May I comment to your rant points?

1. Agree in terms of imagery, just like the NFL always ties itself to Vince Lombardi, the NBA to Michael Jordan and "Havelicek stole the ball!" and so on. NASCAR's southern roots is a compelling story and fans should fell connected to the history of the sport.

2. And neither do most any other race car. The ones that do look stock do not seem to drive sales. I think consumers are past "win on Sunday, sell on Monday".

3. Agreed and good point. It's the personalities that drive fans to sports.

4. It was a good plan on paper but hasn't made for the best of racing. See our comments about downforce and aero. Future track designs will be smaller than they are now.

5. Long time fans and cigarette smokers probably miss Winston as it was a NASCAR brand name more than anything. Personally I think it should be called the Cup Series or NASCAR Cup or something, no title sponsor.

6. The Chase For The Cup is racing's version of the BCS in college football; it gives everyone something to talk about.

7. Ain't that the truth!

8. True, but the cream still rises to the top. It's just that money has created more cream and there is only so many seats on race day.

9. Agree big time. Too many events in all NASCAR series has diluted the content and taken away the specialness of the racing. I'd like to see no more than 24 races plus All Star and Twin 150's.

10. Races are typically 4 hours or less but all the stuff around them makes it seem longer. People are willing to watch it on TV so they'll keep broadcasting. Don't forget that the NFL is a 12 month long pre-game/post-game/preseason media monster. By comparison NASCAR is small time. Even college football gets more TV and Big Media attention than racing does.

11. Cheating is part of racing and if the sanctioning body overlegislates it, things are going to be boring. Eventually the innovators and creatives pursue other interests and a generation from now, all we have are car assemblers, marketing/PR staffers and a handful of drivers. Look at Indy Car racing as an example; not a ton of innovation going on there from my viewpoint.

 Reply

In the early 80s, I remember it as something my uncle and his beer-drinking buddies would do. But over the past few years, it's become a who's-who convention of super-wealthy people in the market for racehorses, business jets, etc.

It's sort of like a corporation--once the people at the top (say, team owners) are SO far removed from the people at the bottom (fans), it loses a lot of its "authenticity."

I'm not saying we need to go back to muddy infields full of bikers and flaming Uhaul trucks, but there was definitely a passion there that you don't see as much today.

 Reply

I hear ya.

I won't debate the V8 Supercars vs. NASCAR Cup cars with ya except to say the differences are not substantial beyond their execution. Considering Supercars "more stock" than a Cup car is splitting the thinnest of hairs IMO, as both sanctioning bodies strictly control exactly what type of car can be built and raced.

The generation gap between the long time NASCAR fan and the new wave of younger drivers is a huge issue with the fans I've met. Too many NASCAR fans simply do not identify with the newer crop of drivers, starting with J. Gordon and moving on from him. Short of mandating guys like Dale Jarrett, Rusty Wallace, and Terry Labonte to race full time in top equipment, this problem is never going away. NASCAR fans need to accept these new personalities into the sport.

The COT is a convenient whipping post but I'm not convinced it's the problem. Probably its biggest sin is that it's ugly. Yeah, its more a spec series racer that its predecessor but with the spiraling cost of motorsports worldwide, almost all major sanctioning bodies are mandating specs. Again, another problem that is not going away.

My biggest concern is NASCAR finding a way to connect with a new generation of fans. The core NASCAR fan base is aging and I'm not sure mgmt is doing enough to attract new fans. Ray brought up a good point about adding value to a race weekend. Many of those things occur but perhaps are not promoted enough. Is there enough appeal to attract a younger fan who is willing to drive 500 miles and spend close to $1000 over a weekend of racing? Too many people in this sport are dependent on this fan. If not, the sport needs to change the event structure to add value to the casual fan who is willing to spend $50 on a grandstand ticket for 3-4 hours of racing.

As for dumbing down the sport to appeal to a wide cross-section of fans, hmmm.....I understand the point but I'm not sure I agree. If anything, I've seen the sport really try to educate its fans. The cars are pretty technical and the rules can be baffling. I think NASCAR has really tried to educate its large fan base.

During some race weeks I've met over 1,000 people and talked racing and NASCAR will them all. Meeting a knowledgeable fan is pretty rare, maybe 1 in 20. Most fans I've met only watch it on TV. The really smart ones have some sort of racing background and can relate to the cars, the rules and the competition side of the sport. Even a self-proclaimed hard core race fan is amazed when I show them a roof flap and explain how it works.

 Reply

I was hopeful when NASCAR started developing the COT. Still am hopeful that it will become a workable solution. My problem with the COT hasn't ever been that it's ugly (it is, but so were the banana-shaped cars that preceded it), it's the quality of racing the COT has brought. The damn things are still too aero-dependent and a lot of that has to do with the friggin wing.

I understand that when you're dealing with 800+ horsepower and nearly as many ft-lbs of torque, you have to have downforce. But ever since NASCAR started playing with aero by instituting the 5" & 5" rule in '98, the cars have drifted further and further away from relying on mechanical setups and gone more and more to the aero setups that create all these lovely problems like "aero-push" and clean air being the only fix for a wicked handling car.

I'd love to see an aero package more like the teams had in '97, with a wide, short rear spoiler, and even keep the cow catcher up front. I have a funny feeling that without the wing and its side force plates, the cars would have to be reigned in with more mechanical setups, forcing the drivers to practice tire management and actually drive the cars again. I also think the handling of the cars would change a lot more as tires wear and fuel burns off, etc, and we'd see more passing for the lead and within the field take place on track instead of in the pits.

For me, the appeal of the sport has never been the wrecks or even the shiny cars. It's always been about the passing, the strategy, the spectacle of watching the best drivers in the sport fight lap after lap to one-up each other by getting up on the wheel and flat-out driving harder than the guy they're trying to pass.

I haven't seen a whole lot of that in nearly ten years, and I find it terribly sad when we have a race like Talladaga on Sunday that gets attention because of a huge crash or the occasional close finish that gets attention because it so rarely happens.

 Reply

Great post. I agree completely.

You are exactly right about the "banana cars" (hadn't heard that phrase in awhile) and the COT w.r.t. aero handling issues. That's why I say its not the COT that is causing the on-track performance problem.

What you described so well is exactly the same problem with F-1, Indy Cars, even the World of Outlaws; way too much emphasis on aero grip over mechanical grip.

I have been absolutely convinced for many years that the key to better racing at superspeedways is to eliminate the restrictor plate AND rear wing and replace it with a very small spoiler, perhaps with a wickerbill / Gurney flap to provide a little downforce but not so much that the driver can go flat out in the turns. I really think they key is to make the drivers slow down in the turns and let them go as fast as they want down the straights. The fans will get the speed and excitement they want, the lap times will come down, and you won't have the huge packs of cars that create the big wrecks in the first place.

That solves the problem at two tracks and four races. What to do about the other 32 still remains.

 Reply