Cup RACE thread --- Texas

What a stupid stupid decision to make the call THIS early. It's not even 8pm in Texas. This is an important race and they are taking a hell of a chance pushing it off to tomorrow. They've run races till 2am before. Calling it quits so early when so much is at stake this week just shows the inconsistency in NASCAR, and shows how little they care about their product.

Nothing wrong with calling it if it gets too late..but it's 8pm there, and weather looks bad starting around 11. They should have held off at least one more hour.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 
20201025_172148.jpg
20201025_172249.jpg
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Pat
I think NASCAR exhausts themselves in these situations by trying to dry a track while it's still raining.
 
jaqua19 said:
What a stupid stupid decision to make the call THIS early. It's not even 8pm in Texas. This is an important race and they are taking a hell of a chance pushing it off to tomorrow. They've run races till 2am before. Calling it quits so early when so much is at stake this week just shows the inconsistency in NASCAR, and shows how little they care about their product.

Nothing wrong with calling it if it gets too late..but it's 8pm there, and weather looks bad starting around 11. They should have held off at least one more hour.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
The track wasn't coming back anytime soon at 100% humidity. It's not scientifically possible.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Do you honestly think NASCAR or the tracks have insurance stipulations regarding racing in the rain, regardless of track layout? Who exactly does this mythical policy protect, the drivers?

:XXROFL:
Click to expand...

It is not that far fetched. Venues and sanctioning bodies absolutely do carry liability insurance policies for their events. The larger the event, the more rigorous the policy's conditions are likely to be.

This wouldn't be a major impediment to NASCAR modifying its policies to race in rain conditions long term, but it could be an obstacle to them making a sudden change on the fly.
 
Modifying to extend coverage means more premium $$$$$$$.....who do you think drew up the rules for NASCAR's lightning policy , Nascar or their insurer ??
 
gnomesayin said:
It is not that far fetched. Venues and sanctioning bodies absolutely do carry liability insurance policies for their events. The larger the event, the more rigorous the policy's conditions are likely to be.

This wouldn't be a major impediment to NASCAR modifying its policies to race in rain conditions long term, but it could be an obstacle to them making a sudden change on the fly.
Click to expand...

Why would racing in the rain expose NASCAR or the track to any more liability? I would say every oval that has a road course has held events in the rain at least once. With the reduced speeds of a rain race, I would contend the spectators are safer than during ANY dry weather event.
 
ChexOrWrex said:
Outside of a down pour in baseball and golf, NASCAR is the only major American sport to not “play” in the rain. Granted, it’s the only major sport with 30+ 3,000 pound race cars BUT it’s a little befuddling that NASCAR can’t even race in what amount to low cloud cover mist.
Click to expand...


Wet is wet. As far as the banking is concerned where puddles don't form, it isn't going to make a huge difference whether it is misting or a regular downpour. There are basically two issues: 1) Putting tread blocks on the tires to channel water away reduces the effective surface contact patch of the tire, putting much more load on every part of the tire that contacts the track. 2) Tire compounds that are soft enough to to actually grip a wet track are VERY soft. Add the weight and the speed of a NASCAR vehicle, and the extreme side loading the banking contributes, and you have a very bad combination. I seriously doubt they could get a tire that could do even ten laps without totally giving up. Rovals offer the advantage of having the infield which produces less tire load and often is much wetter, allowing the tires to cool down somewhat before going back onto the banking. In an oval race where the straights have banking and no puddles, the tire would NEVER get a chance to cool off.
 
Formerjackman said:
Why would racing in the rain expose NASCAR or the track to any more liability? I would say every oval that has a road course has held events in the rain at least once. With the reduced speeds of a rain race, I would contend the spectators are safer than during ANY dry weather event.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to do a convoluted, abstract debate on the subject. I supported the claim that there is merit to the possibility. Weather related conditions are almost certainly included in the policies that cover the event, and must be agreed to in advance.

If NASCAR wants to race in the rain on ovals, it will happen, and will be arranged with all relevant parties in advance.
 
gnomesayin said:
I'm not going to do a convoluted, abstract debate on the subject. I supported the claim that there is merit to the possibility. Weather related conditions are almost certainly included in the policies that cover the event, and must be agreed to in advance.

If NASCAR wants to race in the rain on ovals, it will happen, and will be arranged with all relevant parties in advance.
Click to expand...

So you're saying the policy for say Charlotte differentiates coverage between the the oval track events and the roval events? Please explain why anyone would care. They are probaly only insured for catastrophic loss anyway, likely meaning multiple deaths. The company I work for, which has 250 18 wheelers out on the road has only used thier insurance coverage a couple times in the last 35 years. Everything else is self insured. You couldn't afford the coverage any other way.
 
Formerjackman said:
So you're saying the policy for say Charlotte differentiates coverage between the the oval track events and the roval events? Please explain why anyone would care. They are probaly only insured for catastrophic loss anyway, likely meaning multiple deaths. The company I work for, which has 250 18 wheelers out on the road has only used thier insurance coverage a couple times in the last 35 years. Everything else is self insured. You couldn't afford the coverage any other way.
Click to expand...
There is a reason why citizens of states with long periods of winter driving have higher auto insurance rates than in states with no winter driving. Now keep that in mind when thinking about insurance coverage for ovals and rain...very good chance there are stipulations in the contracts preventing NASCAR from running ovals in rain unless certain criteria is met. If you've never owned a business you'll never begin to fathom the extent of liability insurance and everything it entails...I can't even imagine what it is like for a billion dollar business like NASCAR
 
Well you still haven't explained to me why racing in the rain creates any greater liability than racing in the dry. I would contend quite the opposite actually. As I said, they likely only have blanket liability coverage for catastrophic loss anyway, which is going to be a lot less detailed than a standard business policy. Does anybody remember when it was racefan "common knowledge" that NASCAR's insurance policy wouldn't let the cars go over 200 MPH, which turned out to be total BS? I don't know what kind of business you are in, but as I said in the case of the company I work for, 99% of all potential claims against us never get submitted to an insurance company anyway. We just write a check. We only carry insurance for the kind of claims that would put us out of business, like running over the proverbial busload of Nuns......
 
Formerjackman said:
Well you still haven't explained to me why racing in the rain creates any greater liability than racing in the dry.
Click to expand...
It is the factor of the unknown. Take ANY business as an example and then throw a wrench into their standard operations.

Let's say you own a music venue that has always only hosted operas. Now imagine said venue wants to increase revenue by also booking country music acts. No big deal, right? It would be no different that Charlotte going from the oval to the roval. Now imagine your music venue also wanted to start booking heavy metal acts. With that, you now have a huge unknown with safety due to the potential of moshing and crowd surfing. Your insurance provider would either require you to pay higher premiums or prevent you from booking such acts. Think of that as racing on an oval in rain for the first time...insurance providers would have stipulations.
 
I was headed to work as soon as the mist hit, so I was happy that it was postponed. However, I'd be more happy if there wasn't the chance of rain for tomorrow.
 
saltysenior said:
Modifying to extend coverage means more premium $$$$$$$.....who do you think drew up the rules for NASCAR's lightning policy , Nascar or their insurer ??
Click to expand...
The lightning policy is to protect the track from spectator liability suits. I ask again who you think a 'No racing in the rain' clause would be to protect, especially since NASCAR and other series ALREADY race in the rain on some of these same tracks? And yet the same policy lets them run at Talladega? More people on both side of the catch fence have gone to the hospital from Daytona in the last 20 years than any 'policy clause' would permit.

Quit trying to make a case where a few minutes of thought would show one exists, Donald.
 
RacerrecaR said:
It is the factor of the unknown. Take ANY business as an example and then throw a wrench into their standard operations.

Let's say you own a music venue that has always only hosted operas. Now imagine said venue wants to increase revenue by also booking country music acts. No big deal, right? It would be no different that Charlotte going from the oval to the roval. Now imagine your music venue also wanted to start booking heavy metal acts. With that, you now have a huge unknown with safety due to the potential of moshing and crowd surfing. Your insurance provider would either require you to pay higher premiums or prevent you from booking such acts. Think of that as racing on an oval in rain for the first time...insurance providers would have stipulations.
Click to expand...
You make it sound like every business is scared to try anything new, and like their policies spell out in every detail only what they're explicitly covered for. Any you also haven't explained how such a clause would clause would protect the track, NASCAR, or the insurance company from financial liability; specifically, who would be suing them?

As to moshing and crowd surfing, attendees don't get blanket clearance to do any dangerous thing they like just because they paid to be there. Venues don't already seem to have liability for attendees bringing in or buying enough enough beer to get sh!t-faced and then climbing in cars; gods know that's foreseeable. And yet it happens every weekend without a liability suit. Personal responsibility still exists.
 
Last edited:
It's drizzling at my house, and light rain is showing up on radar.

I guess I don't have to worry about missing the race while I'm at my dentist appointment an hour from now. :smile:

2020-10 DFW Radar.gif


Texas Motor Speedway is a little bit north of the "t" in "Worth."
 
Surprised they didn’t go for a “Prime Time Monday Night Race” kinda approach... Seems to be the logic(if we can still call it that) the networks use these days anyhow
 
They set portable slot car tracks up at a lot of the NASCAR races so they should start having the teams build a 1/24 scale car of the one they are running each week and if there is a rain out just move indoors and finish the race on the slot car track. It only took me 30 seconds to solve that problem so now I have to find something else to do for the rest of the day.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom