Notes, news and general impressions from the first afternoon of the 2008 NASCAR Sprint Media Tour hosted by Lowe’s Motor Speedway:
NASCAR chairman Brian France said stock-car racing’s rich history will be a major focus this year, as the 50th Daytona 500 kicks off the 60th season. But whoever helped France prepare his remarks needs a little brush-up on that history. France said the first race in what’s now the Sprint Cup Series was in 1949 at the Charlotte fairgrounds. No. The 1949 race was at Charlotte Speedway near the city’s airport. The Southern States Fairground track wasn’t used by NASCAR’s top series until 1954.
-- Everybody in racing is out looking for talented drivers to develop into future stars. All that’s required of any diversity effort is to make sure that during that process you’re looking in places where historically you might not have looked.
I believe NASCAR wants to be a more diverse sport. But I think it’s erring on the side of letting that just take its course and not providing enough juice to jump-start the process.
It takes fuel to make anything run, and what fuels just about everything in the business of NASCAR is money. NASCAR needs to pour some fuel into this process.
Five percent of the television money paid for every Cup, Nationwide and Truck Series race should go toward providing opportunities for young drivers of all races and genders.
-- Robin Pemberton, NASCAR vice president for competition, said the decision to move the "go-or-go-home" cars to the end of the qualifying order instead of the beginning was made largely to give those teams every chance at having the opportunity to make a qualifying run.
If you group all the cars not guaranteed a starting spot at the beginning of qualifying, a team that had trouble in practice with a crash or blown engine might not be able to get the car ready in time to go out.
Since the purpose of grouping those cars is to have them make their qualifying runs under relatively equal conditions, letting a team wait until after the top 35 go out to get ready wouldn’t make sense, either. By having all of those cars go at the end, that allows a team that’s making repairs every chance possible to get that run in.
-- Pemberton also said there’s little to no momentum toward dropping the top 35 rule altogether or changing the number of teams guaranteed starting spots.
NASCAR President Mike Helton said that no matter how much teams might gripe, the new race car that will be used at all tracks this year is the new race car.
In other words, don’t count on seeing NASCAR put any rules in reverse anytime soon.
-- Brian France called Hendrick Motorsports "the New England Patriots on wheels." Just passing along what the man said, folks.
-- It was interesting to walk into the room for the first tour function and see the flags of all six nations represented by the 11 drivers employed in all forms of racing by Chip Ganassi Racing with Felix Sabates. It looked like Concord was hosting a mini-United Nations meeting.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Media Tour observations
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
88 comments:
A better comparison is Hendrick Motorsports is the NY Yankees of racing - they buy their titles well.
Brian France butchered the location of NASCAR's first ever race? Typical of Chuck-Sullivan France.
David, the sport does not need "diversity" (i.e. quotas) and if in letting the process run its course nothing is happening, perhaps that's a message that diversity cannot be manufactured where it does not exist.
Robin Pemberton needs to face it - the sport needs larger starting fields to solve the go-or-go-home mess.
Mike Helton may say the COT is here to stay, but reality hit NASCAR in 2007 when the car solved no problems and only aggravated them. So Helton is talking out his butt again.
Thanks David, If not for you, the That's Racin Forum would't have changed in almost a week. It is apparent that some of your peers take the term OFF SEASON quite literally.
SimianFAN - "Mike Helton may say the COT is here to stay, but reality hit NASCAR in 2007 when the car solved no problems and only aggravated them. So Helton is talking out his butt again."
You can dream about the new car going the way of the T-Rex but that's precisely what it is, a dream.
It's here to stay and will only get better over time. Many whined, moaned and pee'd their collective panties when the first "Template Racers" came into being.
Let's consult the ecperts shall we?
You know the ones that put there butt on the line every week.
Jeff Gordon at the DIS test: "I’ve always said this car was designed more around restrictor plates,” said six-time Daytona winner Jeff Gordon. “Not necessarily intentionally, it’s just the way the aerodynamics are on this car. It suits the restrictor-plate tracks, the big two-and-a-half-mile tracks, very, very well."
Jimmie Johnson said he was enjoying the Daytona test because the unknowns of the new car have allowed drivers more input and the potential to affect change.
"As this car sticks around, I'm more and more fond of it, because I see where we’re able to do well in those areas and I’m able to drive it," he said. "You'd think after Talladega we would have enough sorted out to come here and everything would be fine, but it’s been a handful, and I’m really excited about that."
Donnie Wingo, crew chief for Montoya after the recent Texas tire test: ""We are not far off the times we ran here last year. I think that’s one thing Goodyear is really working hard on and NASCAR also is to get the tires more compatible to what we’ve be running on. Race pace is really close. Goodyear just wants to get a baseline setup with the tire that we’re running now, and then we’ll just run through some different compounds. I think it will get better when everyone gets used to working on it. The more we work with the new car the better we’ll get. I think it’s an advantage any time you can get track time at a place you race at. I think you’re going to continue to see good racing action here at Texas with the Car of Tomorrow."
Clint Bowyer fter the same test: ""It is surprisingly good," said Bowyer, driver of the No. 07 Jack Daniel’s Chevrolet for Richard Childress Racing. "I’m happy with how we unloaded and the tire Goodyear brought. I am pleasantly surprised with our speeds that the car has here at TMS. There are definitely things that feel different, but I went out there and felt comfortable on the first lap, and buried it out on the end of Turn 1 and it stuck and away we went. It’s really handling well and doing the things that the old car did. It feels comfortable; it feels normal. That’s one of the things as a driver you want to see. The consistency is there."
Now go ahead SimianFAN... be your usual self and claim these guys don'y know dog squat and YOU and only YOU have a valid idea of what this car is capable of.
Who cares about Ganassi Racing? I think they're a 2 car team trying to run 3 cars. Mears ran strong, and Stremme couldn't even finish. Then Mears announces he's leaving at the end of the year, and next thing you know, Mears isn't nearly as stout, and Stremme is hot. Last year, Stremme runs strong with Sorenson and JPM running so-so until CGR announces they are letting Stremme go. Next thing you know, the 41 is strong and the 40 has problems. Sorry Reed, but I hope CGR treats you better than the way they've treated their other American drivers.
SimianFAN - "David, the sport does not need "diversity" (i.e. quotas) and if in letting the process run its course nothing is happening, perhaps that's a message that diversity cannot be manufactured where it does not exist."
If your anything, it's being consistent, constant in reading something that's not there.
Where in this post did Poole say anything about quotas to improve the Diversity Program?
The cost of racing at a level high enough to attract the attention of a NASCAR team has gotten crazy! Shouldn't the idea of help from NASCAR be based on financial need (like a scholarship in football) rather than just on skin color? Also just how much diversity does it take to be diverse enough to be eligible? Dennis "RaceTalkRadio"
PS: Since Brian France said we are going to go back to the basics, can someone please bring back the SOUTHERN 500 for 2009??
Yup, I see the similarities! The New England Patriots got to the Super Bowl by cheating...HMS won two championships the same way!
Hard to believe that 40 years after civil rights some people still think diversity is a bad thing . Nascar has NEVER given the diversity idea anything but lip service . They still haven't hired anyone to direct the program . But Brian is known for spouting lofty ideas and then keeping them quietly out of sight .
Hendrick is far from the greatest team in stock car racing . Petty won 200 races and 7 championships with only one driver, not to mention the many additional races won by Lee Petty . Childress won 6 championships with only one driver , ( plus truck and Busch championships ) and the there is the Wood Brothers and Junior Johnson , all of whom have much more impressive records than Hendrick .
I have yet to hear one person who thinks the top 35 rule is a better idea than simply qualifying the fastest 43 cars . Except for the dufus in charge of Nascar along with his yes men .
JGR Fan said... 'Yup, I see the similarities! The New England Patriots got to the Super Bowl by cheating...HMS won two championships the same way!'
Yeah, I can see you are correct - 18-0 and complete domination just from videotaping the sidelines of the opposing team.
They broke the rules, were caught, and paid the fine. None of that had anything to do with the complete and utter DOMINATION they showed this year.
HMS broke the rules, were caught, and paid the fine. Also won the championship.
Anonymous is right about HMS and Petty. HMS is great at this moment in time, just as the Patriots are. There was a time not so long ago that the Patriots were the doormats of the AFC. What goes around comes around.
Monkeesfan... I share your hatred for the Yankees, but be careful... the same thing could be said for the Red Sox. And my answer to that? WHO CARES! My team paid to make sure the best people are in place to win, and in today’s sports world, be it baseball, football, or racing, the teams that pay are usually the teams that win. So HMS has more money and they parlay it back into their program and end up winning races. Who cares? If I am an HMS fan or sponsor, that is EXACTLY what I want.
On another note... we will only achieve true diversity (be it in racing or society in general) when people don’t make a big deal about it. We need to refer to people as 'Driver so and so', not 'Black driver so and so', or 'Female driver so and so'. Just like the open wheel guys... if someone is good enough to make the big show, someone will give them a ride. If they don’t have results on the track, they will eventually be shown the door, regardless of skin color, gender, or racing background.
Monkeesfan, are you suggesting that Mike Helton doesn’t know that the CoT is here to stay? One would think that despite your feelings on the CoT, if BF, Helton and Pemberton say its here to stay, then its here to stay despite the objections of the all knowing, all powerful Monkeesfan.
To say the CoT solved no problems is talking out your butt (something I will admit you know quite a bit about). The CoT was initially designed with safety in mind so that we didn’t lose another driver like we lost Dale Earnhardt. And did it succeed? Well, so far so good, last year there were no death or serious injuries in the CoT races; although its impossible to know what would have happened had there not been the CoT in place. But yes, I know... safety is a farce to you, as long as YOU are entertained. We will just forget about the real human beings that put their lives on the line every Sunday so we can all have a few hours of entertainment. Oh and safety factors aside, thank you Marc for pointing out that the teams/drivers/crew chiefs are beginning to like the CoT, but I’m sure that means nothing since it invalidates Monkeyboys argument.
nh_nascarfan, would you happen to have a blog of some kind about Nascar, and/or sports in general? I would take time out of my day to read intelligent comments like yours.
Great comparison Brian, New England..Yeah boiths orgs. get caught cheating..
Not sure where some look but a few more blogs are updated all the time on the OFF SEASON>
Seems to be what David reported on was CGR and Felix. The two whom are leading the way in the "diversity" program , which might as well be called the "buy a ride program". To those whom might say I think diversity isnt a good thing.Think again, I have a issue (as many do) with the "roots of the sport getting pushed out because of need to be diverse.
Such a wonderful state where others at Thatsracin feel the need to make me aware Felix thinks "ashleys hot". I find that so useful in the full scope of racing.
nh_nascarfan, I'm suggesting that Mike Helton right now is not realizing that NASCAR sooner or later will have to change the COT because it cannot work as it is designed. The COT was not designed for safety because the safety issues the sport faced were with the walls, securing drivers' heads, etc. "There were no deaths or serious injuries last year." There weren't the year before with the old car, either.
The COT was designed for NASCAR to take more and more direct control of the racing away from the teams and put it into the officiating tower and the inspection station.
Marc, the COT will not get better over time - as Darrell Waltrip put it, the more races teams ran with the COT last year, the worse the racing got. Gordon's comments about the COT at the plate tracks don't tell us anything because it's Daytona and Talladega; it's at the other tracks where the car has really performed poorly -
"I'd like to know who said this car would reduce the aeropush because I could have told you when I first drove it that it would be worse." So noted Gordon at New Hampshire last season. There has not been a single non-plate race where the COT ran better in dirty air than the old car. Not one.
One other thing - at the Talladega race the cars looked noticably shakier than the older model.
Also Marc, my point about "diversity" is that the goal itself is a sham. Diversity initiatives are inherently about quotas because that is the only way to meet "diversity" goals.
BTW Marc, Gordon et al would say the same thing about the cars if NASCAR had stuck with the old car and simply added the roof wicker package - that solves all the issues of competitiveness the COT is supposed to solve, but with an inexpensive bolt-on piece as opposed to a ridiculously expensive and drawn-out committee-designed hybrid of a racecar.
anonymous #11 - the Patriots were not cheating. Big difference between them and Hendrick. The Patriots got jobbed by jealous rival teams and a rookie commissioner and paid a heavy price; Hendrick gets caught cheating and pays a price that ultimately isn't much of a punishment.
nh_nascarfan, on the Yankees - buying championships as opposed to earning them isn't worth rooting for. This is what makes the Patriots' success all the more worthy - they stick to the salary cap (in contrast, the Broncos cheated on the cap to win two Superbowls and got fined by Tagliabue for it) and have figured out how to make it work better than anyone else.
Monkeesfan - "I'm suggesting that Mike Helton right now is not realizing that NASCAR sooner or later will have to change the COT because it cannot work as it is designed. The COT was not designed for safety because the safety issues the sport faced were with the walls, securing drivers' heads, etc."
So what your really saying is (with respect to safety) Helton, France & Co. are all liars.
In your world that is the only conclusion to arrive at considering the VAST majority of press releases from the cars first introduction listed safety as the #1 goal.
So they're liars right? Is that what your saying?
With respect to SAFER barriers and the CoT, perhaps you could explain to us know-nothing peons why the extra crush zones built into the CoT aren't designed to provide for more safety.
Perhaps an explanation is in order why moving the driver 6 inches towards the centerline of the CoT was not done for safety?
Or was it?
Enlighten is oh Great NASCAR Sage!
Monkeesfan - "This is what makes the Patriots' success all the more worthy - they stick to the salary cap"
Buwahahahahaha!
This is more laughable than your NASCAR commentary.
Just because they haven't been caught or fined doesn't mean they "stick to" the cap.
There isn't a team in any pro sport that operates under cap rules that hasn't used deferred payment plans to skirt the rule.
Rather than give a player say, 20 mil per year, they get 10 mil and the rest is deferred and paid at some future date, usually after the players retirement.
Clueless... as usual.
BYW, I almost forgot.
"Jake," you can take your "look who's sponsoring Milka Duno and stick it where the sun don't shine.
This is the fifth blog I've seen your crapola on, and the fifth one your ref and the link it contains is far off the topic of the thread it's posted on.
I bet you work for the company linked to, or work for it's PR firm.
You are nothing but a despicable weasel spammer and have been banned from posting your crap at my blog.
This is always the most entertaining part about Monkeyboy, how he slams the CoT. He has still yet to provide one verifiable fact about his theories on how the CoT isn’t safer than its predecessor. To heck with the engineers and safety tests, they all must just be lying in an attempt for BF to control (and ultimately destroy) NASCAR. Not one fact in any of his previous posts, and my prediction is not one here either. Oh sure, he will spew his opinions around as fact and trust that the average fan is blind enough to believe him, but no facts. Just lots of hot air and false claims that he is 'manifestly' right. The worst part is how driver safety doesn’t matter to him, as long as they race the way his delusional mind wants them to.
Hey, here’s an idea Monkeyboy - take all that extra money you have (after all, gas & ticket prices don’t affect you and your ability to go to races) and start your own racing series. You are, after all, so much more brilliant than BF & company, its clear from your posts that you will have no problem securing a lucrative TV deal, sponsors, fixing all safety issues (or just not addressing them). I look forward to the demolition derby you would create with 90 cars on a track all competing for the millions of dollars you would have. Of course, we will ignore the fact that you aren’t from a 'racing demographic' (Wakefield, Ma), its clear you are so smart that the same generalizations you afford to Brian France being from California just don’t apply to you.
Diversity for diversity's sake really sucks. It seems to me that if a minority really WANTS to get in the Nascar series, they have a free ticket due to their race, gender, or ethnic background. I am all for equal opportunities, however, if I owned a team, I would just go with the BEST driver available,,,
Sorry to jump in the issue with a few here.
But , can you say redundancy? Brian is a moron running a huge sport.
The fact the Pats and HMS both cheat , states alot and is a sad state of affairs..Hell Barry Bonds cheated.
But he is still allowed to play.
What minority in his or her right mind would want to be in the presence of so many white trash, ingnorant bigots, so hell bent on exclusion ?
Keep you racist sport to yourselves. No minorities want to be around you incorrect grammar using, Southern Crackers.
You can all go to NASCAR Hell !
If any minorities were ever good enough to succeed, you would accuse them of being GIVEN a chance just for the heck of it.
You could never acknowledge the fact that someone other than a handsome white man could have talent.
NASCAR should remain white and it should fail by doing so.
Brian France and his minions will get just what they deserve.
Financial ruin is on the horizon.
nh_nascar fan - "To heck with the engineers and safety tests, they all must just be lying in an attempt for BF to control (and ultimately destroy) NASCAR."
monkeesfan , along with the rest that suffer from France derangement syndrome, asign all responsibility to BF for the car formerly known as the CoT.
But I hae as yet not found a single congnitive response from any of them how that's possilbe, i.s. BF took the reigns of NASCAR in Sept, 2003.
The genesis (or ideas for a new car) of the CoT was in 2000 after the death of Roper and Adam Perry, then went into full design of the concept after Dale Sr's death.
So the car was on the drawing board from Feb-Mar 2001 until Sept 2003 when France took over. (first mock-up was built in Oct 2004)
Yet he gets ALL the blame in these people's eyes.
The question for these people (except monkeesfan 'cause he NEVER has a honest ans.) is how did he perform such a trick when for the majority of the time he was asssigned as manager of NASCAR's marketing department and touring divisions.
And this is the HI-larious part ('cause they all LOVE the NCTS) France was the main motivator that produced the NCTS! It was his idea fron the get-go.
anon - (the gutless one) "NASCAR should remain white and it should fail by doing so.
Brian France and his minions will get just what they deserve.
Financial ruin is on the horizon."
Hey look, it's disgruntled NHL, NBA, MLD soccer fans who hates the fact those "evil rednecks" kick his sport from one end of the media spectrum to the other and on the back kick their asses on TV ratings and attendence numbers.
I always find it HI-larious when this type of asshat tosses around the word bigot and in the same breath uses the term "redneck to describe NASCAR fans.
IDIOT!
Lynn - "Diversity for diversity's sake really sucks. It seems to me that if a minority really WANTS to get in the Nascar series, they have a free ticket due to their race, gender, or ethnic background."
Apparently you have little to no understanding what the problem is.
Here... I'll make it simple fer ya.
How many baseball diamonds, basketball courts, hell in this day and age, how many ice rinks are located wtthin YOUR city?
Now, compare that to how many race tracks, including short tracks are located in or VERY close to large cities with large populations of minorities?
If someone doesn't have access, the interest is never generated.
That is part of the Diversity Program. They are exposing students in various school systems AND those that, despite the problems involved, HAVE gotten into racing and qualify scholarships to run for 10 weeks in short tracks programs in the southeast.
I'll close this by quoting Janet Guthrie, this is what she said when asked the best way to get into racing at any level.
"Be born rich."
MArc...
It must be very comforting to "Know it All".
The world can rest on your laurels, and thanks you for putting every aspect of the above discussion into the proper perspective....for yourself.
Sincerely,
The Gutless Minority who has had more experience with bigotry than you could ever imagine, and it most certainly not an Idiot.
anonymous - "The Gutless Minority who has had more experience with bigotry than you could ever imagine, and it most certainly not an Idiot."
And you know that how? Been spying on me so you know every facet of my life, and where and when I was born?
Here's a clue you can use in any future debates you may have: Don't, I repeat for possible cranial penetration, DON'T start any discussion with a patently false assertion, one you can't possibly know for fact. It makes you out to be a fool before you get started.
I guess it's safe to assume you are the same gutless one who penned that tripe about bigotry and rednecks.
Now, on to the substance of your comment...
Per chance, maybe you can explain calling someone, NASCAR Fans in this case, rednecks, white trash, ingnorant bigots, incorrect grammar using Southern Crackers is first, close to being accurate, and secondly an example of bigotry itself?
I won't hold my breath waiting for a reasoned answer.
And BTW, if you believe as you do, what the hell are you doing reading, let alone commenting, on a NASCAR blog?
Marc, "so what you're saying is Helton, France, and company are liars." Yes - they didn't design this car for safety as much as to take away more control of the racing from teams and put it into the officiating tower and inspection station. The extra crsuh zones in the COT aren't relevent to anything; they weren't missed on the old car.
And Marc, the Patriots stick to the salary cap. Period.
nh_nascarfan, reality is the verifiable fact that slams the COT. There has not been anything in the COT that has proven safer than the old car, and when the inevitable driver deaths happen (as is the reality of racing) with the COT, what are you going to say then? And here's an idea for you - take that mind of yours and use to to objectively look at issues; you'll see I'm not the one wrong here.
Marc, quoting Janet Guthrie, who couldn't race, is ridiculous. It isn't as if people can't find racing or don't have access to it; it's that they're not interested in it.
Marc, Brian France, if he knew anything about racing, would have aborted the COT as soon as on-track testing showed it doesn't work. If he knew anything about racing there would be no "drive for diversity" because "diversity" is not a worthwhile goal; it inevitably means quotas. If he knew anything about racing he would never have made the changes he made, and now that he's talking about getting back to basics, he seems to at least somewhat realize his policies have not worked; whether he'll actually act on this fact remains to be seen and I'm not holding my breath that he'll do the right things. And if he knew anything about racing there would be no speedway fratricide - no loss of dates at Darlington, no closure of Rockingham, no threat to other tracks with dates, and there never would have been a Kentucky Speedway lawsuit; it would have been settled and Kentucky would have Winston Cup dates added to the schedule.
That is why Brain France deserves nothing but opprobrium. He's the one in charge and he has failed.
"The NCTS was France's idea from the get-go." No, it was Bill Junior's idea
One other thing - if Brian France knew anything about racing, Roush and Hendrick would have disbanded down to three cars by now and Yates Racing would have its engine shop back.
Monkeesfan: 'Marc, "so what you're saying is Helton, France, and company are liars." Yes - they didn't design this car for safety as much as to take away more control of the racing from teams and put it into the officiating tower and inspection station.'
Back that statement up Monkeyboy, if you can... provide a relevant link to something so we can check it out for ourselves. Oh, yeah, you don’t do that. You spew your theories as though they are fact, but conveniently never back anything up. In order to make what you type even worth reading, you really need to learn that in order to convince someone your statements are correct, you need to provide FACT to back it up.
Monkeesfan: 'The extra crsuh zones in the COT aren't relevent to anything; they weren't missed on the old car.'
Again, back that statement up. Are you an automotive safety engineer? You could make the same argument that air bags weren’t missed on older passenger cars.
Monkeesfan: 'And Marc, the Patriots stick to the salary cap. Period.'
And you know this how? Crystal ball? Tarot cards? Acid? I vote for the last personally... but really, I would love to hear you can say this with 100% certainty. And for the record, I am a Pats fan.
Monkeesfan: 'nh_nascarfan, reality is the verifiable fact that slams the COT. There has not been anything in the COT that has proven safer than the old car, and when the inevitable driver deaths happen (as is the reality of racing) with the COT, what are you going to say then?
Again, you are an automotive safety engineer? Why don’t YOU provide a few facts - and I mean REAL, verifiable facts via a link - that the additional safety features aren’t going to help a car hitting the wall at 190 mph. I won’t hold my breath of course. And the very fact that you feel that a drivers death in NASCAR or any form of racing is acceptable shows just how truly pathetic of a human being you really are.
Monkeesfan: 'And here's an idea for you - take that mind of yours and use to to objectively look at issues; you'll see I'm not the one wrong here.'
From dictionary.com : objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
Of course that AGAIN means you should have a definition of the term FACT. Again, from dictionary.com: 1. a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred; "first you must collect all the facts of the case"
2. a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened; "he supported his argument with an impressive array of facts"
3. an event known to have happened or something known to have existed; "your fears have no basis in fact"; "how much of the story is fact and how much fiction is hard to tell"
4. a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts"
When you fail to back up your statements with FACTS, then they are not facts, they are opinions. Give us real DATA on the new car to prove you assertions correct.
Again, not holding my breath.
Monkeesfan: 'Marc, quoting Janet Guthrie, who couldn't race, is ridiculous. It isn't as if people can't find racing or don't have access to it; it's that they're not interested in it.'
For starters, I will state the obvious... it’s better than quoting YOU. I do believe that Janet Guthries resume is a bit more credible than yours, Monkeyboy. Access is key, using your logic is the same as stating that the reason there aren’t a lot of Mexican hockey players is that they aren’t interested in it. I have been to Mexico, and there are ice rinks on every corner and they have amazingly cold winters where every pond freezes solid for 6 months a year. Oh wait, that’s Canada. On a personal note, my 12 year old daughter is very interested in learning to race, but I can’t afford it. It’s certainly not the cheapest sport to get involved with.
Monkeesfan: 'Marc, Brian France, if he knew anything about racing, would have aborted the COT as soon as on-track testing showed it doesn't work.'
I must have missed the link to the data showing this 'fact', would you care to provide it?
minkeesfan - "The extra crsuh zones in the COT aren't relevent to anything; they weren't missed on the old car."
Tell that to ALL the auto makers in the world, every vehicle on the road has them and they're there for safety.
Oh... and tell that to Dale Sr's family vehicle crush zones in addition to SAFER barriers and the Hans device all would have contributed to hais safety and may have saved his life.
Care to proved evidence that not true in NASCAR? Real evidence, not some dream you made up while using your sphincter muscle as a necklace.
I know your WAY too intellectually dishonest to do so, so here how about what Ford has to say on the matter:
"The COT was designed from the ground up to be safer, more competitive and more cost-effective for NASCAR teams."
"In addition to the driver being moved closer to the center of the car, other COT safety features include: the roll cage being moved three inches toward the rear; more crush zones on the side body panels to absorb impact and increase driver protection; and the fuel cell is stronger, with a smaller capacity (17.75 gallons, down from 22 at most tracks)."
"For example, the driver’s seat has been moved four inches to the right, allowing for so-called crush zones — buffers of energy-absorbing foam on both sides to better protect the driver in a crash."
Now...simianfan... your turn, why are they "not relevant" to anything? If they have improved saftey in both on the road cars and race cars how are they "not relevant?"
Come off it, marc. When did anyone miss those crush zones on the old car? The old car was very good in protecting drivers. They were not going to save Dale Earnhardt or any other driver who has been killed over the years, and when, sooner or later, drivers die in the COT, what will you say then?
"Why are they not relevent to anything?" Because they weren't before.
nh_nascarfan - the safety issues of the sport centered on the walls, the helmets, head restraints, etc. They didn't center on the cars despite some nonsensical comment about the chassis being too stiff (a theory Rusty Wallace, in at least one TV interview, refuted in 2001). Real facts are this - they didn't miss crush zones on the old car. Period. That's all the data you need, because it is fact. They didn't miss crush zones on the old car.
BTW, I don't view racing deaths as accepatable, I don't buy the safety arguments made for the COT.
As for the real reason for this thing - NASCAR's history of seizing more and more control of the racing from the teams and putting it into the officiating tower and inspection station. There has never been a rule change that took power away from the sanctioning body. They addressed the walls etc. but they had to go to the cars because addressing the walls and the other outside areas didn't satisfy this obession the sanctioning body has for controlling the racing.
"And you know this (about the Patriots salary cap) how?" Common sense. That's all the data you need.
As for Janet Guthrie, she never had a racing resume worthy of the name. You want to take her word over mine, that's your problem.
You cite Mexico and alleged interest in hockey down there - nowhere do you cite any actual interest in hockey there. I don't know if you're being facetious or just dumb with that comment.
"Racing is not the cheapest sport to get involved with." Indeed, and that means what, exactly? That certain demographics aren't interesting in racing? If some of these demographics NASCAR is targeting really were interested, they'd suck it up and get involved in racing.
As for Brian France, the VERY FIRST COT test in 2005 at Atlanta showed the car pushed worse in traffic than the old car. In EVERY test of the COT the car pushed worse in traffic. Not once in any non-plate race run with the COT did the cars run better in dirty air than the old car.
What part of these facts don't you want to understand? Was there a non-plate COT race where the cars wanted to run in dirty air?
simianFAN - ""Why are they not relevent to anything?" Because they weren't before."
Is that why they have been proven to work by thousands of crash experts and auto manufacturers have spent billions on the design of them and producing them in EVERY car for the road? Because, as YOU say (and no one but YOU) they're not relevant?
"when, sooner or later, drivers die in the COT, what will you say then?"
I'll have a reasoned well thought out response... like auto racing IS a dangerous sports and will always be a dangerous sport. Deaths will always happen, but that doesn't negate the fact all efforts should be made to improve the design of both cars and the tracks they run on.
BTW, "avoider of truth," if BF took over NASCAR in Sept 2003 how is he solely responsible for the CoT when the program first started in late 2001 with the first mock-up built only nine months AFTER he took over?
Wouldn't it be fair for anyone critical of the car to pass judgment on all those involved?
BTW monkeesfan... do you know who Dick Landfield, Jimmy Smith, Jim Venable, and Frank Vessels are as it relates to the NCTS?
Also related to the above... what job did BF hold in 1995?
Marc, if you're citing highway data, it's irrelevent. In racing crush zones weren't missed. Yes all efforts should be made to improve safety, but don't overkill on it. Efforts to improve safety should include solutions that don't give power over the competition to the sanctioning body and don't require teams to spend ridiculous sums of money when cheaper alternatives exist.
Brian France had the power to abort the COT when the first tests showed it would not work. He refused to do so. That makes him responsible for this debacle. You're doing it again - refusing to tag Brian France, instead wanting to pass the buck. We know others were involved here and they deserve criticism, but they're not the ones who could have stopped this mistake when it should have been stopped - Brian France was the one who could and should have stopped this farce, and he refused to do so, because he is stupid.
monkeesFAN - ""And you know this (about the Patriots salary cap) how?" Common sense. That's all the data you need."
And your "common sense is FAR from common, in fact insert no sense instead of common and you'd be smack on target.
Common knowledge is more valuable.
RE: "The N.F.L. became concerned about the Broncos' situation when it learned that Pat Bowlen, the Broncos' owner, had deferred almost $30 million in salary payments to Elway and Davis.
Delaying payment allowed Bowlen to use the money for other needs. The league frowns upon such arrangements, fearing a franchise can get into deep, long-term debt.
Amd don't attempt to say the PAts haven't done and continue to do the same, they have:
"rving Fryar , the Nebraska wide receiver who signed a four-year guaranteed contract with the New England Patriots, will be well paid.
Under the agreement, he will receive a deferred-payment $500,000 signing bonus, a $750,000 interest-free loan and four annual deferred-payment reporting bonuses of $100,000 each. And, just to give him some walking-around money until the deferments come due, he will even get a base salary. It will bring him $225,000 a year for the first two years, then $350,000 and $400,000.
You can also forget spinning this into I have claimed the Pats did anything illegal, they haven't but they and all the NFL, MLB and NHL trams have proved salary caps haven't worked.
More BS from you - "BTW, I don't view racing deaths as accepatable, I don't buy the safety arguments made for the COT."
Maybe not but by plainly stating and denying crush zones as "not relevant" seems to say otherwise.
You SHOULD be amiable to any and ALL safety improvements but you can't by painting yourself into a corner with your "its all BF's fault" BS.
Thank you Marc for beating me to the punch, especially about safety. It baffles me why any sane human being would not want to work to improve safety measures in the cars... but then again, we aren’t really talking about someone who deals in reality. Monkeyboy, what would you say if NASCAR went back to the old car and a diver was killed in a side impact crash when improved crush zones in the new car would have increased his chances of surviving? Oh, wait, I know... deaths happen in racing and its all the fault of BF because he is from California.
Monkeesfan said...
They were not going to save Dale Earnhardt or any other driver who has been killed over the years
How can you possibly present that as undisputed fact? Especially when the auto industry as spent BILLIONS of dollars on safety research, ALL of which shows that increased crush zones and side impact protection saves lives?
Monkeesfan said... Real facts are this - they didn't miss crush zones on the old car. Period. That's all the data you need, because it is fact. They didn't miss crush zones on the old car.
How is that fact? How is it data? And how does it help drivers from a high speed side impact in the future?
Monkeesfan said... "And you know this (about the Patriots salary cap) how?" Common sense. That's all the data you need.
How many Broncos fan would have said the same thing? Amazing that YOU of all people are preaching common sense. By the way, common sense is NOT the same as a fact, which is all I have ever asked from you.
Monkeesfan said... As for Janet Guthrie, she never had a racing resume worthy of the name. You want to take her word over mine, that's your problem.
Hmmm... Janet Guthrie. Aerospace engineer and both Indy 500 and Daytona 500 starts. Monkeyboy... Fry cook at Burger King. Yeah, I will take her word over yours, besides all Marc quoted her on was that you needed to be rich to race. In todays racing, that is very true...
Monkeesfan said... "Racing is not the cheapest sport to get involved with." Indeed, and that means what, exactly? That certain demographics aren't interesting in racing? If some of these demographics NASCAR is targeting really were interested, they'd suck it up and get involved in racing.
That means that Guthrie was correct. It’s called a substantiating fact to her quote. You should really try it some time; it adds credibility to your useless ramblings. And 'sucking it up?' Do you have any idea how expensive racing is? Food/mortgage versus racing. I know, this coming from the same guy who refuses to recognize that rising gas prices affect all aspects of the American economy, including where and how people spend their entertainment dollar, which includes NASCAR. The 'competitive value' of the Superbowl is fantastic, but I cant responsibly afford to spend greater than $3000 to go. As far as minorities getting more involved with racing? A basketball is much cheaper than a race car.
My point of hockey in Mexico was to point out that those minorities that NASCAR is targeting do not usually have access to racing therefore don’t develop an interest, just as those in Mexico don’t have access to ice rinks and frozen ponds, therefore don’t develop much of an interest in hockey.
Sadly, your preaching of what is a 'racing demographic' is exactly the obstructionist attitude that keeps minorities away from the sport. You have been very clear on your blogs that NASCAR belongs in the southeast and not out west, so even if a Spanish kid from California wanted to 'suck it up' and get involved, he wouldn’t be welcomed in your little world.
Dick Landfield, Jim Venable, Jimmy Smith, and Frank Vessels were team owners who went to Bill Junior and sold him on the idea of a truck racing series. It was Bill Junior's idea to launch the series.
Marc, Common sense is something you don't have.
You're the one spinning. The Broncos got fined for cheating on the salary cap, nothing the Patriots have done comes close to cheating there.
One should support safety improvement, not safety overkill, and certainly one should not support safety improvement that requires spending ridiculous sums when cheaper alternatives exist.
Monkeesfan said...
Marc, if you're citing highway data, it's irrelevent. In racing crush zones weren't missed.
Monkeyboy, the laws of physics apply no matter what situation you put them in. Cars hitting other cars and cars hitting immovable objects all involve the transfer of kinetic energy, that transfer is what causes injury and death. The safety improvements in race cars as well as regular cars all involve transferring that kinetic energy away from the occupant. There is no logical argument to the contrary because they are the laws of physics.
nh_nascarfan, I can present it because the premise that they could have saved him is absurd. History is replete with driver deaths that defied all reasonable attempt at driver safety. It is fact that the old car didn't miss crush zones because if it weren't those cars would have been far more dangerous than they actually were. Their safety record was tremendous.
Janet Guthrie - no wins, no top fives, five laps led in her entire career, no quantifiable passing of any car - you're not going to take her word over mine because she was a whiner and I just call it as it is.
"That means Guthrie was correct." No it doesn't. It means the interest is not there away from the sport's real demographics. "A basketball is cheaper than a racecar." Again you're assuming that the interest is there but the means aren't - that isn't the case. The means are there but the interest isn't. People have sucked it up and raced despite its costs for decades; if the interest away from the real demographics was there, it would be the same thing. The access is there - stop claiming otherwise. NASCAR is tageting minorities because the PC ideology of which "diversity" is a major part is bullying them into it. It is never lack of access, it is lack of interest. It is 't "obstrictionist," it is reality. NASCAR belongs in the southeast, not in the cities.
nh_nascarfan, if that were the case the old car would have been far more dangerous than it in fact was.
nh_nascarfan, to better clarify an earlier point, here are the sport's real demographics -
Rural New England
Western New York
Pennsylvania
The Southeast
The Midwest
The Southwest
Big cities like New York and LA, the Pacific Northwest, Mexico, etc. are not racing demographics and can't be made into racing demographics.
Monkeesfan said...
One should support safety improvement, not safety overkill, and certainly one should not support safety improvement that requires spending ridiculous sums when cheaper alternatives exist.
How can the safety of a human life be overkill?
Everyone was aware that year one (last year) of the CoT would be expensive, but the cost is suddenly dropping without the need to have 20-30 cars per team. Team owners have admitted that fact, why cant you?
And... how do you put a price on the safety of the HUMAN driver in the car?
monkeesFAN - "Marc, if you're citing highway data, it's irrelevent. In racing crush zones weren't missed. Yes all efforts should be made to improve safety, but don't overkill on it."
Oh hell YES, how stupid of me, I should have known all along that the physics of a race car and a road cars is totally different.
That a car hitting the interstate road divider is MUCH different than a race car hitting a wall at 180mpg.
That the law that states a "body at rest will remain at rest while a body in motion tends to stay in motion," and non of that applies to NASCAR or any race car.
(Damn stupid science!) How silly of me.
.... back to reality now... can you explain how adding crush zones added to NASCAR's ability to lord it's dictatorial powers over drivers and car owners.
If I were to make your argument (God forbid) I would use gear ratio restrictions, tire pressure restrictions etc... NOT a safety device.
Here's a clue nitwit.. The faster you go, the harder you crash. HANS devices, crush zones, and the SAFER barrier make things better, but there's no stopping physics.
(Acept in monkeesfan's "world of bazzaro>")
nh_nascarfan, when it piles on safety features for the sake of safety features as opposed to actual need. That's safety overkill.
The argument about not needing 20 cars in a fleet is bunk. Teams reused the same cars week after week ("we're using our Pocono car here at Texas"); they built ten for track usage and had ten or so more for inevitable attrition. No team owner has "admitted that fact," on the contrary the only comments have been how expensive the COT is.
Safety is about actual need, not overkill.
Marc, requiring teams to field a car where NASCAR dictates every little twist and turn of the body, the chassis, etc. instead of using bolt-on pieces or other alternatives in addressing issues is lording dictatorial powers over drivers and car owners. The COT is a case of NASCAR directly dictating to everyone (teams and manufacturers) what to build, how to build it, and to what tolerances. It's the inevitable endgame to common templates.
They addressed the walls and so forth as far as safety goes; they didn't need to address the cars other than to slow them down - and they didn't need a COT to do that.
MonkeesFAN - "nh_nascarfan, to better clarify an earlier point, here are the sport's real demographics -
Rural New England
Western New York
Pennsylvania
The Southeast
The Midwest
The Southwest
Sooo... does that mean you retract all previous statements made elsewhere whining and crying about Chicagoland? Or in your confused state have no concept of Chi-Town being in the Mid-West?
Marc, Chicago is not Midwest - Kentucky, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kansas - those are Midwest.
Monkeesfan said...
Their safety record was tremendous.
I wont disagree that the old car was safe, in fact, much safer then the car before that, and much safer than the cars that you and I drive. But the fact that there were still driver deaths means its not as safe as it could be, and to compromise on safety for the sake of entertainment is truly pathetic.
Monkeesfan... Janet Guthrie - no wins, no top fives, five laps led in her entire career, no quantifiable passing of any car - you're not going to take her word over mine because she was a whiner and I just call it as it is.
And whats your racing resume? I'll stick with her.. in fact, I'll stick with my 12 year old... over your nonsensical ramblings.
"That means Guthrie was correct." No it doesn't. It means the interest is not there away from the sport's real demographics. "A basketball is cheaper than a racecar." Again you're assuming that the interest is there but the means aren't - that isn't the case.
You create your demographics. People are entertained by whats in their environment and what they grow up with. Grow up in a sports family and you will probably be a sports fan. Grow up in the north, and you stand a better chance at being a hockey fan. The access just isnt there for many, be it due to a lack of tracks, lack of racing culture, or lack of money. I personally would love to learn to fly, but right now, I dont have the financial access and am not going to sacrafice my financial future to learn. You speak the words of someone who is still living in mom and dads basement and use your paycheck for entertainment only and have others paying for you.
Monkeesfan... nh_nascarfan, to better clarify an earlier point, here are the sport's real demographics -
Rural New England
Western New York
Pennsylvania
The Southeast
The Midwest
The Southwest
Big cities like New York and LA, the Pacific Northwest, Mexico, etc. are not racing demographics and can't be made into racing demographics.
This alone shows your true level of ignorance. By the way, Wakefield Mass does not fit your 'racing demographic'.
Monkeesfan said...
Marc, Chicago is not Midwest - Kentucky, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kansas - those are Midwest.
WHAT???????????????????????????????
Monkeesfan... 'The argument about not needing 20 cars in a fleet is bunk. Teams reused the same cars week after week ("we're using our Pocono car here at Texas"); they built ten for track usage and had ten or so more for inevitable attrition. No team owner has "admitted that fact," on the contrary the only comments have been how expensive the COT is.'
Kevin Harvick used the SAME CoT in the majority of races last year, which is exactly the point. If a team chooses to have a fleet of 30, that is their decision but they will have no more success than the teams that have 10. The strict rules package for the CoT prevent the need to have 20 or 30 as there wont be any competetive advantage. Team owners are now realizing this fact.
monkeesFAN - "The argument about not needing 20 cars in a fleet is bunk. Teams reused the same cars week after week ("we're using our Pocono car here at Texas"); they built ten for track usage and had ten or so more for inevitable attrition. No team owner has "admitted that fact," on the contrary the only comments have been how expensive the COT is."
Bingo! Caught peddling bovine excerment again. (or should I say still?)
No team huh? Meaning zero I presume?
Ahemm...
" "The Car of Tomorrow, I think, will have a result in the reduction of the number of cars that are required to run a program," Roush said. "But, do I think that the cars will be enough less expensive to be a net save to the teams? No.
It's debatable whether the car will save money in the long run, that won't be known till the bean counters add it up after a 2-3 years.
As for you team fleet numbers your way off base. Guess you never read about the Fire Sale ongoing because entire fleets of obsoleted cars.
Lets see how many are far in excess of siminaFANS 20 or so.
Roush Fenway Racing President Geoff Smith estimates about 600 cars ticketed for extinction.
Evernham has 50.
Roush has 100 cars and will have to write off about 70 at a loss stretching well into seven figures.
Hendrick Motorsports, 80 cars.
Um... excuse me simianFAN but that's a far cry from 20.
What some advice, don't write something so demonstrably false, if you do Google is definitely NOT your friend.
monkeesFAN - "Marc, Chicago is not Midwest - Kentucky, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kansas - those are Midwest."
Failed geography in secondary school I see. Chicago Midwest
Chicago Midwest.See: "U.S. Midwest Region", PDF file)
Chicago Midwest.
You're are out numbered, and geographically challenged.
I just got back from 2 weeks in Aruba and thought I would check in. Yikes! Looks like Daly is making a bigger ass of himself than I have ever seen. Funny how when people challenge him how he manages to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is the biggest blowhard on line. I used to think it had to be a joke just to stir people up, but I have since changed my stance and realize that he is indeed that dumb.
By the way Daly, to back up NH and Marc, CHICAGO IS IN THE MIDWEST. I should know, I was born here and have lived here my whole life. And yes, there are a plenty of race fans here. Why don’t you just crawl back under the rock you came from until you can actually say something educated.
Chicago is not Midwest - it is not in any kind of racing demographic. The track has been there since 2001 and there is no evidence it has made any impact in that area beyond padded attendence figures by ISC. Kansas, in contrast, sells out every year and is in a superb racing demographic. So crawl abck under your own rock, chicago - there may be racing fans there, but nowhere near enough to justify that market.
nh_nascarfan, "And what's your racing resume?" Hard analysis of the sport, historical knowledge of it, and a refusal to sugarcoat its truths. So quit it about Janet Guthrie, all right?
Where was safety being compromised for the sake of entertainment? That is the most insulting argument of the whole safety overkill discussion. It is never compromised, but there is such a thing as too much of it.
As for demographics, they are not created as much as they are "born." They're either there or they're not. The NHL found this out, the NBA found this out, the NFL found this out, hence the lack of teams in LA, and NASCAR is finding this out with poor to mediocre attendence at Fontana and Chicagoland, mediocre attendence at Sears Point, and virtually no support for tracks in New York City or the Pacific Northwest.
nh, I speak as someone who, unlike you, has studied the sport and won't sugarcoat it like some do. Big cities like NYC are not racing demographics - why not accept that fact?
nh_nascarfan, Kevin Harvick didn't do anything he hadn't done with the old car, and reusing the same car didn't make him stronger; the teams that used different cars ran better. The "we need 20 cars for 20 different tracks" line I've heard is just fiction by John Darby and company. The teams that have 20 cars will have more success than those with just ten because that means more options, plus the big teams are way ahead of the sanctioning body in the technology arms race (I can't recall one time where it was the other way around) and will beat the inspection rules if they aren't already doing so.
Marc, the "20 cars" citation was not meant to be a literal figure; I know they have more than just 20 cars. Lighten the hell up for a change. And Roush's comment about reducing the number of cars needed is bunk - it will never happen, not unless NASCAR directly steps in and limits how many cars a team has.
And I'm surprised you haven't asked the pertinent question -
If the COT is not the answer, what is your alternative to it?
monkeesfan - "Chicago is not Midwest - it is not in any kind of racing demographic. The track has been there since 2001 and there is no evidence it has made any impact in that area beyond padded attendence figures by ISC"
You never fail to further your demonstrated ability to make a fool of yourself;
Kansas Speedway posted sold-out attendance for its IndyCar, Craftsman Truck and ARCA weekend.
Chicagoland Speedway hosted sold out attendance for its NEXTEL Cup and Busch weekend, marking the fifth straight year of selling the facility out on a season-ticket basis.
You cite Kansas... then cast aside Chicagoland's figures because of "padded attendance figures by ISC."
Guess what? CLUELESS! They own a piece of it.
" Raceway Associates, LLC, owner and operator of the Chicagoland Speedway in Joliet, is made up of the combined interests of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway Corporation, International Speedway Corporation and the founding owners of Route 66 Raceway, LLC."
What's it feel like to have a Homer Simpson moment? DOH!
MFAN - "As for demographics, they are not created as much as they are "born." They're either there or they're not. The NHL found this out"
Yeah, maybe your right, the NHL would NEVER sell in say... LA... and well with no "demographics" a hockey playing "Duck" would never make it!
Except they have.
Ever hear of the Law of Holes?
Put down that shovel... and slowly back away.
And just in case you don't believe the other link on Chicagoland ownership... try this one on for size:
"International Speedway Corporation (Nasdaq: ISCA)(OTC Bulletin Board: ISCB) ("ISC") today announced it has entered into a purchase agreement with Indianapolis Motor Speedway Corporation to indirectly acquire an additional 37.5 percent interest in Raceway Associates, LLC ("Raceway Associates"), owner and operator of Chicagoland Speedway and Route 66 Raceway in Joliet, Illinois. The purchase price for the transaction is approximately $69 million in cash."
And Homer said... DOH!!!
I swear, the more I teach you, the dumber you get.
BTW, you claim there is no demo in the area, newsflash, in order to have a demo that contains racing fans there must be local racing to foster the "fever" so to speak.
Count the dots of all the Illinois short tracks. I count about 50 dist and paved ovals.
Ohio I count about the same 50 or more ovals.
Wisconsin, approx 23.
Michigan, my home state... to damn many to count.
That's all "demo"... no matter what spin, what lie, what diversion you dream up, its all demographics that feeds NASCAR and all the area tracks.
nitwit
Marc, Chicago is not a racing demographic - hence it isn't Midwest; figure out what context is for a change - and your "sources" aren't credible because the track has made no impact in that area - we've all seen the empty seating patches there.
"The NHL would never sell in, say, LA." What makes you think it's that big a deal in LA? They have a team, but no noticable buzz for it.
nh_nascarfan - "We tested three cars at Daytona and one was ten horsepower better (aerodynamically)." So noted Eddie Wood on the COT. (It's at Mike Mulhern's blog, BTW, not that you need to know the source) So don't lie to me about the COT negating the need for massive numbers of cars for an individual team.
SimianFAN - "Marc, Chicago is not a racing demographic - hence it isn't Midwest; figure out what context is for a change - and your "sources" aren't credible because the track has made no impact in that area - we've all seen the empty seating patches there."
My sources aren't credible?
That's rich, would that be opposed to your sources?
Oh WAIT, you almost NEVER have any you just spew whatever floats to the front of a mind that has completely melted down and atrophied in this thread.
Lets' go thru your tripe slowly, my sources aren't credible?
Your gonna have to be more specific than there's no demo thus no impact on tracks.
Secondly, the links are what they are and proof positive there is a market for oval track racing not only in Illinois but the surrounding states. There is ZERO dispute in that no matter how much BS you attempt to shovel.
Secondly, I'll say it again, the more I teach you the dumber you get.
Example: Demographics:
"n. A portion of a population, especially considered as consumers.
Even the most mentally challenged can deduce that having approx 200 oval tracks within a 5-700 mile radius around ChicagoLand is a market that like, and attends auto racing events.
But no..... not to your feeble mind. To you there is no demo because there are empty seats at Chacagoland. (but, but, but I thought your line was "empty seats equate to bad ownership not lack of demo?)
That's pure, unadulterated bullsh*t.
The frightening thing is, I think you actually believe the trash you spew.
There is one good thing about your viewpoint, honest!
Other than here, and a couple of blogs at That's Racin' your type is tossed within a couple comments for being a raving lunatic who does nothing more than agitate, spin, and display a total lack of even the most rudimentary knowledge of auto racing.
If I'm incorrect, please point me in the direction of a racing blog where you post on a regular basis. Other than That's Racin' blogs that is.
And BTW, how's that whole ChicagoLand not owned by ISC thing going?
Gee, I guess if empty seats mean no demo, I suppose when the Rock wasn't selling out that means that there was no racing demo there either.
But wait... didn't Monkeyboy suggest that NASCAR and BF made a mistake by leaving the Rock? Incidentally, Charlotte has not sold out 100% of its races recently, so I guess they aren't 'racing demographics' either. Nor Atlanta. Nor Martinsvile.
Yes, once again, Monkeyboy has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the more he tries to show that he knows anything about racing, to more he sticks his head in his ass.
More to come later, I promise... need to fly for a few hours, but I couldn't resist pointing out the obvious. Not that anyone other than Monkeyboy needs it pointed out, I just cant wait to hear his excuse as to why empty seats in North Carolina is different than empty seats in Chicago. I'm sure this will be good...
nh_nascar fan - "Yes, once again, Monkeyboy has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the more he tries to show that he knows anything about racing, to more he sticks his head in his ass."
You once asked my how I could continue to bait this mental midget for so long.
The answer is contained in your quote.
It may only take a couple pf comments, it may take many more, but it always happens.
At some point he completely melts down by either posting a blatant lie, or makes several switchs of positions within a matter of minutes. He'll move goalposts at a speed that would be record breaking if on the Salt Flats of Bonneville.
It's also a prime example why in the dozens of NASCAR related blogs in my blogroll you won't find him as a regular at any of them.
He's only tolerated at That's Racin' blogs, and then only on Kathy's Blog and maybe one other one.
Kathy's place is "his choir" in many respects, the place is riff with haters, deniers, misinformed (with no tolerance to be factually corrected) and sorry to say a pack of xenophobes.
monkeesfan - "nh_nascarfan - "We tested three cars at Daytona and one was ten horsepower better (aerodynamically)." So noted Eddie Wood on the COT. (It's at Mike Mulhern's blog, BTW, not that you need to know the source) So don't lie to me about the COT negating the need for massive numbers of cars for an individual team."
Classic MF...CLASSIC.
First of all why ref a Mulhern blog and not link to it? Afraid someone would actually go there and read the passage you quoted?
If not you should have been because the entire quote implies something other than your misguided BS.
"“The concept is to make all the cars as similar as possible. But we built three cars for Daytona, and one of them is 10 horsepower better (aerodynamically). Race cars are like people; they’re all different.
“The box (of rules) is tighter now, and you’re not moving noses and tails and roofs like we were; last year’s car was like a banana if you looked at it from the top.
“But this new car, well, you worry about so many things, but with this car, you have a lot fewer things to have worry about messing with."
Not that you would have the most rudimentary belief in the boldface section, but... what it does say is less leeway in cars means smaller fleets of cars.
It means NO MORE special-built cars for road courses, or 10 to 12 just for Daytona and Talladega, or 10-12 for Bristol, etc...etc!
The purpose is to make the car a "one size fits all" product and there is NO WAY that won't reduce fleet size.
At least that's what it means to normal, rational thinking fans. (present monkeesfans excluded)
marc, again I didn't link the blog because I don't have to. I'm not going to play this stupid game of yours - it's up to you to prove your case, not the other way around. You cite the larger quote even though it doesn't prove your case. The only pertinent part is the fact that they built three different cars and one was ten HP better aerodynamically. By the propaganda for the COT, that is supposed to be impossible.
That one car is ten horsepower better aerodynamically in a rules box that is supposed to make one size fit all means it is impossible not to build multiple cars for multiple tracks looking for that extra ten horsepower or extra tenth handling edge. The fact is one size NEVER fits all.
"No more special built cars for road course" etc.? That's a lie - it means special built cars for individual tracks just like before, because one size never fits all.
"You're not moving noses and tails" - don't underestimate the teams, who are ahead of NASCAR in the technology arms race.
Fleet size will never be reduced without NASCAR directly stepping into race shops and dictating what individual cars to race. And do you want that?
And marc, your sources aren't credible. Chicago is not a racing demographic, hence me leaving it out of the Midwest in the list of the sport's true demographics. People there aren't going to the speedway and there is no evidence the city even cares it's there to any relevent extent. Nowhere do your sources prove otherwise.
As for "empty seats equate to bad ownership," that is the case in racing demographics like the Southeast. Because Chicago is not a racing demographic empty seats means no relevent interest from the area.
BTW Marc, xenophobes are not at Kathy's blog; they are yourself and like-minded dopes.
nh_nascarfan, Rockingham was and is a racing demographic - they didn't sell out because NASCAR chased the audience away. That the area has rallied to the track when Andy Hillinberg bought it shows it's a racing demographic; that no one from Chicago is showing much interest in the speedway in that area shows that area is not a racing demographic.
You have it backwards again - the more you try to show you know anything, the more wrong you are.
A big-picture question to Marc and nh_nascarfan.
If NASCAR abandons the courses it has been on the last ten-plus years - if it stops trying to impose itself on demorgraphics that don't want it; if it abandons the COT and reverts to the tire and aerodynamic packages of circa 2001 but with more widespread speed restriction via bolt-on pieces; if it sticks to the demographics that support it; if it puts in a point system that directly requires winning the most races and leading the most laps; if it imposes upon racecar organizations a spending cap, revenue sharing, and forced contraction to no more than three indivdual teams with no engine leases (i.e. helps teams be able to build their own engines instead of buying them from Hendrick et al); if it stops recruiting F1 rejects and brings back American short track graduates -
If it does all of this, where is the harm?
monkeesfan - "BTW Marc, xenophobes are not at Kathy's blog; they are yourself and like-minded dopes.
Yeah.. ok, and it's obvious nu that bit of lunacy you haven't clue one what the word means.
Xenophobe a person who fears or hates foreigners, strange customs, etc.
Now using your own words ("I'm not going to play this stupid game of yours - it's up to you to prove your case,") you made the ludicrous unsubstantiated charge prove it.
Look at that defintion REAL hard, more that once, til it sinks into your nearly impenetrably thick skull and search Kathy's blog for the last 2 plus years and find ANY comment authored by me CLOSE to xenophobic.
Despicable little puke.
Marc, your hatred of the real fanbase shows in every post you make. You stand up for Brian France because you hate the real fanbase. Brian France's policies have been rejected by the real fanbase because they are antithical to what racing is.
Your use of the term xenophobe only shows how corrupted the term has become by PC. People who prefer American short track graduates to F1 rejects in NASCAR - you call them xenophobes, and you have no right to say that. The sport doesn't need F1 rejects and shouldn't have them.
No point you've ever made jibes with the truth, marc. Therein lies what a real xenophobe is - one oblivious to reality.
And the namecalling - the last refuge of one who's lost the argument.
monkeesfan - Finally went over the line and had a post dumped by Mr. Poole didn't you?
Funny that, and very typical of you. Sooner or later you'll get tossed on a permanent basis.
"Your use of the term xenophobe only shows how corrupted the term has become by PC. People who prefer American short track graduates to F1 rejects in NASCAR - you call them xenophobes, and you have no right to say that."
What's corrupted is your twisting of the word into some type of PC crapola and total lack of understanding what the word means.
People, yes even YOU, can dislike Villeneuve or Montoya all they care to. It's a fair choice, what isn't fair is the use of racial invective and other hate based terms that are on common display and have been since the "Toyota Haters" arrived on scene.
Their opposition is not based on anything but "it's not American" so I "hate it."
When the Toyota haters are asked how they view NASCAR when TV sets have been made eclusivly in Asian for the last three decades they spin, spin, spin. Or quietly disappear from the thread.
When they are asked why hardly a "Toyota complaint" was ever heard when they moved into the NCTS same thing happens, spin or they disappear from the thread.
When the "NASCAR lost it's roots crowd" are asked to recall the days of West Coast NASCAR that goes back 40 years, or when a British made car won a NASCAR event, or when NASCAR sponsored and sanctioned a Mexican road race 4 decades ago they all claim this is "different" somehow and it doesn't count.
It's all crap, just as 90% of your comments are crap.
And BTW, where's my link-to posts that display my alleged "xenophobic" tendencies at Kathy's blog?
If you make an honest effort at finding them it should keep you busy for a VERY LONG time. Long enough to delay any future posts that contain deletion worthy crap on your part.
Wrong again, Marc - I deleted that post because it didn't come out properly.
Marc, you succumb to the PC mentality when you decry the use of (non-existent) racial invective and other "hate based terms" on "common display" since "the Toyota Haters" came on the scene.
The presence of F1 rejects in Winston Cup is part of the same process that helped ruin Indycar racing - when the American short track grads were in effect eliminated from Indycar rides the popularity dropped. People can't identify with the F1 rejects - why hold that against fans?
The "Toyota haters" know where their TV sets come from and so forth and for the most part understand the reality of globalized economics - what they object to is the fact Toyota, a non-American manufactuer, has a history of bankrupting racing series they compete in. Their presence in the Trucks was advertised as improving the competition; we heard nonsense about how Toyota would make GM and Ford and Dodge step up their efforts. It didn't happen - they got priced out of contention for about two seasons and even though they've done better lately they're still nowhere close to Toyota in terms of budget or overall muscle. By no stretch can the Truck Series be considered better now than it was before Toyota came in.
You cite the fact a Jaguar won one race in the 1950s and oversell the importance to the sport of the West Coast - a great many fans understand that NASCAR has long had a West Coast presence, but nowhere has NASCAR's West Coast presence ever been all that relevent to the sport's top touring series. Ontario Motor Speedway was a crown jewel in racing and was supposed to help boost "the sport of the '70s." Except attendence never lived up to the hype and the track closed down. Riverside, despite good attendence, couldn't live up to it, either, and is also gone. The West Coast simply isn't that big a racing demographic.
The blunt truth of the matter is the sport is better off without the F1 rejects, without Toyota, without New York City, without Chicagoland, without LA, without Seattle, without Las Vegas (put that in your pipe and smoke it, Bruton), without the COT, and with what we've all seen actually works for the sport.
Marc, it's all crap what you say and the lengths you go to justify opinions contrary to reality. You don't know racing like you think you do. Period. Go play your stupid "prove it" game somewhere else because it's bunk
monkeesfan - "Wrong again, Marc - I deleted that post because it didn't come out properly."
Something you should do on a more regular basis considering at minimum 50% fit that category.
(And BTW, unless that's a new feature since my last blogger.com blog that isn't possible. Standby and I'll check the current version. Not the you would ever [cough] lie [cough] or anything.)
"Marc, you succumb to the PC mentality when you decry the use of (non-existent) racial invective and other "hate based terms" on "common display" since "the Toyota Haters" came on the scene."
Nonexistent? Only to the blind.
Rather than produce a long list of links this post contains 6 links to xenophobic BS peddled on a regular basis.
Guess you missed Bill Bagwell's "fun" little site called FART (Fans Against Racing Toyotas) that finally had to be shut down by his hosting service because of the numerous refs to "Japs," "rice Rockets," etc, etc ad nauseam.
Rock on in your blind leading the blind world.
Marc, don't lecture me about deleting comments before you look in the mirror and be honest about yourself.
As for those comments in that posting you linked - so what? Where's the xenophobia? Those people say they don't want Toyota in the sport. And Bill Bagwell's site wasn't relevent to anything.
Here's an idea - try to give me some reasons why Toyota involvement is good for the sport.
The blind lead the blind in your mind, Marc. I live in reality.
simianfan - "Marc, don't lecture me about deleting comments before you look in the mirror and be honest about yourself."
Is that an accusation of some kind? If so spell it out, don't hide behind your usual obtuse nature.
"As for those comments in that posting you linked - so what? Where's the xenophobia? Those people say they don't want Toyota in the sport. And Bill Bagwell's site wasn't relevent to anything."
Where? How about a title of one links that defines the word: "I've had enough of JAPSCAR."
Tell you what, try a little experiment, go to any respectable website, finagle a spot on radio or TV and utter the same crap and see how soon you get tossed for using a racially charged epithet.
Bagwells site isn't relative to anything, but not how you want to believe it.
He's comments, and those of hundreds of posters on his hosted forum were acutely relevant to the amount of misguided and bigoted hatred Toyota's entry into NASCAR brought and it was also a prime example why his host tossed his crap off the internet.
Marc, it's simply a statement about your own obtuseness and foolishness.
"I've had enough of JPASCAR." Marc, you need more than that to find xenophobia.
There is nothing misguided in the hatred of Toyota. They helped bankrupt Indycar racing, they've helped bankrupt the Truck Series, and they want to do the same to Winston Cup. It's how they race. Attacking Toyota is what race fans should do.
I ask again - give me some kind of reason why Toyota involvement is good for the sport, concurrently give me what the sport would miss if Toyota was not involved.
monkeesfan - "they've helped bankrupt the Truck Series"
Buwahahaha! It only gets worse with you doesn't it.
February 27, 2007: "The NASCAR Craftsman Truck Series race from Fontana saw a 96 percent ratings increase (.53 vs. .27) in Men 18-34, according to Nielsen Media Research, as SPEED continues to experience rapid growth with younger audiences.
Despite your lunacy, tV ratings means big bucks and you'll see a rise in the new TV contract for the NCTS when it's signed.
The NCTS remains as the the #3 rated motorsports series on cable television (trailing only the Sprint Series and the Nationwide Series)
Viewership has increased each year:
Average Total Viewers of live events since NCTS came to SPEED in 2003 (Source: Nielsen Media Research):
2003 – 483,000
2004 – 581,000
2005 – 672,000
2006 – 659,000
2007 – 686,000
Big bucks, big-big bucks no matter how you wanna look at it. (except in your case who won't look at all)
Marc, that's the NASCAR propaganda machine your peddling. The ratings are oversold and the competition has decreased, with fewer competitive teams since Toyota hit the series. I've gone to Truck races and the audience is nowhere close to bigger nor is media interest greater. The fact the Trucks are exclusively on SPEED instead of branched out to other networks shows it has devolved into a niche market.
"Marc, that's the NASCAR propaganda machine your peddling."
Since when has Nielson ratings operation been under NASCAR's control so they can use it as a propaganda arm?
Nitwit
Marc, "Since when has Neilsen's ratings operation been under NASCAR's control?" When NASCAR manipulates them to falsify the popularity of its racing, "Nitwit." If the Trucks were as popular as you claim, they would not be exclusively broadcast on one network; they'd be branched out to several.
BTW, you still have not cited any good Toyota's involvement has done for NASCAR.
Simianfan - "Marc, "Since when has Neilsen's ratings operation been under NASCAR's control?" When NASCAR manipulates them to falsify the popularity of its racing,
How do they do that? How do they exert so much pressure on a private and completely separate business concern to "phony-up" the NASCAR ratings?
What advantage to Neilson is there is doing so?
Are they holding a member of the Nielson President's family hostage?
Sending threatening memos that say they will expose his ahd Nielson of doing something evil and destruction to American society?
Are they buzzing the president's house with Black Helicopters borrowed from your private fleet?
The reality is, your out of your frickin' mind. You have a complete inability to admit anything can possibly be true and factual unless it originates from your own skull.
If someone posted a link that proved positively, without a single doubt, with pictures and witness certified testimony that your most cherished deity had been resurrected you would spin it away faster than a Tasmanian Devil finishes dinner. ('cause you don't "play that [link] game.")
P.S. And you haven't clue #1 when it comes to facts regarding Toyota's Formula One budget.
Oh... how shocking is that! (in a Capt Renault way of course)
Marc, it's NASCAR who's manipulating the numbers. Try to read things better for a change.
The reality is I have my mind and you don't have control of yours. All you've done is rumpswab for the COT and for Brian France and his polices and go after those with the temerity to actually criticize what's wrong with the sport.
Stop asking for links and start using what's left of your head for a change. And tell me waht good is coming from Toyota involvement in the sport.
monkeesfan - "Stop asking for links and start using what's left of your head for a change. And tell me waht good is coming from Toyota involvement in the sport.
Here's the deal: You tell me first why you so clueless on the subject of Toyota's F1 budget and I'll consider your question.
'Til then you can push a long chain up a tall mountain.
P.S. BTW you also have to explain how NASCAR is manipulating the numbers from a private ratings service also.
Marc, I'm not the one clueless about Toyota's F1 budget; you're clueless about their NASCAR budgets and their racing philosophy of pricing out their competition.
NASCAR manipulates the ratings numbers the same way they manipulate attendence figures for "big market" tracks like Fontana - by lying.
BTW, you say you won't consider the question of what good Toyota can possibly bring to NASCAR -
Here's your answer - they cannot bring any good to the sport. The best that can come is they take up starting spots; the more likely scenario is they start pricing the competition out of contention.
Post a Comment