Don't shoot the messenger

Bowtie3 said:
Chase could easily make it. He's been off lately but is still has a very good shot to make it.
Click to expand...
16 cars will be in the chase, but who is a real contender? Yah, I know anyone could fluke their way to a championship but I doubt anyone other than a journeyman can pull it off.
 
Allenbaba said:
Mobil 1 is staying at SHR. 5 hr didn't drop Clint so much as SHR kept Monster.
Click to expand...
This makes perfect sense to me. I recall Gene Haas commenting at the time Monster was signed, words to the effect of "A bird in hand beats one in the bush."
 
Allenbaba said:
Mobil 1 is staying at SHR. 5 hr didn't drop Clint so much as SHR kept Monster.
Click to expand...

Does Monster have a "lock" on the 41? The Pocono race featured the 4, 10, & 14 in Mobil 1 livery, but not the 41 (for a sweep). Or is Mobil 1 not interested in the 41?
 
Hawaii808 said:
Does Monster have a "lock" on the 41? The Pocono race featured the 4, 10, & 14 in Mobil 1 livery, but not the 41 (for a sweep). Or is Mobil 1 not interested in the 41?
Click to expand...

Basically, Monster does have a lock on the car. The deal calls for them and Haas Automation to split the car in 35 races, and Monster to run one full wrap.
 
ToyYoda said:
When the SHR to Ford move was first announced, a lot of people thought they were shooting themselves in the foot for breaking it off with Hendrick. But, given that SHR has driven circles around the HMS boys this year, I think they'll be fine when they go it alone next year.

I don't look for HMS to be down for too long either. I think they're just having a bad year, I don't look for it to be a long-term thing.
Click to expand...

Roush Fenway had "a bad year" several years ago. We've seen how quickly it mushroomed from there. Hendrick has to respond to these struggles swiftly to avoid a similar fate.
 
Roman Nodonyet said:
Roush Fenway had "a bad year" several years ago. We've seen how quickly it mushroomed from there. Hendrick has to respond to these struggles swiftly to avoid a similar fate.
Click to expand...
Roush Fenway has had a ''bad year'' every since the merger.......... Jack was better off before he ever met John Henry.......
 
kymartin6 said:
Roush Fenway has had a ''bad year'' every since the merger.......... Jack was better off before he ever met John Henry.......
Click to expand...
But that was about the same time the COT rolled out. I think that had more of an effect. Roush's start-up problems with the COT were documented. They got some bad / misleading data from wind tunnel and shaker tests.
 
kymartin6 said:
Roush Fenway has had a ''bad year'' every since the merger.......... Jack was better off before he ever met John Henry.......
Click to expand...

I'm sure it's not true , but I have always felt that way too . I thought that bringing in a partner like that would open doors to Fortune 500 companies and bring some big sponsorships to Roush . In fact , they seemed to lose some .
 
ted@economy said:
I'm sure it's not true , but I have always felt that way too . I thought that bringing in a partner like that would open doors to Fortune 500 companies and bring some big sponsorships to Roush . In fact , they seemed to lose some .
Click to expand...
Sometimes bringing in a partner who is investing his money only means you have to work double hard to prove it was a good investment.... he now is essentially your boss......... Jack is a racer...... John Henry is the money man...... much the same as Holman -Moody...... Ralph Moody was a racer......John Holman held the purse strings...... They were always at odds with one another.......

I wonder if Jack sometimes regrets ever getting mixed up in this...... I know Jack has a reputation of being a skinflint ...... but.... at least he didn't have a board of directors to answer to.......
 
Charlie Spencer said:
But that was about the same time the COT rolled out. I think that had more of an effect. Roush's start-up problems with the COT were documented. They got some bad / misleading data from wind tunnel and shaker tests.
Click to expand...
Yeah....... I recall that...... Jack was too tight to buy the more expensive state of the art software like the other teams were using......
 
kymartin6 said:
I wonder if Jack sometimes regrets ever getting mixed up in this...... I know Jack has a reputation of being a skinflint ...... but.... at least he didn't have a board of directors to answer to.......
Click to expand...
I could be mistaken, but wasnt Roush real close to going under if John Henry didnt step in with his money?
 
jws926 said:
I could be mistaken, but wasnt Roush real close to going under if John Henry didnt step in with his money?
Click to expand...
No ... it was a way to get some of his money out of the operation.

Pre-charter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pat
Speaking of charters, I wonder what the arrangement is going to be for the 77. Are they going to race as an open team? If not, and that seems likely since Visser and Garone have indicated they wouldn't be making this move w/out charters for both cars, who's going to lose their charter to Furniture Row?
 
aunty dive said:
Sell ... not lose.
Click to expand...

There is a (naturally ill-defined) performance clause attached to the charters. If a team can't meet the terms of said clause, NASCAR and the RTA can strip them of the charter and put it on the market.

I can't imagine anyone would willingly give up their charter at this early stage of the system (although I thought for sure Jay Robinson would put his charter onto the 98, only for him to lease it to HScott and the 46 instead, so that shows what I know about the behavior of the rich/sorta-rich).
 
I wouldn't think the people who out the deal together have anything in there that isn't clearly defined. Behaviors of the rich.

It wasn't a NASCAR initiative and they don't control it.
 
aunty dive said:
I wouldn't think the people who out the deal together have anything in there that isn't clearly defined. Behaviors of the rich.

It wasn't a NASCAR initiative and they don't control it.
Click to expand...

Allow me to rephrase, it's ill-explained to the general public, almost certainly to conceal the fact that it would be a cold day in the fiery abyss before the likes of Rick Hendrick, Roger Penske, Joe Gibbs, Richard Childress or Gene Haas have to worry about any of their charters. But I'm almost dead certain that the likes of Tommy Baldwin, Bob Leavine and Archie St. Hilaire may well be thrown to the wolves for the sake of expanding the big-budget teams, as they would be the ones most likely to be affected by "lack of performance".

The explanation of the rules (to the extent that they've been explained) states that NASCAR has to make the decision to strip the charter from a team that isn't meeting the performance clause. It's only after this that the fate of said charter falls back into the hands of the RTA.
 
Hah, I just found the exact explanation of the performance clause: http://www.speedcafe.com/2016/02/10/nascar-adopts-franchise-model/

Basically, "3 straight years of bottom 3 finishes in charter OP = no more charter". What they don't define is the point at which they begin counting the three years, i.e. did the Circle Sport-Leavine merger happen because Joe Falk was being (or going to be) stripped of his charter? Did they start counting the years on Go FAS' charter in 2013, or in 2014 when St. Hilaire bought into the team? Does the count only begin this year, and thus no charters are at risk until after 2018? (which would force the 77 to run as an open team unless they could coax someone into selling them a charter willingly)
 
Roman Nodonyet said:
Hah, I just found the exact explanation of the performance clause: http://www.speedcafe.com/2016/02/10/nascar-adopts-franchise-model/

Basically, "3 straight years of bottom 3 finishes in charter OP = no more charter". What they don't define is the point at which they begin counting the three years, i.e. did the Circle Sport-Leavine merger happen because Joe Falk was being (or going to be) stripped of his charter? Did they start counting the years on Go FAS' charter in 2013, or in 2014 when St. Hilaire bought into the team? Does the count only begin this year, and thus no charters are at risk until after 2018? (which would force the 77 to run as an open team unless they could coax someone into selling them a charter willingly)
Click to expand...

This is the first year of the charter so no team can lose their charter on performance until the end of 2018.
My question is, " what are the bottom 3 finishes?" There are 36 charters so are the bottom 3 finishes 34th, 35th and 36th? Or 38th 39th and 40th?
 
Roman Nodonyet said:
Hah, I just found the exact explanation of the performance clause: http://www.speedcafe.com/2016/02/10/nascar-adopts-franchise-model/

Basically, "3 straight years of bottom 3 finishes in charter OP = no more charter". What they don't define is the point at which they begin counting the three years, i.e. did the Circle Sport-Leavine merger happen because Joe Falk was being (or going to be) stripped of his charter? Did they start counting the years on Go FAS' charter in 2013, or in 2014 when St. Hilaire bought into the team? Does the count only begin this year, and thus no charters are at risk until after 2018? (which would force the 77 to run as an open team unless they could coax someone into selling them a charter willingly)
Click to expand...
I recall posting the bottom 3 teams from 2013-15 when the charters were announced. I don't recall which teams, but only two finished in the bottom 3 for two of those three years. Only one of those teams was down there for consecutive years. So even if they started three years ago, nobody's in trouble at the end of 2016.

Based solely on that most recent three year period, a team is going to have to really, really stink to be at the bottom 3 years straight.
Team Penske said:
This is the first year of the charter so no team can lose their charter on performance until the end of 2018.
My question is, " what are the bottom 3 finishes?" There are 36 charters so are the bottom 3 finishes 34th, 35th and 36th? Or 38th 39th and 40th?
Click to expand...
'Charter Owner points' would mean 34th - 36th. Below that point, you're not dealing with charter teams any more so there are no 'Charter Owner points'.
 
Roman Nodonyet said:
Allow me to rephrase, it's ill-explained to the general public, almost certainly to conceal the fact that it would be a cold day in the fiery abyss before the likes of Rick Hendrick, Roger Penske, Joe Gibbs, Richard Childress or Gene Haas have to worry about any of their charters. But I'm almost dead certain that the likes of Tommy Baldwin, Bob Leavine and Archie St. Hilaire may well be thrown to the wolves for the sake of expanding the big-budget teams, as they would be the ones most likely to be affected by "lack of performance".

The explanation of the rules (to the extent that they've been explained) states that NASCAR has to make the decision to strip the charter from a team that isn't meeting the performance clause. It's only after this that the fate of said charter falls back into the hands of the RTA.
Click to expand...
I disagree. It's perfectly explained as you inadvertently note in the post following what's quoted here. Why would it be necessary to conceal the fact that the top teams are unlikely to fall victim to the performance clause? Isn't that common knowledge?

Sometimes, in our zeal to condemn anything the sanctioning body says or does, we look for things that aren't there. Boiled down to its basic element, racing is about performance. Don't want to finish in the bottom 3 three years in a row? Race harder.

What further explanation of the rule is is required? NASCAR didn't write this up and assuming they have someone on the payroll who can count, there won't be much of a decision to make if a charter owner runs afoul of the rule.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
They got some bad / misleading data from wind tunnel and shaker tests.
Click to expand...

In a sport where nothing is shared, I find it fascinating that Mr. Roush shared his "bad data" theory. Again, and again, and again, and again. Engineers fix problems. Amazing that this one couldn't be fixed in a more efficient manner.
 
Allenbaba said:
Honestly guys...I don't know that Furniture Row has anything to announce tomorrow. When enough time passes, I'll post more about what's been going on behind the scenes of this second car deal. It's been a hot mess.
Click to expand...

So you post strange rumors that but you were completely clueless as to the Furniture Row deal that has obvioulsy been finalized well before you supposedly heard thing from your awesome behind the scenes info from NH. LOL!
 
Matthew2470 said:
So you post strange rumors that but you were completely clueless as to the Furniture Row deal that has obvioulsy been finalized well before you supposedly heard thing from your awesome behind the scenes info from NH. LOL!
Click to expand...

Can you appreciate that we even have a member like this? He said from the outset that these are "rumors" anyways. Comes to find out that in a sense he was right, but just because an "official" statement is made does not mean it will really happen.
 
Last edited:
aunty dive said:
I disagree. It's perfectly explained as you inadvertently note in the post following what's quoted here. Why would it be necessary to conceal the fact that the top teams are unlikely to fall victim to the performance clause? Isn't that common knowledge?

Sometimes, in our zeal to condemn anything the sanctioning body says or does, we look for things that aren't there. Boiled down to its basic element, racing is about performance. Don't want to finish in the bottom 3 three years in a row? Race harder.

What further explanation of the rule is is required? NASCAR didn't write this up and assuming they have someone on the payroll who can count, there won't be much of a decision to make if a charter owner runs afoul of the rule.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I'd been having trouble finding articles explaining it completely, because very few actually noted the performance standard at the time of publication, and more than one said "unspecified performance standard". It took a lot of digging to find SpeedCafe's article.

"Racing harder" isn't going to overcome lack of funds. Hence why Go FAS' ever-changing array of drivers finished 37th, 38th and 42nd in the three seasons between the top 35 rule and the charter system, and why they're tracking for another 38th this year.
 
Last edited:
Matthew2470 said:
So you post strange rumors that but you were completely clueless as to the Furniture Row deal that has obvioulsy been finalized well before you supposedly heard thing from your awesome behind the scenes info from NH. LOL!
Click to expand...
Dude, if you don't like the guy's information, leave him to those of us that do. That way, we'll both be happier.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Dude, if you don't like the guy's information, leave him to those of us that do. That way, we'll both be happier.
Click to expand...

Well dude, I guess I am just not as enamored as some of you regarding his tabloid style rumor postings. Don't kill the messenger, dude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom