How Times Have Changed

ChexOrWrex said:
Click to expand...


DW's remarks here are actually even more insightful than what's right on the surface. People on both sides of the debate underestimated just how much tire wear would continue to be a factor on the older surface at California, and overestimated how long they would be able to run wide open and thus hooked up in a draft. It did not result in pack racing or anything approaching it, and that was the 'show business' goal. The comparison to the 2000 New Hampshire restrictor plate race is apt, because all lower power and higher downforce do on lower-banked tracks is make for fewer viable grooves and more dirty air.

I am among the few who will say bluntly that Sunday's race was better than a pack race would have been. The best car won, it wasn't random at all. It just wasn't nearly as good as other recent California races that featured some combination of higher power and lower downforce, or both. My fear is that the common desire for pack racing and bogus complaints about 'gaps' on a 2-mile speedway will result in them choking more HP out of the engines.
 
gnomesayin said:
DW's remarks here are actually even more insightful than what's right on the surface. People on both sides of the debate underestimated just how much tire wear would continue to be a factor on the older surface at California, and overestimated how long they would be able to run wide open and thus hooked up in a draft. It did not result in pack racing or anything approaching it, and that was the 'show business' goal. The comparison to the 2000 New Hampshire restrictor plate race is apt, because all lower power and higher downforce do on lower-banked tracks is make for fewer viable grooves and more dirty air.

I am among the few who will say bluntly that Sunday's race was better than a pack race would have been. The best car won, it wasn't random at all. It just wasn't nearly as good as other recent California races that featured some combination of higher power and lower downforce, or both. My fear is that the common desire for pack racing and bogus complaints about 'gaps' on a 2-mile speedway will result in them choking more HP out of the engines.
Click to expand...
Nothing is worse than pack racing.
I wasn’t sure how this package would fare on something larger than a 1.5er.
Pack racing sucks and I don’t watch it anymore.
Slower, more aero-dependent racing sucks, too.
NASCAR is consistently going in the wrong direction.
Kyle’s radio was constantly reminding him to grab any air he could from any car he was near. IMO, this is not conducive to good racing. Kyle was also reminded to be nice to the right front, because of the long green flag runs.
It’s easy to see the fan reaction when you look at the rate the race thread.
 
All ya heard from the peanut gallery about that race around here was the first fake caution Nascar threw (they used to do that a lot if one remembers) that took away Kurt's lead, and then they didn't call the second one when Biffle spun. Nascar waa this and Nascar waa that. Nothing new here, now it's the package to waa about. Too bad I have a different opinion and upset the pity party. :D The last couple of years they haven't been throwing late race cautions and the races at Auto Club have been stinkers whatever package they ran.
 
I think most race fans would be happiest if Nascar racing was as free from manipulation as possible. That includes things like bogus cautions, stopping the race for stages and the style of racing we have this year.

Every year Nascar says they like the racing including this year but I think what they really want is mini Daytona type racing. I think they will continue to make changes until they achieve that style as I think they want as much randomness as possible and more of a spectacle.

Whatever the case I’m sure that most people will agree that we don’t need anymore races like California this year.
 
I thought the California race was fine. Not really sure what you guys are complaining about. I mean I don't like the slower speeds either but the Fontana race was a good race.
 
Simple Fan said:
I thought the California race was fine. Not really sure what you guys are complaining about. I mean I don't like the slower speeds either but the Fontana race was a good race.
Click to expand...

I am glad you liked it and I’m sure some others did too. However from what I have seen and read here and elsewhere it was generally panned.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I had a couple of questions for a moderator until I realized IDK who they or how to contact them. Any ideas?
 
The Nature Boy said:
I really don’t get the bizarre hatred of pack racing. It’s a totally valid form of racing.
Click to expand...

I don’t begrudge anyone for liking pack racing but it is not something I enjoy. I could list a bunch of things but primarily I don’t care for racing where the cars are underpowered and need momentum and help to achieve anything.

I think the people that like that style of racing will like Nascar of the future as I believe that is direction they want to go.
 
The Nature Boy said:
I really don’t get the bizarre hatred of pack racing. It’s a totally valid form of racing.
Click to expand...

Brings up a good point or two. Many including some drivers were saying this new package was going to tear up a lot of cars because of pack racing. Now some are saying the package is boring, much the same racing at a slower pace. Many have complained that this type of racing isn't organic whatever that means. Maybe Nascar should go back a few years to when they would throw a caution whenever the field got strung out, especially towards the end of the race so the fans could have one or two green white checker type races that some hail as organic racing. So far this season has been much the same as recent years, some tracks have had some decent racing this year and recently Auto Club was a bit of stinker all weekend long, the highlight was a cupper team blowing it in the xfinity race and if you are a KDB fan his 200th win. I sure have seen worse race weekends. On to Martinsville.
 
IanMcVittie said:
I don’t begrudge anyone for liking pack racing but it is not something I enjoy. I could list a bunch of things but primarily I don’t care for racing where the cars are underpowered and need momentum and help to achieve anything.

I think the people that like that style of racing will like Nascar of the future as I believe that is direction they want to go.
Click to expand...

I don’t want a pack racing only series but I think that it has a place in the mixed salad that is the NASCAR schedule. It’s a form of racing.
 
The Nature Boy said:
I don’t want a pack racing only series but I think that it has a place in the mixed salad that is the NASCAR schedule. It’s a form of racing.
Click to expand...

I think if Nascar really does end up going to a 28 race schedule the different styles of racing could be well represented. You could have 4 super speedway races and 4 road courses. Add in 8 short tracks and the rest could be made up from tracks 1-2 miles in length plus maybe 1 from Pocono.
 
gnomesayin said:
DW's remarks here are actually even more insightful than what's right on the surface. People on both sides of the debate underestimated just how much tire wear would continue to be a factor on the older surface at California, and overestimated how long they would be able to run wide open and thus hooked up in a draft. It did not result in pack racing or anything approaching it, and that was the 'show business' goal. The comparison to the 2000 New Hampshire restrictor plate race is apt, because all lower power and higher downforce do on lower-banked tracks is make for fewer viable grooves and more dirty air.

I am among the few who will say bluntly that Sunday's race was better than a pack race would have been. The best car won, it wasn't random at all. It just wasn't nearly as good as other recent California races that featured some combination of higher power and lower downforce, or both. My fear is that the common desire for pack racing and bogus complaints about 'gaps' on a 2-mile speedway will result in them choking more HP out of the engines.
Click to expand...
@gnomesayin has made a good, thoughtful summary, as he often does. Fontana has long been a favorite race for me because the low grip tire eating surface has heightened the degree of difficulty, creating a stern test of driving skills and team execution. Pedaling the throttle off the corners, drivers fighting to get back to full throttle... the way racing should be. And the wide, multi groove track gives many options, thus clean air is really no big deal, with the low downforce rules of recent years.

Fontana is awesome... until the cars got neutered. I agree that the race we had Sunday was better than a pack race would have been. But with no power, and drag like a parachute, this momentum racing is a sad shadow of what Fontana has been and should be. DW was right about how to kill racing at Fontana.
 
CaptainHiTop said:
It's not 'hate".
Click to expand...

Pack racing is not my cup of tea but I sure don’t hate it nor do I think my feelings about it are bizarre. Words are used differently from what I’m used to. My buddy just got some dope wheels for his sick ride.
 
I don’t think our NASCAR viewing habits will change a lot this year over last. Some people like the changes and others will grow to like them and still others will grudgingly accept them.
 
IanMcVittie said:
I had a couple of questions for a moderator until I realized IDK who they or how to contact them. Any ideas?
Click to expand...



Go outside, look up at the sky and scream very loudly until the neighbors call the cops, ask the cops who the moderator is and then they will take you to a nice hospital where you can rest for 72 hours ........... repeat as needed :D
 
edit: highest around 187, 188 and change in the late 90's it was around 182 I was looking at the Xfinity specs :cuckoo: average speed overall was around 143 ish.
 
Still talking only about average lap speeds as if that is what is being discussed.

I was watching some older Fontana videos the other day and noticed when they'd show the telemetry and speeds. In 2004 (pole speeds 186.940 and 187.417 for the record) the leaders were getting close to 210 at the end of the straights during the race. In 1997 it was at times approaching 205. For the bazillionth time, some people are watching with an interest in the skill involved with controlling a car that is scrubbing 30-40 MPH off in the corners.

For those that don't care about that, you're entitled to your opinion.
 
That said, I haven't gone into histrionics about how they ruined the racing at California. They didn't (yet). They made it worse, but there was a long way to fall, because recent racing there has been quite good overall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom