an average of almost two-10ths of a second.
Nice Point Anonymous on 5/09/2007 7:57 AM - who ever you are.
Life is Change, Growth is Optional!
To the person who mentioned about NASCAR "letting" Ford run a two-door Taurus or Fusion. Sit down and get ready for this, because you have NOT been reading the above posts.
You must be a newby race fan at best. NASCAR and GM/Chevy opened the can of worms, back when the Chevy had NOTHING to run in NASCAR. Chevy offered the "Lumina" to be approved by NASCAR....and NASCAR completely RE-WROTE the rule book, so the Chevy and their morphed race car the Lumina would be eligible. Before that, everyone had a rear-wheel drive car, with a V-8 engine available to submit for racing. Dodge was not in racing them! Chevy decides to drop the Monte Carlo and offer up the Lumina....but wait! The Lumina was a front wheel drive car and NO V-8 was available in it, at all! NASCAR re-writes the rules and from that point on, the rule book has never been the same.
I have followed racing since 1969 and NASCAR since 1971. My daughter is an EMPLOYEE of NASCAR currently and I DO KNOW WHAT I AM SPEAKING OF. Go look at what they drive at what "deals" they have exclusively with GM and how long those "deals" have been going on.
Why all of a sudden does GM/Chevy want NASCAR to change the rules to run ethanol???? Sounds fishy to me?
When Roush was dominating nobody said anything about doing something about it. As for the 4 car rule I remember Jack Roush talking about adding 1 or 2 more teams that year (his thinking being if he had more teams he'd win the championship 'cause his cars would be the only ones in the chase and nobody else. Now that Hendricks is dominating ('cause they are working together and doing their homework plus drive Chevy's) the other teams want NASCAR to do something about it, which gives me an idea. How about there are 4 races in one. Top finishing cars of each make get 1st place. This way Toyota, Ford & Dodge can all win a race every week without having to work and run great to win the race.
Regardless of which brand you pull for, you can look back over the years and see where NASCAR has actully changed a rule to help your brand be competitive. We all have to admit that as a fact.
Fast forward to the COT - This thing was to make for better competition, make racing safer for the driver, and make it cheaper for the teams to race. All brands (if you can call them brands now) fit the same template. The difference is in the engine compartment, chassis setup, pit crews, shop personnel, and the drivers. Who didn't think there would be a team that would jump all over the COT and get ahead of everyone else? I am sure the big controversy right now is that team happens to be Hendrick. And, oh by the way, the two drivers who have dominated COT happen to be Gordon and Johnson. That's what has everyone, especially the Ford fans, in such a frenzy. If it were any other team, and any other driver, especially Gordon, there would not be a problem. If the team on top now were a Roush team, or Earhnhardt Jr, everything would be fine and dandy!
The original COT looked like a larger version of the "template" racers. Once Toyota showed interests in running in Cup, it changed drastically. No more front end valence, no more bolt on rear spoiler, and what little "brand identification" there was disappeared also.
The reason for the splitter and the wing was to attract the "Fast and Furious" crowd who has lots of disposable income, not to keep the fans who built the sport and kept it going.
As to the 4-door Taurus and Charger, NA$CAR blessed them because both were considered to be representations of the "full size" car that both Dodge and Ford were marketing and fit in nicely with the Monte Carlo and Gran Am until the Gran Am was dropped. Ford's original prototype wasn't a Taurus at all. It was a Lincoln MK VIII. There's one on display in Mooresville in one of the museums. The other one was diassembled. The chassis went to Penske and was raced as a T-Bird and Taurus. The sheet metal disappeared. Funny how the special Monte Carlo that Childress and Earnhardt worked on had the same bump on the trunk that the MK VIII had. It's no coincidence.
Toyota doesn't manufacture a V-8 for their Camry. But NA$CAR blessed it anyways, just like they did with the Lumina and Taurus. And if they go to the pony cars for the Busch Series as is being discussed, what pony car does Toyota have? Ford has the Mustang, Dodge is looking to bring back the Challenger, GM is looking to bring back the Camaro. Where is the Toyota pony car? There isn't one. So NA$CAR will "bless" some model of Toyota as their pony car.
The point to all this? NA$CAR is going to do whatever they want to do just so long as it doesn't affect their bottom line. They'll tip the balance to whomever they want to just so long as they have the bucks coming in. They use the same philosophy for fans as they use for drivers. We can all be replaced.
anonymous #61 has a point about the "Fast & Furious" crowd - it's part of the larger pinkhat crowd the sport has been targeting at the expense of the real fanbase.
Anonymous #56, you want childish, then re-read the non-logic offered in support of the COT. I study the sport as much as I can and have been closely following this COT project from the first test at Atlanta in 2005, a test in which the cars pushed worse than the other cars and NASCAR had to go to 7-inch spoilers to stabilize them. It was clear then that the project was not going to go well.
Give me a break and start dealing with this issue realistically. They're not the same rules or the same cars and the "best" team is not destined to win every week, not with a rules package that is biased toward certain teams and marques.
"Who in the world do you think you are." No, pal, who do you think you are?
this from a fellow who says:
The amount of control the officiating tower has over the racing is now at an absurd level
Wow, I haven't read such a bunch of crap in a long time! So I'll contribute some crap myself...
(1) David is correct - no rules changes, at least in mid-season. NASCAR would certainly be expected to evaluate everything about the COT and strive to make improvements during the off season, but its unfair to everyone - Chevy, Ford, Jr, Hendrick, and anyone else with an interest - to change in mid stream.
(2) I hate Hendrick Motorsports. I am a DEI fan. And does anyone know why I hate Hendrick Motorsports? For the same reason I hate the Yankees... because until recently, they have whipped the pants off my beloved Red Sox. So I will admit - yes, I am jealous. Like most of us in Red Sox nation, I would have given my first born for what happened in 2004, and I would love to be able to brag about 26 world championships. And yes, I am a die hard Celtics fan, but I would look like an ass to brag about 16 championships at this point in history - but it wasn't so long ago that people were crying that the NBA favored the Celtics, NFL the Cowboys, NHL the Canadians, and MLB the Yankees... of which not one team has won a championship in the 21st century, much less done much of anything! Yes, I'm jealous, but sooner or later HMS will have another off year, and DEI will start winning. And at that point, everyone will be whining how much NASCAR loves DEI and HMS is getting screwed.
(3) Specific to Mokeesfan - you usually write some well thought out, entertaining posts, but not this time - what on earth are you smoking? Just because your driver and/or Fords aren't winning this year doesn't negate the need for intelligent conversation. For starters, it is too early to call the COT a success or a failure, you challenge people to come up with successes, how about you coming up with some of the failures (aside from the 'wrong' people winning)? HMS and Chevy have also won the majority of non-COT races as well, so that negates that point. Of the four COT races, they have been fantastic races, despite the fact that neither your driver nor mine won, but as a race fan, I appreciate what I saw. Lets not forget that the primary reason for the COT was increased driver safety so we don't lose another driver, ever! And we have already lost two this year in Eric Medlin in March and Scott Seaton in Sprint Car this past weekend. Yes, different cars & leagues, but it should serve as a somber reminder that, unlike other sports, serious injury and death are very real possibilities when you strap into a 3000 lb machine and drive upwards of 200mph. On what factual grounds can you state that the COT is not safer? Thankfully, we will never know how many drivers don't die because of the safety of the COT; so we are left to judge based on great racing - which the COT is 4 for 4 so far! So how is this an UNQUALIFIED failure? Because Ford has yet to figure it out? Because non-HMS teams haven't won yet? Both are only a matter of time. Also, your idea of more practice and test time for the 'struggling' teams - are you serious??? Gee, that's pretty liberal thinking - kind of like a school teacher taking away bad grades so as to not hurt the self esteem of the kid who is struggling. You want a level playing field and accuse NASCAR of not providing one - well, that's exactly why the struggling teams should be treated the same as those who are succeeding. On a related note - scrap the top 35 all together - earn your way in! But allow 50 in? Sure, and your local high school shouldn't cut those kids trying to make the basketball team but cant cut it, and while we are at it, lets give them equal playing time, like they do in the biddy leagues. And all other sports should take your advice - let everyone into the playoffs! BTW Monkeesfan - would you call for non-Fords to have more downforce and less drag if they were winning like they were a few years ago? You state "No objective analysis can call the COT a success." Fact is, you are correct, but no objective analysis can call it a failure at this point either. I have yet to see any 'sincere analysis' from you, all I have heard is an angry race fan who's driver/team/car make isn't winning. Where are your 'facts' to base your statement that the COT is a failure? Lets wait and see in 3-5 years. By the way, the Monkees RULE!
(4) Does anyone out there who thinks NASCAR favors Chevy actually think that if this were really happening, Ford wouldn't say something? They spend MILLIONS of dollars a year on their racing program, and if they thought they were getting screwed - as do so many people posting here - wouldn't they just pull out? Lets face it - Chevy, Ford, Dodge, and Toyota are in it for the ADVERTISING value! They want people to associate their brand with WINNING and if they don't have the results - or at least are not allowed to compete fairly - they would pull out. Can anyone actually argue this point? Or are they saying Ford & Dodge are stupid and don't realize that? And if that's the case - doesn't it serve as an explanation as to why the aren't winning races? Either argument is bogus...
(5) Anyone can make what might sound like an educated argument by only presenting a few facts that support the argument but leaving out those that negate it. Sure, present a few arguments that might point to NASCAR loving Chevy or Hendrick, and someone will throw other right back. Its like saying a race sucks because your favorite driver didn't win. You can state it, but its not objective and therefore means nothing.
(6) If Chevy's make up 75% of the field, it shouldn't come as a surprise that they win 75% of the time. Its simple math. And if Chevy is such a NASCAR favorite, why haven't Jack Roush, Robert Yates, and Ray Evernham switched? Can someone please tell me, because whether I like them or hate them, I have to admit that they know more about racing than I do, and most likely more than anyone posting here today. Or are you just calling your team owners stupid?
(7) From Mokeesfan (again) "Why do people always drag out the tired and phony "then stop watching" argument? It's an excuse to not listen to reality and do something about it." - this is not a tired and phony argument. The majority of posts have said NASCAR is crooked and all of the races are fixed - like Tony Stewart says, 'PROFESSIONAL WRESTLING'. Well, I don't watch professional wrestling because it is fixed and is not a sport; and if that's what you all believe about NASCAR, then it probably is time to change the channel and stop wasting your time blogging when you could be doing something more productive.
(8) Did anyone not think that HMS, Gibbs, and RCR wouldn't have early - and remember it is VERY early - success with the COT? They have the most resources to put towards it. If you didn't think that then you aren't paying attention or thinking logically - but the field will eventually catch up and it will probably stay more even in the medium to long term, which is what NASCAR is hoping will happen - which is why you cant objectively evaluate the success of the COT for 3 to 5 years.
Ok, back to work!!!
Anonymous #63 - what is that supposed to mean?
nh-nascarfan -
1 - No, it isn't unfair. When you have a bad rules package, and NASCAR manifestly has one, then it is supposed to be changed, whether it's mid-season or the off-season. You don't throw away a season with a bad rules package - NASCAR has wasted far too many seasons by not changing a bad rules package.
2 - You cite the Celtics, the Cowboys, etc., but miss that the sports bodies involved made changes to their systems to neutralize the dynasties - salary caps, revenue sharing, etc. NASCAR hasn't done any of that.
3 - The COT has undergone four races plus well over twelve months of track testing, and in all of that the result is exactly the same - more aeropush, less passing, more expense, inferior racing, a solution that is worse than the problem. We've had ample opportunity to see the COT and it refuses to live up to any of its promises. Of the four COT races, only Richmond had any passing up front, and it wasn't more frequent than it had been with the flush airdam/spoilered cars; the other three were uncompetitive single-file affairs saved by fortuitously late yellows. And not one driver or observor claimed after any of these races that there was greater opportunity to close up and pass cars with the COT than with the flush airdam/spoilered models - exactly the opposite was the case. The only ones praising the COT are the spinmasters of NASCAR, and they're saying it right now because they're too stubborn to admit they made a colossal error with this project.
That is the objective analysis that shows the COT is a failure.
As for more practice time for the non-Chevys, I'm damned serious. That is part of how you get a level playing field in. "Allow 50 cars in?" Yes. Qualifying is supposed to be about where you start, never is it supposed to be about whether you start.
4 - The primary reason for the COT WAS NEVER ABOUT SAFETY, BECAUSE THEY ADDRESSED SAFETY WITH THE SAFER BARRIER AND SO FORTH. It was about having an excuse for the sanctioning body to seize more control of the racing away from the teams. That is the factual ground I can cite - all the issues of safety were addressed elsewhere; the COT adds nothing to safety that wasn't already addressed.
5 - Ford has been "saying something" forever, and the rules bias toward Chevrolet continues. It did get better in the 1990s because - and this is a supreme irony - Gary Nelson took over as NASCAR's comp director in 1992 and took away most of the "cheater" stuff the Chevys had when he tightened down on templates, etc. Ford promptly won six manufacturer titles in an eleven-season span, even with the rear-deck widening of the Monte Carlo of 1995-6. But then NASCAR went to common templates in 2003 and it's been downhill in Chevy's favor since.
6 - Where do Chevrolets make up 75% of the field? They made up 75% of the field in 1974 and it was a far more level playing field in terms of manufacturer success.
7 - "If you don't like it, stop watching" is still a tired and phony argument because it's used as an excuse to ignore the problems. That was the general NHL mindset as they ignored their absurd economic system and fan complaints about the quality of the competitive product, and they nearly paid the supreme price for that mindset. "If you don't like it, stop watching" doesn't work; speaking out and fighting to force necessary changes is how you approach these issues.
8 - The field is not going to catch up to the big teams in large part because the resources they need to do so aren't there for them. The COT is not going to neutralize the big teams' advantages because the tighter the envelope gets the more they put into beating that tightness and they find ways to beat the envelope; the smaller teams, without those resources, aren't able to do that. By the time the smaller teams figure it out the bigger teams will be farther ahead of them. All this rules package has done is played into the hands of the biggest teams.
We as a sport have got to stop denying that the COT is a failure.
Some of us need to let go of the past and embrace the future, or suffer from it.
Is there an option somewhere that counts the anonymous posts or are you actually counting them??
Monkee, are you a NASCAR employee? You keep telling us how it is, with no cosideration for what is being put out there by anyone here.
Four data points (That's races) do not make a study, and it is a work in progress. For cripes sake, you need to give it time.
Oh wait, we would have given up on light bulbs, the phone, airplanes.. because none of them worked the first few times.
Really, kudos to the conversation here, but there is a lot of unsubstantiated statements flying about.
We need to give it time, and embrace the future that is controlled by the big buck TV rights and car sponsors that NASCAR is selling out to, to maintain their business structure that is pushing all this heteric on us. It's not between us folks.
We need to remember that. We need to blame someone, blame television advertising bucks.
For all of you that may be interested... Greg Biffle just admitted in an interview on Sirius that Roush dropped the ball with the COT and they were not prepared, and that HMS out prepped them. Robbie Reiser admitted the same thing this morning on Sirius. So lets PLEASE stop with the conspiracy theories and just plain admit - Hendricks beat everyone else, fair & square, including the other Chevy teams. Had Jack Roush used the huge resources he has and started prepping the way Rick Hendrick did, we may very well be having an entirely different conversation. But dont worry - the other teams, including Ford, Dodge and the other Chevys, will figure it out soon enough. And yes, I am a Hendricks hater.
NH NASCARFAN......I agree with you and let me add. Those six manufacturers titles that Ford won in that 11 year span are partly due to Nelson tightening up the rules before the common template of 2003.
NASCAR was pulling their hair out trying to find something aerodynamic enough to stay with the T-bird for those years until the Monte Carlo was-reintroduced and the "evil" car that started all of this rule book changing..."the Lumina" was out the door. also.
I would also like to add those titles came after the "new" Ford head was approved on 9/9/91 and that head ran on "ALL" Cup cars until the new and "current" Roush/Yates design of 2004. Before that, there was Ernie Elliott's version, a Roush version and a Yates version. While all three versions were somewhat successful during that 11 year span. Not one of those three designs ever won a Cup title or manufacturers title. (WHEN DID GM CUP TEAMS (Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick) ALL START RUNNING THE CHEVY ENGINE?) (Probably sometime in the 80's, but then the field would have been even more so, mostly CHEVY?) The Ford head that was approved by NASCAR on 9/9/91 and started running in the 1992 season did win the cup titles in 1992 with Kulwicki and with Jarrett in 1999. It also won the six manufacturers titles of: 92, 94, 97, 99, 00, and 02
NASCAR wanted a "common" Ford head for cup racing and Ford conceded in giving Yates the contract to come up with that head. Ford also started going to Roush more and more, after that approval and eventually contracting Roush as they did with Holman Moody in the 60's for complete Cup racing (and other forms of racing) technology and development.
Just how many versions of a "Chevy head" were running that time......who knows? The SB 2 version came later, around 98(?)But I would bet there was a Hendrick head, a Childress head and a head that all other teams got. Later...M.N.
Well,who ever pointed out that Ford/Roush dominated in 2005 is full of it.Of 36 races run in 2005,chevy won 17 times,ford won 16 times and Dodge a sorry assed 3 times! And,Chevy won the driver and manufacturers titles. Not exactly "Ford domination" now is it? The only times I remember Ford dominating in terms of wins was 1992,1994 and 1997!!!
Actually,the first front wheel drive bodies were used by Olds and Buick in 1986 as a knee-jerk reaction, on the part of NA$CAR, to the success of one driver,one car,The Elliott T-bird of 1985!Ford teams were in a terrible minority in 1985,yet NA$CAR still proceeded to penalize them for their success.What was then ain't what's now because of who and what are dominating!
To the person who doesn't know what a 1986 Oldsmobile Cutlass or 1986 Buick Regal looks like. May I suggest you go look at them. They are BOTH REAR WHEEL DRIVE CARS FROM THE FACTORY. THEY ARE NOT FRONT WHEEL DRIVE CARS! Also I am not 100% sure.....but I think the Buick was not available with a V8 engine from the factory...I think the Olds Cutlass was? Correct me if I am wrong. These cars raced as close as possible to what their bodystyle was, as did the T-bird that year.
The KNEE JERK reaction from GM came in 1986-87, During that time, GM was to slap a fastback designed rear window in place on the Chevy Monte Carlo and Pontiac Grand Prix as limited production car and BEG NASCAR to approve it so they could try to catch Elliott.
Remember the NASCAR rule book is EVOLUTIONARY in it's changes and even though what happened 20 years ago, still DOES have an effect on what happens today, as my previous posts have clearly pointed out.
As for the COT BS, it's a whole new animal, new design, new everything. I am just sticking with and arguing the traditional Cup car only and the one sided rule changes that favor(ed) GM products, especially Chevies, through out the years since 1972. later...M.N.
Heh..heh....The most awesome display of a Cup car since NASCAR's beginning? The 1985 Winston 500 at Talladega. May 5, 1985
A little over 22 years ago, Bill Elliott, came from 2 seconds of being 2 laps DOWN and made them both up under GREEN flag racing and won the race!!!!
He beat Kyle Petty by almost 2 seconds and Earnhardt Sr. wasn't near the top 10...heh..heh...M.N.
Well, I know that I am prejudiced towards Fords, and have been since I was a kid. I've driven Fords most of my life, and drive one now. I don't expect, or wouldn't even want Ford to win every race. What I do expect is for Ford to have at least an equal chance to win every race. And that's not happening now, and hasn't happened at any point during the last 3 decades. Nascar's favoritism for Chevy-GM continues unabated until this day. And like I've said, it's useless for anybody to argue Nascar doesn't favor Chevy. It can't be successfully argued by anybody. I understand why they do it. It's simply a money game. More Chevy fans=more money for Nascar. But what I hold against Nascar the most is their lies about wanting a level playing field, or having a level playing field. I would prefer that they just come out and say they only honor money and Chevy and stop the lying. The COT is just the next in a long line of moves by Nascar to gain more control over the racing and make sure that whatever runs with the bowtie on it wins the most. Common engines will be next, and they will be GM engines if I'm not too bad wrong. As for those suggesting that those disatisfied with it don't watch it, I'm way ahead of you. I've watched less and less Nascar since 2000, and haven't watched but one race so far this year. And then only because it was a night race. Why should a Ford fan watch a race when he knows before it's run within 6 Chevy drivers who's going to win. Consider the laps led by Chevy, the poles won by Chevy, and races won by Chevy. How many poles have been won by a Ford in the last 7 years? In the 4 COT races run so far, Ford has led 4 laps, only on pit stop exchanges. How many think that if it were Chevy who had only led 4 laps in the 4 COT races, something wouldn't be done by Nascar about it? Seriously! Who thinks Chevy wouldn't get a rules change if that were the case?
Sorry Monkeesfan - you are still way off base here...
(1)Your OPINION that it is an unfair rules package is just that- an OPINION. Although you are entitled to it, it does not in fact translate into fact. And sorry - no way should we have a rule change in mid season, unless there is an honest safety concern that requires it. Anything other than that must wait to the end of the season. Period end of discussion.
(2) Any changes made by the NBA/NFL etc were done at the end of the season... not in mid season as proposed. And the reasons for the changes were for economic viability in an age where large market teams were in a position to dominate based on ability to spend. The fact remains that those economic changes had nothing to do with neutralizing any dynasty; dynasties rise and fall - the Celtics fell then we had the Pistons mini-dynasty, then the Bulls of the 90s, and the Lakers a few years ago. Cowboys dynasty ended, then there was the 49ers, then Cowboys again, and Patriots... lets face it, in todays professional sports environment, anything more than a 3-4 year period of domination would be highly unlikely. But you are way off base - the point was that during these dynasties, people on the losing ends always stated that the respective leagues favored the winning team - instead of the posibility that the winning team was just plain better! Such was the case with the mid 80s Celtics, and such is the case with HMS now. Give it a year or two and they will return to earth.
(3)Not sure what COT races you were watching, but they were 4 great races... and no, I am not the only one who feels this way. Listen to Sirius for a bit and you will find that the average fan agrees with me... no its not 100%, but its also not being painted as an overwhelming failure as you seem to believe. Remember - not enjoying a race because your guy didnt win does not make a bad race or a failure of the COT. Again, this is only your OPINION, and is in no way based in fact at all. And nobody in their right mind believes that we have had ample opportunity to evaluate the COT, that will take 3-5 years. And if you are correct in your OPINION, why arent more teams complaining as loudly as you are? Even Greg Biffle admits they just plain ropped the ball and didnt R&D it - which doesnt make for a failure, just poor planning.
As far as more practice time - sure, as long as everyone gets it. If not - no way! And your quote - (qualifying) never is it supposed to be about whether you start. Well guess what? It actually is! 50 or so cars try, but 43 get in - thats a fact, and its what NASCAR set up - therefore it is about whether you start. And thats just fine with me - after all, if you let in 50, what do you do when 5 more teams show up? Then 5 after that? Then 5 more? Have a field of 65? 75? Please - its called a try out, and if you cant cut it that week, you dont race.
(4) Not even worth addresing. The COT is all about safety, and sorry, but strap me into a car going 200mph and I want better than a safer wall... its not you strapping into a car or your life on the line every Sunday, so you dont have a whole lot of credibilty on this.
(5) You right - I am an executive at Ford and we have been getting screwed every year, but we are going to just keep on pumping more millions into NASCAR who keeps screwing us... and screw the stockholders in the process. Yeah, if you think that, I have a bridge to sell you...
(6) I stand corrected - I know its not 75%, it was meant more as a mathematical example... but they are better than 40% of the field, and as such, win better than 40% of the races. Simple really.
(7) Re-read what I wrote - IF YOU BELIEVE IT IS FIXED/FRAUD/WHATEVER stop watching because there is no fix... I agree NASCAR has a lot of isues, but this is not one of them.
(8) The other manufactures will eventually figure out the COT and only time will tell... HMS is well funded, but so does RCR, Roush, Gibbs, DEI (for now!)... the COT is designed to level the playing field, but nobody with half a brain could honestly expect it to happen over night - think medium to long term, if you are able.
As far as the COT being a failure? Maybe. But right now, I have seen 4 good, competetive races and no major injuries in a crash yet, so early indication is good - but I will still reserve judgement for 3-5 years.
nh_nascarfan said:
"(5) You right - I am an executive at Ford and we have been getting screwed every year, but we are going to just keep on pumping more millions into NASCAR who keeps screwing us... and screw the stockholders in the process. Yeah, if you think that, I have a bridge to sell you..."
Just from looking at that it's easy to see that you are not a Ford fan, and don't even keep up with Ford. If you had been keeping up with Ford, you'd know that they're about to go bankrupt from poor management over the last several years. If they don't have sense enough to make the right business decisions, what would make you think they have anybody who knows or cares anything about Nascar racing. I saw one of their racing division guys on Dave DeSpain's show last year, and he was saying that Ford didn't want to lose their vehicle's identity or brand recognition. He didn't like the idea of just a sticker on the front and all with the same body. Yet, he was agreeable to common bodies and Nascar building the COT. It sounded like a lot of horsecrap to me. If I were running Ford's racing division, I would inform Nascar that unless, and until, Ford and the other brands received the same perks and packages that Chevy does, Ford cars would not run another race on Nascar tracks. There are plenty of other areas for Ford to race in, and they have over the years. I would also add the requirement that the pace vehicle be alternated for each race, through the brands running in Nascar. I see no reason that Chevy has to be the pace vehicle for 30 out of 36 races. There are a lot of other areas I would point out to them too, like commercial dispersement by whoever was doing the broadcasts for Nascar. There is no reason that Chevy, or Chevy drivers should get 90% of the commercials. If Nascar wants an all Chevy show, I'd make certain they got what they wanted, if they didn't agree to being fair with each make. So, the fact that Ford takes what Nascar dishes out, and don't say anything about it is understandable to me. They don't have people running things that care anything about their image. Plus, even if they have somebody who cares, they know it's useless to say a word because of what has went on for decades. Maybe they understand that nothing they say will stop Nascar from favoring Chevy. That's why I'd give them an ultimatum. It would be either, or.
Sorry Monkeesfan, you are right. The COT is bad. Nascar is bad. Hendrick is bad. I am bad.
You are smart, the smartest I've seen. You are the man with the facts! That's a fact. I hope you can save Nascar!
Go Monkee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
nh_nascarfan, no, you're the one off-base here.
1 - It is not an opinion, it is a fact - the rules package is a bad one. Chances are you'll ask, "So what's your definition of a good rules package?" One that has the following -
** A per-race average of over 40 lead changes.
** Where all the manufacturers are battling for the win.
** Where all the teams are battling for the win.
** Where the number of winning teams exceeds a dozen every year.
The sport doesn't have anything close to that now. It had something pretty close to that 2001-2, it had something pretty close to that in 1991 and 1994, it had something fairly close to that in 1999, and it had something close to that in 1986. It can have it.
2 - Yes, changes made by the NBA, NHL, etc. were done in the off-season. Racing, however, is a different animal altogether - it can get away with running rule changes. You cannot right now say that it will return to earth in one or two years - people have thought that since 2003 and it hasn't happened. You're the one off-base here.
3 - Bristol, Martinsville, Phoenix, and Richmond - those were the four COT races I watched, and they were single-file exercises in competitive ennui, three of which got saved by late yellows. Where were the lead changes? Where was the passing? When there is no battle for the lead to speak of, when passing is made harder by the design of the car as is the manifest truth with the COT, then it's not a good race. If Bobby Labonte wins a COT race it won't change my mind about the COT; if John Andretti wins New Hampshire (the COT race he'll drive the #45) it won't change my mind - the only thing that can change my mind is if we see a scenario where -
** the Hendrick and other money-guy teams are losing week after week to the smaller teams because they physically cannot improve the car because of the technology box imposed.
** The racing averages over 40 lead changes per race.
** The number of winning teams increases beyond the ten that have won in the previous four-plus seasons.
Right now there is no serious prospect of such a scenario with the COT.
Don't cite Sirius radio talk shows because they screen out a lot of callers - you don't get a good picture of the sport from there, you get it from the non-mainstream medias like the blogosphere, the W-S Journal, and so forth.
"Why aren't more teams complaining?" Because NASCAR is muzzling them the way it shut up Tony Stewart for calling them out on phony caution periods and the way MLB shut up Curt Schilling for telling the truth about Barry Bonds.
When you get to qualifying, you're talking ragtime. They're not supposed to send teams home after qualifying; it never does anyone any good. They have 50 entrants, they can start 50 cars. "Well what if they get five more entrants?" That is highly unlikely.
4 - "It's not worth addressing." That's because you do not have a credible counterargument. The COT is about NASCAR's obsession with control over the competition; it is not about safety.
As for the rest of it, you're just lying to yourself as well as me.
You have not seen four good races with the COT because that car has not produced ONE good race. Reserving judgement for 3-5 years is the mark of one in denial about the truth.
Anonymous #66 - I'm counting the posts.
No, I am not a NASCAR employee, and right now that allows me to comment on these issues with honesty.
"Four data points (races) do not make a study....." Four races plus over twelve months of on-track testing, and that does make a study. We've given this thing time and it refuses to get better.
No, we don't need to "embrace the future" because this is not the future, this is a colossal mistake. We've given it time, and it has failed, and is has zero potential to live up to any of its promises. NASCAR's business structure can be changed to what actually benefits the sport; we as members of the sport need to push for that kind of change.
Anonymous #71 - Elliott did that with a 7/8-scale racecar, this according to former Ford engineer Louis Duncan. It wasn't awesome, it was an embarassment to racing.
Anonymous #68 - NASCAR legislated use of the Chevrolet engine for all GM brands starting in 1978. That allowed GM teams to run the sleeker '77 Olds Cutlass and fastback '77 Buick Regal/Lesabre from 1978-80.
Ok, I admit it - I have been sucked into the world of blogging, and I think its important that I not lose perspective on reality such as Monkeesfan has.
Before I go on, here are a few basic definitions I have been using when writing, perhaps that was a mistake on my part.
o·pin·ion
–noun 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
fact
–noun 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
sub·jec·tive
–adjective 1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).
2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
4. Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
ob·jec·tive
–noun 5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
Its with these definitions of fact versus opinion and subjective versus objective that I am basing my statements.
(1) Your vision of a 'good' rules package is just an opinion, so please dont preach that its fact. It is not, it is your opinion that my in reality not be shared by all, but I will admit that I appreciate the that you are at least trying to asign some criteria to it in order to somehow quantify it. However you can not state that it is a good race versus bad race based on criteria, because the terms good and bad imply opinion. I may like pizza with anchovies and you may not, that is a matter of OPINION. I enjoyed the 4 COT races and you may have not, again a matter of OPINION. As far as your criteria goes, I'm not sure how you can tell the number of passes by watching on television. And where are you looking at passes? For the lead? Mid pack? Restarts? I also wonder what the difference between the COT and the old car is in your mind, as we dont see any of that with the old car either, so it seems foolish to blame the COT for what has been a long standing problem in NASCAR. Whether you believe it or not, NASCAR is attempting to address the competetiveness issue with the COT, and after only 4 races, we have no idea if it has addressed those issues. A year of testing will not answer anything on the competetiveness of the racing, and while Hendrick is 4 for 4, that will (in my OPINION) change. In order to come to a reliable, data driven, objective decision, we need more information and only time will do that. Yes, there may need to be adjustments made, but scrapping a project that has already involved millions of dollars and thousands of hours of R&D because its not perfect and requires some work is irresponsible and not the kind of decisions that people who run billion dollar organizations make and expect to be successful.
(2) Sorry, no - in no way should any professional sports league change rules in mid stream, period. Racing is no different, anything that will effect the competetivenes on the track or a teams strategy can not be touched. There are millions of dollars on the line here, and if changes are made in mid season, every team will rightfully complain. You fail to address that there are teams out there that, although not doing well with the COT, may be negatively affected by mid season rules changes, as they would also need to change their strategies as well. I'm not suggesting that they should never change rules, what I am saying is that any rule changes need to be done in a thoughtful, methodical manner that are based in fact (as defined above) and need to be done in the off season in order to maintain the sanctity of the sport - my opinion.
(3) Again, these are your opinions which are fine, but dont spew them as fact, because they are not. I do wonder though how you have arrived at the conclusion that the COT is to blame for the lack of parity in NASCAR as well as boring races, when these have been percieved issues for several years. I for one could live the rest of my life never seeing another race at California, no matter which car they run.
As far as Sirius versus other media, you 100% discredited yourself with your statements that you get a good picture of racing from blogospehere - although entertaining to read and occasionally fun to post on, one needs to be cautious about what one takes away from there that could be considered fact... there are a ton of people out there who make statements of 'fact' based on non-substantiated claims, or claims based on minimal fact, or claims that dont take all facts into account, just the ones that support the often weak argument. As far as Sirius screening out callers? I wonder where you get that as fact? As I am a frequent listener, I often think they should based on some of the nuts that call, but they get their forum as well. Its good entertainment with some well educated people as well as drivers, owners, etc.
(4) As far as safety, here is what the COT has that the old style does not:
'The COT has improved safety features over the current car. The driver's seat has been moved four inches to the right, the roll cage has been shifted three inches to the rear, and the car is two inches taller and four inches wider. More "crush-ability" is built into the car on both sides, ensuring even more protection. The car's exhaust runs through the body, and exits on the right side, which diverts heat away from the driver. The fuel cell is stronger, and has a smaller capacity (17¾ gallons, down from 22 gallons, which as of 2007 has become standard in all cars).'
Im not sure how you can say that this is all a bunch of BS, and I'm not sure that you have the credibility to comment on this as it is the work many expert safety engineers who committed thousands of hours into this project, to say that it is a bunch of bull even further negates your credibility. Again, a statistic we will never know is just how many drivers avoid serious injury or death with the new safety features. Remember, its not you or your family who straps into a race care each week.
Feel free to say what you want out here, just dont pretend that its fact when its really your opinion. Believe it or not, there are a lot of knowledgable NASCARfans who recognize the difference.
nh_nascarfan,
1 - My "opinion" of a good rules package is fact, not opinion. Racing is about competition - lead changes, sidedrafting, passing and repassing. It is never about redesigning the racecars to impede passing. You said you enjoyed the four COT races - fine, but under no circumstances can you with any objectivity call them good races, although there was some good racing at Richmond.
I'm looking for passing up front. The COT stymies passing, up front and elsewhere on the track. We've seen this in all the testing with the COT and in the racing; nowhere in any of this process has the COT shown any improvement as a racecar. One of these days a team besides Hendrick will win a COT race, but so what? You are not going to see any kind of increase in the number of winning teams with this project because it costs too much, impedes ability to race, and was foisted upon the sport by leaders of a sanctioning body, leaders who have no clue what racing is and are more concerned with marketing the brand name instead of the competitive product.
"After four races we don't know....." No, we do know. The COT is a failure.
"We don't see that with the old car, either." The difference is the design of the old car does not directly impede ability to pass, which is what the COT does, and if anything, it was the cutting of downforce off the old car that hurt, not the design of the old car. Moreover, improving ability to race does not need a ridiculously expensive redesign of the car, instead it can be attacked with bolt-on aero pieces and a change of tires; tackling horsepower is also a necessity.
Aborting this misbegotten fraud is not irresponsible - coming up with it in the first place is what is irresponsible.
2 - Absolutely should a racing series make rule changes in mid-season to address competitive problems. Racing isn't like the other sports. "There are millions of dollars at stake here." All the more reason for mid-season rule changes. Rule changes do need to be thought out, but when you have a bad rule you don't stick with it.
3 - The blogosphere has more credibility than the Main-Stream Media, so don't lecture me about discredit. The MSM lies, it has been a liar's lair since before the Vietnam War, became more of such in Watergate, and got some comeuppance when the blogosphere helped destroyed the MSM-abetted mendacity of the Liveshot Kerry campaign. I used to be a talk-show caller veteran, and I know first-hand that they screen out callers - Sirius is no different from any other radio network. So no, it is the blogosphere and the non-MSM that is to be more trusted for racing and other news than you or the MSM. You're the discredited one here, pal.
4 - Here's how it's BS - most of the features such as moving the driver seat more inboard aren't even relevent safety issues, they're just window-dressing. "Crushability" is overrated; years ago Ford did a study on that and found it was overrated, as Rusty Wallace pointed out in 2001. The older 22-gallon fuel cells were superbly safe, there wasn't even an issue there.
Given how safe the older cars were and are, to say "We'll never know how many were saved by these new features" is a lie. History is what gives that statement more credibility than the pie-in-the-sky rhetoric of engineers.
And BTW, speaking of safety, where is the 25-MPH reduction in the speed of the cars?
Knowledgable NASCAR fans know that facts are not on the side of the COT, so stop pretending you know anything here.
Junk the COT and go with the roof spoiler package.
Monkeesfan, I give up. There is no point in having a logical discussion with the illogical,nor is there a point in having an educated conversation with the uneducated. In order to even have a real discussion about any of this, you need to understand the differece between personal opinion and actual fact. You seem to have no ability whatsoever to distinguish the two, so it really is a waste of time. I do agree with you on mainstream media, however to state that blogging is actualy credible - please! Pull your head out of your butt and pay attention, its not all about your perception and your opinions. Ok, you hate the COT. Big deal, its here and it will be for a good long time. The reality is it will be 3 to 5 years before anyone with any ability to make a change will do so because they know that is how long it takes to come up with a fact based decision. I still dont know where you get the 'fact' that Sirius screens out callers, but you have decided that they must, so therefore we must all take it as gospel. And if you must state that you know for a fact, then BACK IT UP. You care more about the perceived inability to pass than you do driver safety? Your opinion of a good and competetive race is whats important? How is moving the drivers seat away from the zone of impact where the majority of kinetic energy is transferred a bad thing? You will believe a Ford study but no other (surprise)? I think if you want any to have any sense of credibility at all you should probably go back and re-read the definitions of fact/opinion/objective/subjective. I suppose your definition of knowledgable Nascar fans is basically anyone who believes all of your conspiracy theories and agrees with your warped opinions. Those of us who even dare to question you are considered dumb and illogical. Well, regardless of what your opinions are, the fact remains that (1) your opinions are just that and nothing more (2)you have virtually no credibility whatsoever (3) Chevy is the domanant manufacturer in NASCAR for whatever reasons your feeble little mind wants to come up with and (4) The COT is here to stay so deal with it
nh_nascarfan : Well said. You are arguing with someone who gives credit to the blogosphere. LOL.
To Monkee:
"The body shape edge argument, far from being eliminated, has been exacerbated because the rules package has biased toward Chevrolet." – It’s not possible for Chevy to have a body shape edge when they are all identical.
"then cite to me one fact that argues in its favor" - the average speed difference from the Pole winner to the 40th overall qualifier has decreased. Passing from the 36th starting position to the top 5. But don't worry, you've glossed over the ONE fact you asked for nicely.
He doesn’t understand testing vs real world uses. Two very different uses of the platform. He leaves out contending facts that would weaken his stance.
"Why are the other teams farther behind? Because the COT package has increased Hendrick's edge." – Because the other teams admitted to dropping the ball and not doing their research.
"aero means greater impediment to passing." – that’s why the better drivers are coming from the back of the pack and passing everyone, right?
"Forcing the drivers to make the car work? A flat-out lie - it cripples their ability to race." –
Let me repeat myself: That’s why drivers like Kyle and Tony Stewart are passing everyone from their back of the pack start spots or having lost spots to the back of the pack and making them all back up. Newman from 26th to 4th. Just to name a couple. Yea, ok.
"You're doing nothing but talk in ragtime. The simple fact is the Car Of Tomorrow is a total failure." – you should know.
Face it, you just don’t want to let go of the past.. or is it you just like making noise without substance? I think everyone here thinks you're off mark to some degree. You should let go and move on rather than spending your time counting anonymous entries. You have great argumentation skills, you just need to hone them with good facts, not opinionated perspectives.
Oh, Hendrick is now 5 for 5 in COT races.
nh_nascarfan, you want illogic, then read the Mainstream Media. Stop lecturing me about the difference between opinion and fact because I know that difference and you don't. Pay attention yourself. The blogosphere proved itslef of superior credibility in 2004 and your lowlife opinion doesn't change that it has more credibility than the MSM.
The COT is a massive mistake and it will not last as long as you think it will; if it lasts beyond this year I will be shocked because it does not work and has turned off more fans than it can possibly bring in. They don't need even one year to make a fact-based decision because they have the facts in front of them.
I get the fact of Sirius screening out callers because it's SOP in talk-radio. I've lived through it; it's SOP.
You keep harping about safety - it's a non-argument. They want to imrpove safety, they did that with the SAFER and the other stuff; they never needed the COT for that. Moving the driver closer to the middle does not change anything because it has never been shown to improve anything.
Ability to pass is vital because that is what racing is about. "Your opinion of what is a good competitive race is what's important?" It isn't "my opinion," it is fact. Again, you're the one incapablew of discerning fact from your own opinions. Darlington once again showed how UNcompetitive is the COT, and you don't have a phony baloney finish to cover your argument's posterior here.
I'm not the one in need of credibility here, nh - you are. The facts remain -
1 - I stated facts, not opinions.
2 - You are the one without credibilyt because you have no facts to support your argument.
3 - There is a longstanding rules bias for Chevrolet in NASCAR.
4 - The COT is NOT here to stay.
So how about admitting you're wrong?
descrier -
It isn't possible for Chevy to have a body shape edge? The rules package has taken away changes the other brands can make to overtake Chevrolet; the package has simply dragged them to Chevy's style of racing.
The speed difference 1st to 40th is a sham argument. Where are the lead changes? And no, they're not passing from 36th to the top five, they're leapfrogging on pitstops. Passing is down, not up, with the COT.
I understand testing and realworld usage fine - the real world simply reinforced what the testing showed - that the COT increases aeropush and decreases passing.
The other teams didn't drop any ball - the rules package has done nothing but increase Hendrick's edge.
No one is passing from 36th into the front at any of these COT races - you only see that at Talladega and occassionally at the other races with flush airdam/spoilered cars. Those cars gaining spots do so on pitstop cycling; Kyle Busch and Tony Stewart aren't passing any significant number of cars, and newman used pit cycling to get to the front. And again, where are the lead changes?
You're 0-for-at-least-three now, descrier. You don't want to let go of a sham future. I offered factrs, you counter with ragtime. The facts remain - passing is down, not up; the rules package has increased Hendrick's competitive edge, not decreased it. You've offered no credible evidence to the contrary. So instead of lecturing me about facts, why not admit that the facts do not support your argument? The COT is a failure, period. If you want better racing through aero changes, then cancel it and go with the roof spoiler package instead.
I've watched several passes for the lead.. on track. I saw several passes in pack, on track. I watched Kyle come up through the pack at least 10 positions, on track. I watched Stewart do the same, on track. This was just one of the races.
Remove thy blinders, quit repeating yourself and see the race for what it is. LOL.
Descrier, you are correct - monkeesfan is illogical and flat wrong, and anyone who dares question him is shot down. Unfortunately, in order to have an educated conversation one needs to be educated.
This statement is proof enough: "The blogosphere proved itslef of superior credibility in 2004 and your lowlife opinion doesn't change that it has more credibility than the MSM."
We have both provided undisputed facts, he has provided nothing but his own opinion which he tries to pass off as fact; I even gave him official definitions of fact/opinion/subjective/objective, and he still just plain doesnt get it.
As far as safety and moving the driver away from the zone of impact not improving driver outcomes? Come on now - did you not take basic high school physics? You love to make statements like something has 'never been shown' or its bunk, but if you would care to research it look at the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine website (www.aaam.org), or the American College of Surgeons (www.FACS.org), or Prehospital Trauma Life Support (www.NEAMT.org/PHTLS) and learn about the transfer of kinetic energy into the human body and what it can do to injure a person - the whole idea of preventing this energy transfer is the premise behind the safety measures of the COT; in everyday cars we have seatbelts and airbags, in racecars we have heavy duty frames, restraint systems, and the HANS device, and now we have, in the absense of an ability to install an airbag, additioanl space for the energy to be dispursed before it enters the drivers body. If the basic rules of phyiscs do turn out to be wrong, then I would love to know about it... would you care to provide a reputable website (preferrably not a blog) that can show me a study that goes against every other study on automotive safety? Something that will perhaps back up your feeble little arguments?
As far as all the passing happening during the pits? An interesting theory, and the only possible way that you can back up your already weak argument, but one that you cant possibly back up just by watching TV. Denny Hamlin lost 12 positions yesterday after a bad pit stop and still finished second, with no other pit stops after that moved him up. Hmmm, if he wasnt passing anyone... hmmm. Junior made it from 21st starting position to top 10 most of the race, and it certainly wasnt because of great pit stops.
Monkeesfan definition of fact: 'Its a fact if it supports my own belief, no matter if it actually is real'.
Just admit you are wrong and please stop throwing beer cans at Talladega!
Wow! I just got home from a week in South Carolina - a bunch of days with just the guys golfing, and a weekend of racing, and no wives! How much better is that? I am sitting here in my office still in vacation mode and came across the more than 80 posts to Davids blog, so I knew something was going on worth reading.
Heres my 2 cents for what its worth:
I am a Ford fan, its all I have ever driven, and a Rousch Racing fan, specifically Matt Kensith. Although I am disappointed in the performance of Ford over the past few years and especially this year, I do not believe in a conspiracy against Ford, Dodge or Toyota in favor of Chevy. The bottom line is, like it or not, Chevy has been putting out a superior racing product and the results are on the track. It certainly helps when they have a bunch of high dollar teams that dont have much of a budget, which allows them to do whatever it takes to win, and that is especially true with Hendricks and the CoT. Oh, and just because Chevy advertises a lot means just that - they advertise a lot! It doesnt translate into anything sneaky or underhanded, so get over it.
NHNascarfan is 100% correct in his assumption that if it were such a 'known fact' that NASCAR favors Chevy and screws everyone else then they would drop out of the sport and put their marketing money elsewhere. So would Dodge and Toyota. Anyone who believes otherwise is a fool. Trust me, big corporations such as AT&T are not afraid to take on NASCAR over a single car sponsorship, so wouldnt the other three manufacturers file an antitrust lawsuit? In a heartbeat they would! I am a vice president of marketing for a large company in Georgia, and you can bet that if my corporate partners were screwing my company, I would pull out in a second. We advertise to get results, and if NASCAR is inhibiting that, Ford/Dodge/Toyota would pull out - period! They race only for the advertising value of racing, not for the fun of it!
If NASCAR was so underhanded and dirty then two questions need to be answered: (1) Why hasnt someone blown the whistle? The turnover rate NASCAR is like anywhere else, and if it were such a widespread scandal to be picked up by the 'oh so wise and smart' blogger such as Monkeyboy, someone would have spilled the beans and it would have headed to court years ago - unless, Monkeyboy, you are planning on volunteering your inane thoughts to Ford and can be their 'expret witness'. Secondly, if it is such a scandal and so crooked, why the hell are any of you still watching? Its a fair and legit question Monkeyboy, if you really believe it then change the channel or go support your local short track on Saturday nights. You are suggesting that our sport is basically the same as 'professional' wrestling, and your conspiracy theories only help support the thought that others have of NASCAR and its fans - a bunch of dumb, uneducated rednecks watching cars drive fast and turn left.
As far as the CoT, we get it. Monekyboy doesnt like it. You are entitled to your opinion, but bear in mind, it is just that - an opinion. I see that one of the other people out here have already discussed the difference between a fact and an opinion, so I wont waste my time, if you didnt bother to read it the first time or just plain didnt understand it, then there is nothing I can do to change that. Just realize that you have yet to support any of your statements with even one iota of fact, despite being given several undisputable facts by others. All you do is thump your chest and state that the truth is not the truth and we should all blindly follow you. Well, believe it or not Monkeyboy, there are a lot of very well educated fans out here, and those that are actually buying the BS that you are slinging are not in that group. The CoT is in fact a good racecar, and although you may not like it, your opinion on the grand scheme of things mean absolutely nothing to anyone at all other than yourself. This is a project that has taken many years and millions of dollars, and you are even dumber than your writing reflects if you think it will be gone by years end. In fact, by mid summer, I would expect an announcement by NASCAR saying that it will race full time next season which again, blows your credibility right out of the water (Not that stating the blogosphere is credible didnt already do that!).
As far as the CoT races being 'entertaining' and 'competetive' - those are OPINIONS. Yes, we get it, you didnt think so, and therefore you thump your chest and state as fact all the reasons the CoT sucks and is a massive failure and blah blah blah, but the reality is its your OPINION! I have had the ability to be at 3 live races this year - my home town of Atlanta (old style), Bristol (CoT) and yesterday at Darlington (CoT) and the two CoT races were far better than Atlanta (Missed Talladega because of a wedding!). Not only that, but I dont know where you get the idea that there is no passing in the CoT, seeing two of them live allowed me to see plenty of great passing and side by side racing at both CoT races. Not only that, but I have been to Bristol the last 10 years for every race and this year was one of the best yet - and that was the consensus of most the fans I heard that weekend, further I didnt hear anyone say they didnt enjoy the race. Most of them were doing the smart thing and that is taking a 'wait and see' attitude, which is probably what you should be doing.
Please dont start preaching safety like you are an expert, as NHNascar said, you dont have to strap into the drivers seat every weekend. Hundreds of engineers have worked on this project with safety as the number one goal, if you actually have the balls to get up here and start in on how its all a big lie, than you really are dumber than you present yourself.
Oh and you really make yourself look like a horses ass stating that rules should be changed in mid season. Imagine having a royal flush in poker and right before you call, someone changes the rules which devalues the hand. Well, right now both Hendrick and Chevy have Royal Flushes.
Sorry to sound so pissy everyone, its the post vacation blues!
Descrier is right - take off your blinders and look around. Until then, you arent impressing very many people out here.
What a breath of freash air from BulldogsAlum80. It's nice to see a different perspective on the issue come forth. This was getting old.. fun, but old.
descrier - there were very few passes anywhere on the track. "This was just one of those races." No, it was a typical COT race - uncompetitive, with no prospect of improvement. Remove the blinders yourself.
nh_nascarfan - you're the one whose argument was discredited here. Your "facts" were nothing; you have not provided one fact that supports the COT. You want to cite these websites, but ask yourself this - why did they need to build a whole new model of racecar to attack those issues when they already attacked them with the SAFER, the HANS, etc. and even so have still not attacked the raw speed of the cars? Moving the driver closer to the middle of the car isn't relevent to anything here, no matter what your websites try to say.
You obviously weren't watching the race to talk about how many cars Denny Hamlin passed when he hardly had anyone to pass all day; it's a bunk argument - he and everyone else gained spots in pitstops more than on the racetrack. I'll ask you again - if there was so much passing, where were the lead changes? If they're not there, then there isn't much passing going on.
It's that simple. And it's a fact, something you refuse to understand.
bulldog, NH is wrong - Ford has been shortchanged by the sanctioning body for decades; that they still compete doesn't change that; all it shows is how determined they are to beat the Bowties. Chevrolet has long needed rules breaks (engine location within the engine bay, less restrictive carburation in the early 1970s, more spoiler, limited-edition bubble-glass models, headlight covers, body alteration on the Lumina, widening the rear deck on the Monte Carlo, common templates which bring the other bodies down to Chevy's level) to put out a "superior" product. It remains a fact that whenever NASCAR cracked down with legitimate authority on the rules, Chevrolet got exposed for the fraud that it is; we saw it 1992-2002 until NASCAR put in Chevy-oriented common templates.
"Well, why hasn't someone blown the whistle?" You think people haven't over the years? Besides, we all saw what happened to Tony Stewart when he told the truth about dummy cautions to set up great finishes - he got muzzled by NASCAR.
And stop with this tired argument, "Then don't watch," because it's an excuse to not do anything to solve the sport's problems. Not watching is not a serious option; the only option is to speak the truth to power and get the changes the sport is supposed to get.
The arguments against the COT are not opinions, they are facts. It is arguments for the COT that are opinions, opinions contrary to reality. It is a terrible racecar with zero prospect of improvement. It has failed to deliver on any of its promises. Those are not opinions, they are facts. You are the dumb one if you think that it will stay, because the sport cannot afford to keep alienating fans and members of the sport, and this is exactly what the COT is doing. It is a project that has wasted years and millions of dollars, so just abort it. I will be shocked if NASCAR persists with this fiasco because it has so manifestly failed.
The COT races were nowhere better than Atlanta. Bristol was not one of the best races of this year or any other, and to say it was one of the best is not what those fans you are quoting or anyone else said about that race - the consensus view was this Bristol race was boring.
Take off the blinders yourself and face the fact that there is NO justification for the COT.
If you think the blogosphere isn't more credible than the MSM, particularly with regard to the COT, this and this should disabuse you of that absurd notion. The argument for the COT gets shredded once and for all.
If there were no passes, then what did I see on all the lead changes yesterday alone?
Were you actually at the track Monkee for all these races? That would explain why WE are all WRONG!!
descrier, you didn't see much in the way of lead changes or passing anywhere else because it wasn't there. Were you even watching the race? I was watching the race - apparantly you weren't
Monkee-man, I am so sorry. You are so right. I did not see the race. I wasn't glued to the tube. Nope, not me.
And you were right, there were no passes during the race, only under caution, on Pit Road.
Did I get that all right?
Monkee, you are THE man before (Or way after) his time!
So where did Bowyer and Biffle go if they were on the front row at the green flag? Let's see:
KEEP IN MIND, this is all GREEN FLAG COMMENTARY:
By lap 8, Casey Mears goes from 11th to 7th.
Lap 18: Edwards PASSES Biffle, and finally Bowyer for the lead.
Lap 25 – Denny Hamlin PASSES Kahne for 3rd.
Lap 28 – Hamlin PASSES Bowyer for 2nd.
Lap 36 – Hamlin PASSES Edwards for the lead.
Lap 52- Stewart has moved from 27th to 8th. (Yep, no passing here!)
Lap 78 – Edwards PASSES Johnson for 2nd
Lap 87 – Kyle Busch is in 10th, after starting 37th.
Lap 167 – Kenseth has worked his way to 9th.
Lap 201 – Edwards up to 19th after restarting at the back of the pack
Lap 222- Newman PASSES Hamlin for the lead.
Lap 234 – Kenseth PASSES Hamlin for 2nd.
Lap 269 – Newman on the bumper of Kenseth for the lead.
Lap 271 – Newman PASSES Kenseth for the lead.
Lap 279 – Gordon PASSES Kenseth for position.
Lap 291 – Hamlin PASSES Newman for the lead.
Lap 292 – Johnson PASSES Newman for 2nd.
Lap 300 – Johnson PASSES Hamlin for the lead.
Lap 342 – Kurt Busch PASSES Kenseth for 4th.
Lap 357 – Johnson PASSES Jr for 3rd.
Lap 359 – Hamlin PASSES Jr for 4th.
Lap 360 – Hamlin PASSES Newman AND Johnson, 3 wide, for 2nd.
Yep, no passing here, and god knows where there was no other passing in the middle of the pack where no one was reporting it.
Or Monkee, is this all fictional, like the landing on the moon was staged!?!?!
Say la vee, or however you spell that.
wgdescrier, what you've done is fall for that scoring loop BS that NASCAR has put out to make its races look more competitive than they actually are.
"Lap 52, Stewart has moved from 27th to 8th." He did that in large part on a pitstop.
You did notice the huge gap between passes between Laps 87 and 167, dcidn't you?
"Kyle Busch is in tenth - Matt Kenseth has moved to eighth" - they got there more on pitstops than passing.
"Newman on back bumper of Kenseth for the lead." WHy are you putting that in?
BTW, did you notice that one of the few areas where they had any passing was when the leaders were being held up by lapped cars?
One other thing - how is any of this in any way better than what Darlington produced with the flush airdam/spoilered cars?
All you listed are 24 laps where supposedly there was passing (when you cite a lap where a car is on another car's bumper as a "pass", then you're straining to try and prove a point that you honestly don't believe). That's only confirming my point. This COT package impedes ability to pass more than the flush airdam/spoilered cars; the COT has failed to produce better racing - it has decisively failed to produce better racing.
I'll ask this again - if there was so much passing out there, where were the lead changes? Specifically, where were the roughly 50 lead changes? Until you can cite a COT race with anything close to that number of lead changes, then there isn't anything in the way of passing going on.
We saw at Talladega plenty of real passing - lead changes, door to door combat, all of it up front. The COT is supposed to produce this kind of racing - that was what was promised the sport by Gary Nelson and NASCAR when they debuted this monstrosity. And it not only hasn't delivered, it can't.
If I were to cite the 2000 NH 300 run with a restrictor plate and point out all the position passes under green that took place (including four passes for the lead that officially didn't count because leader Jeff Burton lost the lead in Turn Three but repassed up high and won the race back the stripe), would you say that this proves that the plate experiment at NHIS worked? I'd say it showed you can pass with the plate, but that it also showed the need for major changes to tires and the strength of the draft to get more passing.
Where are there any such caveats with the COT? More importantly, what can they possibly do to improve its raceability that doesn't inevitably steer it back to the flush-airdam long-nose chopped-roofline short-deck spoilered design it supposedly replaces?
There is nothing in the way of fact that you can cite to make the COT out to be anything but a colossal mistake.
Come on David...Is Monkeesfan really you, pretending to spout all this bull, just to get a bunch of comment action? He can't be real, can he? He actually reminds me of a man in my town, who spews out "fact" about UFO's, and rabidly denounces any opposition to his beliefs...calling people names and ca=hallenging them to prove the n0n-existence of aliens...
I'll have to admit, Monkee / David, whoever...such lame, disrespectful, disillusioned arguments do tend to generate responses from "normal" people who enjoy respectful debate, and polite discourse...
I'll bet this MONKEE character is a real joy to be around in person... if you appreciate arrogance and obnoxiousness.
Please, Monkee...once more, for old time's sake, tell me how stupid I am again...
Monkee isn't David. I think I know David well enough to say he would sign it if he wrote it and he wouldn't blather on with the same point everytime.
Um, Monkee - before spouting sourceless tidbits like "what you've done is fall for that scoring loop BS that NASCAR has put out", .......
Might you consider that I actually saw those passes with my own eyes or do you wish to belittle yourself by insulting me & continually repeating yourself, with your own, ostentatious views?
I've tried very hard to not name call, or imply, and NOT REPEAT myself by using new and different facts for each of your inquiries / requests, wherein, once an individual gives you the reply you state would make a point, you have rudely bashed with your baseless reiterated rantings.
I know that you, Monkee, want to see 50, 60+ cars on the track at every race, that you want to see a pass for the lead every single lap, and that you want to see all the drivers having led a lap, (Which I assume, would also include D Cope, a Bodine, and other non-worthy drivers) and that restrictor plate racing is the true form of race competiton. (Plate racing is a great patience / chess game) I agree, it's fun to watch, but I think your perspectives give away certain mentalities that you operate by.
As much fun as this has been, I think all points for and about all authors here, have been made pretty clear. The obvious point, which has overshadowed this subject matter title, is a home run.
Don't you think so NH_nascar and Bulldog?
I must take my valediction now to more productive shores, but thank you for the written discourse everyone here has provided.
Anonymous #96 - I don't say anything that isn't true. If you want arrogance and obnoxiousness, go somewhere else.
descrier - yeah sure, you saw those passes with your own eyes. Come off it, I watched the same race you did and they weren't happening that way.
I don't bash with anything but facts, descrier. You still have not been able to refute any of them - your scoring loop crap doesn't count, because all you did was cite 24 laps; 24 laps in a 367-lap race do not make anything close to great competiion.
Just what "mentality" am I supposedly giving away by pointing out what great racing actually is? And why the cheapshots about Derrike Cope and the Bodines?
"I know you want to see 50 or 60 cars on the track every race, passing for the lead every lap, for every driver to have led...." You say that as if there is something wrong with wanting that. Talladega last October saw 63 lead changes among 23 drivers, the most competitive race in 22 years - there is no reason why the other tracks can't have that kind of racing and no reason why the sport can't get out of the Dead-Lane Era it has been under since 1985. The COT doesn't even try to do any of that, it merely aggravates the Dead-Lane Era.
descrier, you've lost the argument. You can't defend the COT because your arguments for it are self-deceiving vapor. The COT is a failure. It is part of the subject matter of this blog entry because the failure of the COT and the continuation of the Dead-Lane Era require NASCAR to take action to get the playing field truly level, to where 40-plus lead changes is the norm and never the exception, to where the number of winning teams in a season regularly exceeds twelve, to where dirty air aids passing instead of impedes it, to where the sport is driven by competition instead of by marketing to the pinkhat crowd, and to where NASCAR knows how to get its competitive product truly competitive.
So take your phony baloney "valediction" elsewhere, because it's not wanted or needed for rational discussion about racing.
Monkee...So, you're lecturing Descrier about rational discussion?
Enough said.
You are obnoxious and arrogant, and that is an irrefutable fact. Your argument suffers fo lack of merit and lack of decency in its presentation. I defy you to offer a fact acceptable to me, which can refute the fact that you appear to me to be a pompous, know-it-all, jerk.
Sorry, I have already made my decision, because you can't possibly offer said facts. In fact, should you offer facts, I will label them as ignorant stupidity. I offer my condolences to anyone who has to be around the blathering Monkee on a personal level.
And to make this a racing post, rather than a personal rant, how bout that "car of tomorrow"?
Seriously, Monkee. Read Descriers post...thats the way to present an argument. Thanks for the reasonable, intelligent discourse descrier, Bulldog, and others who came to discuss rather than to show their ignorance...
Anonymous #99 - yes I am because descrier has degenerated into ragtime.
"If you offer facts, I will label them as stupidity." Apparantly so, because it would seem you want to drink the COT Kool-Aid instead of view the project objectively.
Don't read descrier's post because he doesn't offer a credible argument.
He counts anonymous entries,
Cries and cries,
&
Now he's telling us who we can read because he has deemed that poor fellow as some -- whatever it is he thinks..
Dude, you are in the wrong tree.
Someone needs a "Wah"-mbulance.
Do you think they let him out on weekends?
Anonymous #101 - don't flatter yourself. Read those who make sense instead of people like descrier or nh_nascarfan.
Monkeyboy, face it, you have been judged in the court of public opinion, and the FACT is (sorry had to say it) – you are a moron. You are the reason that people judge NASCAR and its fans as a bunch of ignorant rednecks. The problem with trying to reason with you is that you do not understand what constitutes a logical argument, which is one based on facts and objective data. You see what you want to see and loudly and obnoxiously proclaim it as fact. Well, here are some true facts: I was at Darlington on Sunday, and there was plenty of side by side racing with passing. On more than one occasion cars were 3 wide going into the turns. Multiple drivers worked their way up in the pack by good old fashioned PASSING. Tony Stewart, Denny Hamlin, Dale Jr, and more… too many to list. Truth is you watched the race on Fox TV – which aside from its usual sub-par performance, only allowed you to see about 70% of the race (and I am probably being generous) due to commercial breaks. How can you state that you have all the ‘facts’ when you missed 30% of the race???? Not to mention, the parts you actually could see, you only saw what the TV cameras showed you. I was sitting high up in Turn 3 and saw 100% of the race – not even a bathroom break – and have the benefit of better than 35 years of NASCAR knowledge under my belt, so I think I can speak to the fact that IT WAS A DAMN GOOD RACE, with PLENTY OF PASSING and SIDE BY SIDE racing. Oh, and you want every team having an equal opportunity to win? When was the last time at Darlington did 38 out of 43 cars finish the race? Cars that cant stand up to that track usually end up as a scrap heap in the garage, with no opportunity to compete and earn points. Looks like the CoT stood up well against the BEAST that is Darlington! Oh, but that shoots another hole in your CoT sucks theory, so you will knock it down but the true, knowledgeable fan knows better. As I stated earlier, I was also at Bristol and there was more passing and side by side racing than I have seen in the past 10 years but unless you were there, you cant make an educated, informed opinion since you only saw bits and pieces of the entire race on TV.
Oh, and another ‘fact’ that the CoT wont be around next year? I just heard an interview with John Darby, NASCAR Nextel Cup Series Director – he stated that they are extremely pleased with the CoT from a competitive standpoint. Doesn’t sound like its being judged a complete failure to me; in fact I think it just might be around next year.
Monkeyboy, it is amazing how truth get in the way of a good discussion, I like how you just glossed over NH_Nascarfans referenced some great facts, but Monkeyboy blew them off, most likely not bothering to read them (words too big perhaps?). And are you suggesting that we should not believe that moving a driver away from where the damage takes place is helpful? Just because you say so? NH_Nascar fan gave facts and references, you give hot air in your argument? Can you please, for once, send us somewhere so we can check your ‘facts’? Please, back yourself up with something other than hot air!
Trust me, as someone who has made a career of good marketing plans, if Ford were really being screwed, they would put the advertising dollars somewhere else. That is not even an arguable point here. Keeping in mind I am a Ford fan, it pains me to say this, but perhaps if they were to spend a bit more money and do a bit more R&D, they would be more competitive. Oh, and while we are on the topic, has anyone noticed that Rousch and Penske have shown a great improvement in their CoT programs the past few races, something Monkeyboy said would never happen because the CoT was designed to allow Chevy & Hendrick to win every race? Oh, yeah, I know, another fact that will be ignored. Silly me!!!
Descrier gave you lap by lap descriptions of some of the main points of the race, and I, as an EYE WITNESS can back up the FACT that they happened, and they were real passes, many of which probably never showed up on your TV set.
And, no, we wont stop with the argument ‘don’t watch’ – if its this bad, give up! Do you really think that spending all of your time blogging all of these false accusations and twisted views of reality will help? Only good educated discussion by knowledgeable fans will do anything to address some of the real issues with NASCAR.
Ever notice that stupid people usually don’t realize they are stupid?
Hey NH_Nascarfan – how hard is it to get tix up at Loudon? We were thinking of heading up for one of the races.
Hi everyone,
I have to say I am impressed with Monkeesfans incredible knowledge of racing and the inner workings of NASCAR. I wasnt aware that everything we did to screw everyone but Chevy was so obvious, but its plain to see that it is so we will change our way. Monkeesfan, are you interested in coming to work for me as my personal assistant? I cant imagine NASCAR surviving from a competetive and safety standpoint without your wisdom and guidance. Please send me your resume as soon as possible.
Brian France, CEO
NASCAR
Wow, a job offer from Brian France!! How cool can that be in the 'coo coo for cocoa puffs' world!!??
Here's a funny fact of life: Monkeeboy actually linked to an article from his blog that compares COT race passes to the previous years race passes.
Bristol 2007: 355 quality passes
Bristol 2006: 157 quality passes
Advantage: COT
Martinsville 2007: 352 quality passes
Martinsville 2006: 384 quality passes
Advantage: Current car
Phoenix 2007: 278 quality passes
Phoenix 2006: 594 quality passes
Advantage: Current car
Richmond 2007: 705 quality passes
Richmond 2006: 383 quality passes
Advantage: COT
In total, there have been 2,363 quality passes in 2007 compared to 1,827 in 2006 -- a difference of 536 and a 29.33-percent increase this year over last.
Dude, the simian made our argument for us!! It's an article by Tom McCarthy, on nascar.com.
Give that man a banana!!
anonymous #106, Tom McCarthy's argument is garbage because his scoring loop data is totally useless. They count as "quality" passes what happens outside the top ten but is still in the top-15, and they count lapped cars racing top-15 cars on restarts as "quality" passes. McCarthy's argument is a joke because he's using deceptive scoring data instead of lead changes and visual study of the actual races to make a sham argument. There wasn't nearly as much passing as he wants us to believe. Lead changes were scarce, the top ten were strung out oiver half the track, and no one was racing hard.
bulldogsalum80 - Stop the pompous "you've been judged" crap because that's not an argument. I know what logical argument is. You belittle the TV coverage of Darlington, and I know you see more of a race in person, but the fact is, if there had been those three wide moves you claim happened, TV would have caught and replayed them. "Tony Stewart, Denny Hamlin, Dale Jr...." So - and I've asked this of everyone and no one has offered a credible answer - where were the lead changes? If there had been as much passing as you claim, then there would have been twice the number of lead changes than there in fact were.
"When was the last time at Darlington 38 cars out of 43 finished the race?" How many were battling for the win? Just one at the end and all race long the leader was by himself; clean air was more important than it was before. How many were on the lead lap? Fewer than half. And as for how "tough" the COT supposedly was, it resisted turning all day, and one reason so many cars finished is because no one was pushing any kind of issue, because the COT would not let them race. So what if a lot of them slapped the wall - the older cars did that too and kept on going.
Bristol was not as good as your make it out to be - again, if there had been the passing you claim, it would have shown up in many more lead changes than there actually were. The TV would have caught a lot of those passes you claim happened. TV is not nearly as bad as you think it is.
It was not a good race, bulldog - it was boring, it was uncompetitive, it was another failing of the COT.
nh_nascarfan gave so-called "facts" that aren't. Moving the driver closer to the middle isn't an improvement because there was no issue with where the driver is with the older car. All the safety add-ons boasted by the COT can be added to the older car, and the SAFER and other stuff they put onto the tracks addressed most of the issues they had. The safety argument for the COT was a sham argument.
Next you quote John Darby, never mind that he's an idiot who got kicked out of BGN's officiating squad and kicked upstairs to Winston Cup only because Gary Nelson was retiring. Don't flatter him as smarter than he actually is.
"Has anyone noticed how Roush and Penske have made gains in the COT program?" What good did it do them? Hendrick is still way ahead because the whole program played into their technology advantage.
That someone other than Hendrick will eventually win a COT race is true enough - but what makes you think Hendrick won't run off and leave everyone all the same? What makes you think the COT will really allow a dozen or more teams win races when the tightening of parameters starting with common templates that immediately preceded it (and of which the COT is a natural result) has limited the number of winning teams from 2003 onward to just ten?
"If Ford thought they were being screwed, they'd take their money elsewhere." No they wouldn't; they're too determined to beat the Bowties to do that.
Descrier gave me nonsense - those lap-by-lap descriptions are the same phony scoring loop data Tom McCarthy ODs on. Where were the 40 or more lead changes?
"If you don;t like it, then don't watch" remains a sham argument. "Do you really think blogging is going to help?" Speaking out always helps. You just want people to give up and accept what is not acceptable - a sport wallowing in ultra-expensive mediocrity. It doesn't work that way; we want our sport back and speaking out will help us get it back.
"Ever notice how stupid people don't realize they're stupid?" Ask ytourself that, bulldog, and maybe reexamine your opinions.
Goodness, Monkee...you just don't get it. Your argument is built completely upon your opinion (which you insist on calling "fact")...and you completely dismiss everybody else's facts and opinions as lies...
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you actually hit upon a good idea...nobody will listen, now, because you have spent a week displaying your ignorance. (and I don't really believe you are gonna hit on that good idea, but there is always that chance...so keep on trying)
I have to admit that this has been one of the more entertaining post discussions I have seen, based primarily on the fact that you have willingly shared with the world your arrogance in ignorance. I know your world makes sense to you, and I hope you come to grips one day with the undeniable fact that you don't know everything...
You have been a funny opponent, if not a worthy one. I wish you the best...
Now if you will excuse me, I've gotta go drink that Kool Aid and get ready to go and watch that bogus race this weekend in Charlotte. I'll be there for two weeks, so I won't be able to read your comments. I look forward to you explaining to me what I actually saw at the race track.
(I'm not sure that I will be able to watch the race and enjoy the passing, because I am now confused about whether I will be seeing real passing or bogus passing created by alien scoring loops...oh well, at least the CoT won't be there to spoil the show...
See ya, Monkeesfan.
Oh yeah, just so you don't forget...you are an idiot.
Monkey, you are still completely way off... and every time someone gives you credible evidence that you are wrong, you shoot it down because it’s not what you choose to believe. It’s getting silly to continue to go point by point with you since you still offer no compelling evidence to back up anything you type.
For starters - laughed my ass off with the Brian France job offer, funny! And you should probably call him, because after all, if it’s out here in blog land, IT MUST BE TRUE!
You discredit the article on quality passes written by Tom McCarthy on nascar.com, stating that the data is wrong because of 'bogus' scoring loop data and it doesn’t account for lead changes. Regardless of what you think about the accuracy or quality of the data collected, there is one irrefutable fact that you fail to address - that the methodology is the same for the old car and the COT, so you are comparing apples to apples - meaning that the COT still had more passes than the old car. If they had changed how they tabulate the data between 2006 and 2007, then you could make an argument that the data is bogus. But once again, you aren’t educated enough to be able to make a logical statement on data.
Bulldogsalum makes a great point - you missed a good chunk of the race on Fox as opposed to live, and I wouldn’t give a whole lot of credit to the quality of the broadcast as well. I had the volume turned down and listened to MRN, and it sounded like there was plenty of side by side and three wide passing that was going on while they were at commercial or blabbing away in the Hollywood Hotel. Fox didn’t even cut out of commercial when Kyle Bush hit the wall, nor did they show a replay - so why would you actually believe that they would show 3 wide passing in the corners? I don’t know if you were off arguing with your family that the sky is actually green, but I did see quite a few passes take place. Or maybe it was you into the Kool Aid. But then again - they are the MSM, so you probably shouldn’t put a whole lot of trust in their broadcast either... so maybe its just as well they didn’t show side by side racing, as you would have said it wasn’t actually what it was and that they pay NASCAR tons of money, just like Chevy... blah blah blah
The research I provided on auto safety is valid and reputable and you have yet to provide anything to refute it other than your opinion, which is based on ignorance and lack of knowledge about basic automotive physics. Where would you like to be when you are kit in your car? Right up against the door when the truck t-bones you, or a few feet away? Come on, even a 6 year old could answer that. Would you rather be inches from a fire, or a few feet away?
Regardless of your opinion of John Darby, if you go back and read what bulldog wrote, you will see that the point was that NASCAR likes the COT and it sounds like, despite what you believe to be fact, it will be back next year and isn’t going away any time soon. And no matter what you think of him, he has access to information about what NASCAR will or will not do which you clearly do not - you are confusing what the WILL do with what you think they SHOULD do - again, the slight problem you have with being able to differentiate between fact and opinion has reared its ugly head again.
Ford is a multi-billion dollar corporation that has to answer to a Board of Directors and stockholders about profitability and marketing successes, not a little mom & pop outfit that takes things personally. Decisions are based on the bottom line - meaning MONEY - and nothing more, and if they are truly being screwed, then they would pull out. If you believe otherwise, then you are truly more ignorant than you initially presented yourself.
You are correct that speaking out 'always helps', but someone should add the footnote that speaking out IN A WELL SPOKEN, WELL EDUCATED, FACTS BASED MANNER is what best facilitates change, which you have proven that you are incapable of doing. So I'll say it again - if you don’t like it, DONT WATCH.
Bulldogsalum80: its not too bad getting the tix for NH, you can order them through the track website www.nhis.com - traffic is a nightmare though, so be prepared! It’s a great place to watch a race, even if there are no passes! Hey, didn’t Jeff Burton lead 100% of the race in Loudon a few years ago - in the OLD style car?
Anonymous #108 - I'm the one who gets it. My argument is based on blunt facts, not wishful thinking buttressed by deceptive data as is the argument for the COT. I dismiss the arguments made by proponants of the COT because those arguments are flatly inaccurate.
nh_nascarfan, look in the mirror for being way off. That "credible evidence" isn't; that's why I shoot it down.
Tom McCarthy's argument is based on phony data. "The methodology is the same for the COT as for the older car," but this fails to take into account the fact that the older car is aerodynamically sound, whereas the COT manifestly is not. The COT's unsound design means it cannot improve the racing. "The COT still had more passes than the older car." Only by deceptive data can you make that argument. When you look at what matters - the lead in particular, as well as the top ten - the the older car still had better racing; most passes that were counted as "quality" with the COT involved lapped cars passing top-15 cars on restarts; the COT cars could not close up in top-ten positions and the leader was consistently able to pull away. This was not supposed to happen with the COT. The older cars still had better ability to close up on the leaders than the COT has shown because they are aerodynamically sound. So the scoring loop data, inherently useless to begin with, is made even more deceptive with the COT.
Bulldogsalum is talking ragtime. I know there was stuff missed by the TV cast, but it didn't matter, because FOX isn't nearly as bad as you think it is - especially given how Mike Joy and Darrell Waltrip watch the track (on other networks the main announcers watch the main TV screen in the booth) and thus pick up passing and incidents before the TV can. If there had been these three-wide moves he talks about the TV would have picked it up. "They didn't show Kyle Busch when he hit the wall." So?
The point about John Darby and NASCAR is that their professed "like" of the COT is all spin. They cannot objectively be happy with the car's poor performance in race trim, nor can they ignore that attendence and ratings are dropping in COT races for that reason. NASCAR cannot afford to keep losing fan interest, and it can't afford to let the racing continue to deteriorate. That is why the COT won't last as long as you or others think it will, because all it is doing is hurting the racing and alienating the fanbase.
"Ford makes decisions based on the bottom line." You forget they're run more by car guys than bottom-liners; they know they've been getting shafted in the sport's rules bias for decades, but they know it's still better to stick it out and beat the Bowties; they also know they got a fairer shake from 1992-2002, hence their six manufacturer titles in that period.
Stop lecturing about "speaking in a thoughful, factual manner." I'm speaking in a factual manner; I don't speak any other way. "If you don't like it, don't watch" is BS. It's a non-option. Speaking out and making the sanctioning body change back to what it should be is the only option. How about accepting that fact for a change?
The COT is a failure - what is it about this fact that you can't accept? Is it a blind hatred of the older car?
Thanks NH_Nascarfan. Although I am wondering if I should waste my money since its another one of those darn CoT races. Maybe Monkeyboy can do something about it in his new job at NASCAR!
bulldogsalum80 - give me that chance and you'll get racing as it should always be.
Monkeyboy -
For my benefit, can you please define the term FACT as you understand it? As of right now, you have failed to provide any meaningful documentation to back up of any of the FACTS that you wrote, so if I am misunderstanding what a FACT is, then please correct me. Show us where we can reference what you are saying so we know that you are correct. How about a website, reputable study or publication? How can you state that NHNascarfans evidence isn’t reputable? Explain yourself in a manner other than jumping up and down having a temper tantrum, having the 'because I said so' attitude. Back yourself up so you can at least gain a slight shred of credibility.
'Phony' data? That implies made up, not true. Again, please learn the difference between fact and opinion; it is relevant when having a conversation. You could certainly try to make an argument that the data is not relevant to the CoT versus the old car, but the data provided by McCarthy shows that there was more passing in the CoT as opposed to the old car, and the same methodology was used. Notice he nor anyone else states that the passes on either were quality, however you want to define them, only that there were more in the CoT - which, if anything, proves factually and quantitatively that you are dead wrong in your statements that the CoT doesn’t pass. It does, and the numbers prove it.
No matter how much you love FOX, they still only allow you to see 70% of the race, and you can only see what they allow you to see. So why was not cutting back to the race after Busch hit the wall important? It backs up the fact that they don’t have a good grip on what’s really important to show in a race, such as accidents involving top tiered (or any) driver, and three wide passing. If you didn’t see three wide passing, it’s because FOX chose not to show it to you, I can tell you it did happen as I was there and witnessed it.
Darby and NASCAR may be spinning the CoT, but that wasn’t the point. You made one of your statements of fact that it wouldn’t be around next year. Darby, who should know if there are plans to scrap it, says they are happy with it. Doesn’t sound like your statement of fact is correct now does it? You are trying to spin what people write, but in fact just end up making yourself look like more of a moron with each post you do. It’s actually become quite entertaining to see what inane crap you will write about next.
Please - after I spit my lunch out my nose laughing at you - I really want to know where you get the information that Ford Motor Corp, a multi billion dollar Fortune 500 company, is run more by car guys? These guys are highly successful business men and women who did not get into the positions they are in without a significant amount of real world business experience and advanced education, they don’t make million dollar decisions based on the desire to 'beat the Bowties' even though they are being shafted. Its all about marketing and return on investment, and if NASCAR is continuously shafting them and not allowing to maximize their investment in the sport (i.e. by winning and being competitive), then they will look elsewhere.
As far as attendance in the 5 COT races so far:
Bristol - sold out
Martinsville - 95% attendance and they traditionally leave a few thousand tickets available for the day of the race with rain in the forecast
Phoenix - sold out
Richmond - sold out
Darlington - sold out
Yeah, attendance is dropping in CoT races, people are laving in droves. TV ratings are down across the board, and have been declining for a few years so it seems a bit silly to blame the CoT for that. There are plenty of other reasons we could discuss, but in marketing, we call that ebb and flow, a normal variance in demand for your product.
Look in the mirror - we don’t have blind hatred for the old car, none of us have slammed it at all. Perhaps its your VERY BLIND hatred for the CoT that you should look at as you have yet to provide even one reasonable argument as to why its such a failure, and you have blown off every single verifiable fact as to why you are just plain wrong.
Again, I ask for one thing - please define the word FACT as you understand it.
'bulldogsalum80 - give me that chance and you'll get racing as it should always be.'
Yeah, with a lot of dead driver and wrecked cars strewn about the raceway as well as a bankrupt NASCAR...
Perhaps you should stick with racing at your local short track
bulldogsalum80, you know what facts are. As for the COT, I said I'd be shocked if it is around next year; given it's failure as a racecar the notion that it will be in fulltime use by 2009 is bunk.
Yes, phony data - that scoring loop data in no way gibes with what we all saw in the race - the top ten hardly changing position all day, the leader almost always way out front, passing rare. McCarthy doesn't show anything because his premise is wrong and the data he cites is deceptive. For any argument that the COT has increased passing to be accurate, lead changes would have been twice what they actually were. For his data to prove his point, there would have to have been nonstop combat up front,
That FOX didn't replay Busch hitting the wall means nothing. If there had been those three-wide moves you claim, they'd have caught and replayed them.
That Ford stays in NASCAR despite being short-shrifted for decades shows they're run more by car guys than bottom-liners.
Bristol sold out but no one there thought the COT was a better race. None of those other COT races sold out, either. And TV ratings have been down with COT races across the board.
Come off it - it is blind hatred of the old car that animates this phony baloney support for a COT that has been a failure. All the "facts" cited in its defense are false.
And as for racing as it is supposed to be, you won't get more than an occassional stubbed toe; what you'll get instead is the end of the Dead-Lane Era and real control of costs. And the COT will not be any part of it because it is a big part of the problem now.
“I'm not sure that I will be able to watch the race and enjoy the passing, because I am now confused about whether I will be seeing real passing or bogus passing created by alien scoring loops” HA!!
“And you should probably call him, because after all, if it’s out here in blog land, IT MUST BE TRUE!” LOL
“Please - after I spit my lunch out my nose laughing at you –“ LOLROTF
(Then you’d have soup!)
Monkey-ism’s:
“the top ten hardly changing position all day, the leader almost always way out front, passing rare.”
(If the leader isn’t out in front, is he still the leader?)
After the “Last round of pitstops, Denny Hamlin got from 16th to 2nd”.
(So if there are no more pitstops, was he shortcutting the pack down pit road while they were racing on the track? This one’s subjective, but it sounded funny to add to the fray of instability and humor.)
How many times can we say failure?:
“Aero-matching/common templates has been a costly failure
“Scrap the COT - it is an unqualified failure.
“The simple fact is the Car Of Tomorrow is a total failure.
“That is the objective analysis that shows the COT is a failure.
“We as a sport have got to stop denying that the COT is a failure.
“No, we don't need to "embrace the future" because this is not the future, this is a colossal mistake. We've given it time, and it has failed, and is has zero potential to live up to any of its promises.
“After four races we don't know....." No, we do know. The COT is a failure.”
“The COT is a failure, period. If you want better racing through aero changes, then cancel it and go with the roof spoiler package instead.”
“It is a terrible racecar with zero prospect of improvement. It has failed to deliver on any of its promises. Those are not opinions, they are facts.”
“I will be shocked if NASCAR persists with this fiasco because it has so manifestly failed.”
“This COT package impedes ability to pass more than the flush airdam/spoilered cars; the COT has failed to produce better racing - it has decisively failed to produce better racing.”
“descrier, you've lost the argument. You can't defend the COT because your arguments for it are self-deceiving vapor. The COT is a failure.” (I am vapor, hear me hiss.)
“because the failure of the COT and the continuation of the Dead-Lane Era require NASCAR to”
“It was not a good race, bulldog - it was boring, it was uncompetitive, it was another failing of the COT.” (Were you tuned into fox, or were you watching.. oh no, you’ve been watching soap box derby pay per view, haven’t you!!!.... You need to tune into fox!! Problem solved!!)
“"The methodology is the same for the COT as for the older car," but this fails to take into account the fact that the older car is aerodynamically sound, whereas the COT manifestly is not.”
(He likes the word manifestly, it’s like manly, but bigger.)
“The COT is a failure - what is it about this fact that you can't accept?”
(It’s a flying brick, to quote some unknowing guy somewhere)
“it's failure as a racecar the notion that it will be in fulltime use by 2009 is bunk”
“it is blind hatred of the old car that animates this phony baloney support for a COT that has been a failure. All the "facts" cited in its defense are false.”
(That would be 18 times!)
To Descrier from Monkee: “then you're straining to try and prove a point –“
I actually wasn’t straining anything to type, I was sitting comfortably and ergonomically erect, unlike some.
bulldogsalum80, if you get to the track at NH early, and be at the exit when they cross the finish line, and pedal as fast as you can to the car, you’ll get out ok. It is a 2 lane road with lots of cones (At least the last time I was there) that provides 3 lane traffic, 2 in the major direction of travel, 1 in the minor. I’d hate to live near that place on race day!!
Now this is entertainment.
Yes, you are for once correct - I do indeed know what facts are. It is YOU who does not, which is why I asked you to define it so we all know.
"Bristol sold out but no one there thought the COT was a better race. None of those other COT races sold out, either. And TV ratings have been down with COT races across the board."
Here is why I want to know if you understand the term fact versus opinion:
(1) Stating no one at Bristol thought the CoT race was a good one is ignorent at best; I'm sure I was not the only person out of 160,000 who enjoyed the race, in fact I know I wasnt. I was there, there was overwhelming enjoyment of the race. Yes, I'm sure there were people who didn’t like it, I wont pretend there were not the way you pretend, but the majority of people I spoke with - in my group and those around me - were pleasantly surprised. You are making blind statements from the confines of your living room on what people at Bristol think when I was actually there, and I am telling you that you are WRONG.
(2) I was at Darlington this weekend and guess what - it was SOLD OUT. That is an indisputable fact.
(3) Viewership has been down across the board for NASCAR over the past few years. It’s not just the CoT races, but all of them. It just goes to show how you use half-truths and incomplete information to support your arguments.
You have still been unable to back up any of your 'facts' with anything other than name calling and uneducated statements and assumptions. Show us where we can go to get REAL data to back you up?
"That FOX didn't replay Busch hitting the wall means nothing. If there had been those three-wide moves you claim, they'd have caught and replayed them.
That Ford stays in NASCAR despite being short-shrifted for decades shows they're run more by car guys than bottom-liners."
Two more completely unsubstantiated facts - there were three wides, trust me, I was there.
You have no credibility whatsoever and yes, you have been judged in the court of public opinion - you are a moron.
One more use of the term failure...
Monkeyboy is a FAILURE
Can we count that one?
To be Manifestly accurate, he didn't say it, so no, it should not count. But nice try.
Also, you are in deep muck muck.
You were instructed not to read my posts!! What were you thinking?
Now back to the non-aero Soap Box Derby pay per views!
BulldogsAlum80 said
"Oh and you really make yourself look like a horses ass stating that rules should be changed in mid season. Imagine having a royal flush in poker and right before you call, someone changes the rules which devalues the hand. Well, right now both Hendrick and Chevy have Royal Flushes."
If the present situation were reversed and Ford had 10 wins and chevy 1 win, you'd see rules changes. You'd have seen them long before this point in the season. I can say that because I've seen Nascar do it countless numbers of times in the last couple of decades. If a rules change is made by Nascar, at least 80% of the time it'll favor chevy. And I no more think you're a Ford fan than I think you're Elvis. You have too many of the chevy lines in your posts. Ford just needs to work harder, spend more on R&D, blah, blah, etc. Those are the same arguments made by all chevy fans and Nascar. It never seems to work that way though when Ford finally starts winning. Suddenly, chevy is at a huge disadvantage and needs help to stay competitive. They're working hard, burning the mid-night oil, but just can't compete without having a rules change from Mamma Nascar. I wouldn't mind it so bad if Nascar would just quit lying about wanting a level playing field and everybody out there having the same chance. And that's what they do, LIE. They go with the money, and the money is in chevy fans, chevy, and chevy drivers. Just remember, watch and if Ford starts winning, and wins like chevy is doing now or even close to that, see what Nascar does.
Anonymous, are you Monkeyboy in disguise?
Yes, I am a Ford person, always have been. I have always driven Fords, and I believe they have a superior product across the board in every area but racing. I am just a reasonable Ford person and recognize that the amount one spends in R&D has a direct correlation in performance on the track, and the truth is, Chevy spends more than any other manufacturer and as such, you could say they buy their wins.
As far as rules favoring Chevy? I'm torn on that. If you are truly good, you should be able to compensate for any set of rules that are laid out for you. How does the new CoT rules favor Chevy when the rules were just made this year? Here are the templates, go build a winning racecar...
The initial discussion was not if rules favor one manufacturer over the other, but was whether NASCAR should change the rules in the middle of the season, and the answer is an unqualified NO WAY.
Now I will be the first to admit that NASCARS biggest problem is inconsistency in rules enforcement, and seeing as they don’t even make an actual rule book available to the general public, it lends for a lot of questions about their integrity. And unfortunately, it’s the appearance of improper behavior that matters.
No, I am not Monkeesfan. But I believe sort of along the lines of what he's saying. Not all, but some. You say you're a Ford fan and you're reasonable, but whether you are reasonable is not for you to decide. It's up to those you're dealing with to decide if you're reasonable. I like to think I'm reasonable, but I'm sure some on the opposite side of something from me wouldn't think so. lol. On the R&D business, I'll tell you like I tell chevy fans. To me it's an insult to suggest that Ford owners and teams don't put a sufficient amount of money into R&D to race in Nascar. Why is it always Ford that don't do that and never chevy? Think about it. I've heard that argument for decades now, and it still sounds like an insult. They accuse Ford of going on cruises and goofing off during off-season, and that explains why chevy is winning. It's a bunch of horse crap propaganda. On the COT, think about who designed and built the COT. When you figure out who designed it, ask yourself do they have anything to gain from chevy winning everything. I know what they say about the templates, just like I know about the common body templates, which was a Taurus body that was given to chevy and Dodge. Ask yourself why chevy suddenly decided to accept common bodies after fighting it for years along with Ford. Next, pull up some pictures from a COT race and find a picture that shows the nose of each brand running now, and look closely at the whole front airdam, splitter, and around the headlight decal area and see if you can see anything different there between Ford and chevy. I don't have to ask if Nascar favors chevy. I turned 61 years old this morning at 1:06 AM, and I've been keeping up with Nascar racing since about 1955. So I've seen and head a lot. I'm confident I know the truth.
So I cracked a col beer and watched the all star race Saturday night - a million bucks on the line, no points to be lost, all the experts saying it was going to be an incredibly entertaining race, and with the old car, as opposed to the 'unqualified failure' COT, we saw a grand total of (drum roll please)... ONE pass for the lead. Yes, ONE. Thank God the COT wasnt racing, or there wouldnt have been any at all!
Those damn Chevys won again though! Where is the black helicopter?
(Me thinks me just poured gasoline on a smoldering fire)
Here's some more fuel for the embers: I think we made our point when we started firing back at him in his own tone of voice..
But more confusing / entertaining, is is monkees blog, where he throws out the prospect of an east / west division for the Winston Cup series. Yep, Winston Cup. I'm confused if he's speaking from a historical pespective or if he's confused.
But there it is.
So...Monkee...
It seems that NASCAR just announced the COT will go full-time in 2008. You said that would never happen.(a fact, you said) Is your "fact" from earlier, still a "fact" even though it has been completely disproven?
And, I watched the All-star Race from the catch fence last weekend...I saw plenty of circling, very little passing. In fact, the most boring racing of the season, thus far. I can't wait for 600 laps of the same this Sunday. Bring on the COT. Bring on the infield wagon races...anything has to be better than "flush-airdam" racing...at least there was no need to manipulate the scoring with those bogus scoring loops...
Monkee, you are still my favorite idiot. That's a fact.
Dammet!
Anonymous, you stole my thunder!
Well said, and right on!
I think I may end up experiencing the 'NASCAR NAP' on Sunday night...
You know what would be interesting? An exhibition style race with 20 cars - 10 old style and 10 COT. Just food for thought...
I'm in for the long sleep - The Indy 500, then Charlotte.. I told my wife to go take a trip, but leave me a bucket of coffee.
For this idea you have NH, I assume a short track, but then, if you ponder it, with the old style, they turn better, so unless it were a figure 8 race, I don't think there'd be much of a race.
Post a Comment