It's time to end the 4 cars per team rule

DUN24

DUN24

Skeptical of the Spectacle
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
15,993
Points
883
At a time where car counts are threatened and NASCAR loves changing rules more than ever, it's redundant to limit how many cars a team can bring to the track. It's going to be pretty damned depressing when Carl Edwards leaves the sport because of f****y racing and Matt Kenseth leaves because there is no room at the inn.. In back-to-back years.

If teams could expand to five(or six on the rare one-off race), you know damn well that Kenseth would have a ride.
 
Last edited:
For pretty much all of 2017 there has seen 39/40 cars show up for almost every race, 40 cars are entered this weekend, there is no room currently for more full time teams at the current 40 car limit.
 
Snowman said:
Honestly, I never understood why they placed the four car limit. The only team that had five at the time was RFR and only three of the five were competitive regularly anyway.
Click to expand...

Exactly. With partnerships nowadays, teams basically have 6 car teams as it is. What difference does it make if a team bites the bullet with another car?
 
DUN24 said:
They can also allow 43 again. It's not like they don't have enough pit stalls.

Rules rules rules rules.
Click to expand...
I am not a fan of the 4 car limit

But they dont though, many of the tracks have removed the no longer needed pit stalls, they would have to go back and un do what they done did .

So we are clear, I am in favor of going back to 43 car fields.
 
Man, the list of excuses for not going to short tracks keeps getting smaller. Cross "not enough pit stalls" and "not enough garage stalls" off the list.
 
jws926 said:
I am not a fan of the 4 car limit

But they dont though, many of the tracks have removed the no longer needed pit stalls, they would have to go back and un do what they done did .

So we are clear, I am in favor of going back to 43 car fields.
Click to expand...

I am in favor of them re-doin what they done un-did. :p
 
It was a smart rule at the time...back when there was competition to make the show and 50 cars entered most weeks. Had to give the "little teams" a chance to get in. It's been pointless since 2011 or so when teams were no longer sent home. Now with all the "technical alliances" it's pretty much a moot rule.

I can already tell where this thread is going...people will bitch about not getting full fields...people will refute that they'd be non-competitive backmarkers anyway...

So I'll state my point to kick-off the argument- when your sport goes from 50 teams entered week-to-week to struggling to get 40 cars in less than 10 years...there's a problem...that's 20% of the sport that's gone out of business. "But the ratings are great in my house and the missing cars don't affect the racing!"...to which I'll say...what part of "20% of the sport has gone out of business" did you not understand???
 
Speedbowl14 said:
It was a smart rule at the time...back when there was competition to make the show and 50 cars entered most weeks. Had to give the "little teams" a chance to get in. It's been pointless since 2011 or so when teams were no longer sent home. Now with all the "technical alliances" it's pretty much a moot rule.

I can already tell where this thread is going...people will bitch about not getting full fields...people will refute that they'd be non-competitive backmarkers anyway...

So I'll state my point to kick-off the argument- when your sport goes from 50 teams entered week-to-week to struggling to get 40 cars in less than 10 years...there's a problem...that's 20% of the sport that's gone out of business. "But the ratings are great in my house and the missing cars don't affect the racing!"...to which I'll say...what part of "20% of the sport has gone out of business" did you not understand???
Click to expand...
Whether its 36 cars or 43 cars, as long as they are racing , I will be watching.
 
There is nothing magical about 43 cars starting, that was a relatively recent phenomenon, a product of the provisional system and the desire to keep drivers like Darrell Waltrip in the field. The odd number never made any sense anyway. Starting more cars in the current climate would just invite the start and park guys to come out of the woodwork and further divide the race purse. Even during the boom years there was always a half dozen cars that were just dead weight. Right now you could absolutely cut the field to 36 and not effect the quality of the product one bit.
 
DUN24 said:
At a time where car counts are threatened and NASCAR loves changing rules more than ever, it's redundant to limit how many cars a team can bring to the track. It's going to be pretty damned depressing when Carl Edwards leaves the sport because of f****y racing and Matt Kenseth leaves because there is no room at the inn.. In back-to-back years.

If teams could expand to five(or six on the rare one-off race), you know damn well that Kenseth would have a ride.
Click to expand...
Car counts have nothing to do with Carl or Matt leaving. JGR could still run 3 more cars
along with the 78. They shut the 77 team down rather than pay what Matt is asking and that tells me driver salaries are the easiest way to save a few million dollars.
 
Formerjackman said:
Even during the boom years there was always a half dozen cars that were just dead weight. Right now you could absolutely cut the field to 36 and not effect the quality of the product one bit.
Click to expand...

Dead weight in the boom years? I wouldn't agree with that statement.

Look at the bottom six cars nowadays, and you see guys like J. Earnhardt, Derrike Cope, Reed Sorenson, Corey Lajoie, Cody Ware, Timmy Hill, etc. You know when the race starts that those guys are guaranteed to finish at the bottom of the pack unless a dozen other cars DNF. So you are correct on your second point, but compare it to the boom years.....were the same backmarkers destined to finish in the back every single race? Absolutely not.

There were rarely any field fillers in the boom period. The 30th place driver in the points didn't always finish at the back. The "bad" teams were still capable of a good finish every now and then; in fact it happened nearly every race. You can look at the race results from pretty much any race in the mid/late 90's and you'll see what I mean.
 
The inability to field more than four cars per team ain't the problem. Lack of sponsors because of lack of value for the $ those sponsors have to pay is the problem. Costs have to come down, including driver salaries.
 
I say go to smaller teams. I've watched the sport go from small driver/owner teams to corporate entities. I've noticed big team tactics during races that change the natural order of a race (e.g. restarts) and at times manufacturer tactics. I've noticed that 4-car teams refer to sister teams as teammates. I'm concerned that the number of teams will be reduced to what a few big teams decide to field. I realize that spreading costs across multiple cars is more economical (which means the most economical way to go is one team). I'd prefer teams be more independent and NASCAR less dependent on a few big teams. I am concerned that big teams may start dictating how NASCAR should be run and I remember how that worked out in Indycar.

The lack of sponsorship means the teams have priced themselves too high and the market is reacting. They have to cut costs plain and simple. How they do that is the challenge they have.
 
DUN24 said:
At a time where car counts are threatened and NASCAR loves changing rules more than ever, it's redundant to limit how many cars a team can bring to the track. It's going to be pretty damned depressing when Carl Edwards leaves the sport because of f****y racing and Matt Kenseth leaves because there is no room at the inn.. In back-to-back years.

If teams could expand to five(or six on the rare one-off race), you know damn well that Kenseth would have a ride.
Click to expand...
Really? Who do you see with the sponsorship to expand beyond four teams? SHR can't find sponsorship to keep a popular driver in her seat, and is basically running another out of the owner's business. Furniture Row and Penske have no interest. Roush and Childress have to outsource Buescher and Dillon to find a sponsorship for them. The rest couldn't field a third car if they wanted; many struggle to keep one or two running.

In short, the four-car limit isn't keeping Matt or anyone else from getting a ride. It's the lack of sponsorship, leading to cost cutting. Large veteran salaries are one place to start. You can't add cars to a team if nobody is willing to pay the bills.
 
Last edited:
Charlie Spencer said:
Really? Who do you see with the sponsorship to expand beyond four teams? SHR can't find sponsorship to keep a popular driver in her seat, and is basically running another out of the owner's business. Furniture Row and Penske have no interest. Roush and Childress have to outsource Buescher and Dillon to find a sponsorship for them. The rest couldn't field a third car if they wanted; many struggle to keep one or two running.

In short, the four-car limit isn't keeping Matt or anyone else from getting a ride. It's the lack of sponsorship, leading to cost cutting. Large veteran salaries are one place to start. You can't add cars to a team if nobody is willing to pay the bills.
Click to expand...

If Kenseth wanted to bankroll his own JGR ride, he should be able to.

Obviously he wouldn't, but he should be able to.
 
So there seems to be some agreement that excessive costs are a problem in attracting and retaining sponsors yet a reluctance to bring up what other sports have done to address the issue of rising costs, i.e. salaries.

If NASCAR imposed a limit on teams of X amount of dollars to spend each year (provided that such a limit could be enforced), wouldn't that help with the sponsorship issue and level the playing field somewhat ?
 
pjmolo said:
So there seems to be some agreement that excessive costs are a problem in attracting and retaining sponsors yet a reluctance to bring up what other sports have done to address the issue of rising costs, i.e. salaries.

If NASCAR imposed a limit on teams of X amount of dollars to spend each year (provided that such a limit could be enforced), wouldn't that help with the sponsorship issue and level the playing field somewhat ?
Click to expand...

that is one of the things the rumor mill has been saying, a spending cap. Seems awfully complicated
 
DUN24 said:
If Kenseth wanted to bankroll his own JGR ride, he should be able to.

Obviously he wouldn't, but he should be able to.
Click to expand...
Don't we already bitch about drivers 'buying' a ride? :rolleyes:

If Kenseth wanted to fund a team out of his or her own pocket, there are plenty of one- and two- car teams that would be happy to take his checks. That includes Furniture Row renting him a seat in the #78, a car arguably more competitive than the #20.

You may say, "But those other teams aren't as competitive as Gibbs!". A car is mostly as competitive as the money you can throw at it. A car funded out of pocket at Gibbs would only be as competitive as the deluded funder could afford, and likely not much better than at Daugherty or Germain.

Also, your whole premise is based on the assumption that teams are interested in fielding more than four cars. I haven't heard much screaming from them for this.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Don't we already bitch about drivers 'buying' a ride? :rolleyes:

If Kenseth wanted to fund a team out of his or her own pocket, there are plenty of one- and two- car teams that would be happy to take his checks. That includes Furniture Row renting him a seat in the #78, a car arguably more competitive than the #20.

You may say, "But those other teams aren't as competitive as Gibbs!". A car is mostly as competitive as the money you can throw at it. A car funded out of pocket at Gibbs would only be as competitive as the deluded funder could afford, and likely not much better than at Daugherty or Germain.

Also, your whole premise is based on the assumption that teams are interested in fielding more than four cars. I haven't heard much screaming from them for this.
Click to expand...

Of course teams aren't dying to expand at the current moment.. Still, the rule can be reversed. There are only two teams the rule can really affect at this point with HMS and JGR, I'm aware.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Really? Who do you see with the sponsorship to expand beyond four teams? SHR can't find sponsorship to keep a popular driver in her seat, and is basically running another out of the owner's business. Furniture Row and Penske have no interest. Roush and Childress have to outsource Buescher and Dillon to find a sponsorship for them. The rest couldn't field a third car if they wanted; many struggle to keep one or two running.

In short, the four-car limit isn't keeping Matt or anyone else from getting a ride. It's the lack of sponsorship, leading to cost cutting. Large veteran salaries are one place to start. You can't add cars to a team if nobody is willing to pay the bills.
Click to expand...
I agree that it isn't feasible in the current climate, but if HMS, SHR or JGR found a sponsor and have a driver they want in Cup, I wouldn't have an issue with them doing so. I'd actually want them to, theoretically it could give even more drivers opportunities in good cars.

I think the most important thing to look at is the 77 car, Gibbs could've just started that team with Jones and 5 hour energy this past season. Under those circumstances, Matt could possibly still have a ride. Now JGR is losing Kenseth (who I don't think is completely dried up) and a sponsor to MTJ when they possibly could've had both.
 
Last edited:
DUN24 said:
Of course teams aren't dying to expand at the current moment.. Still, the rule can be reversed. There are only two teams the rule can really affect at this point with HMS and JGR, I'm aware.
Click to expand...
SHR also
 
pjmolo said:
So there seems to be some agreement that excessive costs are a problem in attracting and retaining sponsors yet a reluctance to bring up what other sports have done to address the issue of rising costs, i.e. salaries.

If NASCAR imposed a limit on teams of X amount of dollars to spend each year (provided that such a limit could be enforced), wouldn't that help with the sponsorship issue and level the playing field somewhat ?
Click to expand...
There's the obvious question of enforcement. Aren't caps in stick and ball sports usually limited to player salaries only? Football teams don't usually do R&D or share expenses with satellite and sister teams. There's also the question of accounting for manufacturer support.

DUN24 said:
Of course teams aren't dying to expand at the current moment.. Still, the rule can be reversed. There are only two teams the rule can really affect at this point with HMS and JGR, I'm aware.
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong, I don't care one way or the other about this rule going away. My point is that by itself, this change wouldn't cause an increase in the number of cars fielded. Let 'em have as many teams as they want; the current lack of interested sponsors is still going to be the biggest stumbling block.

Snowman said:
I agree that it isn't feasible in the current climate, but if HMS, SHR or JGR found a sponsor and have a driver they want in Cup, I wouldn't have an issue with them doing so. I'd actually want them to, theoretically it could give even more drivers opportunities in good cars.

I think the most important thing to look at is the 77 car, Gibbs could've just started that team with Jones and 5 hour energy this past season. Under those circumstances, Matt could possibly still have a ride. Now JGR is losing Kenseth (who I don't think is completely dried up) and a sponsor to MTJ when they possibly could've had both.
Click to expand...
One reason Gibbs is dropping Kenseth is because this salary is higher than what they can persuade a sponsor to pay. If they could find someone willing to pay a past champion, they could have kept him or moved hit to the #77.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
One reason Gibbs is dropping Kenseth is because this salary is higher than what they can persuade a sponsor to pay. If they could find someone willing to pay a past champion, they could have kept him or moved hit to the #77.
Click to expand...
Any comment I saw from Gibbs has been very vague about why Kenseth was replaced. Kenseth has been equally as vague, where did you hear it was related to salary?
 
Charlie Spencer said:
I suspect if SHR landed another sponsor, Gene Haas would use that money instead of his own for the #41, not start a fifth team.
Click to expand...
Yeah I didn't really think that addition through, as of now SHR JGR and HMS are the only three four car teams that's the only reason I added them.
 
When the rule was first put in place, the fear is there would be 7-8 car teams. About 5 years ago, I could see Hendrick having Johnson, Gordon, Dale Jr., Kahne. Stewart, Harvick, and Newman. The fear was it would put too many teams out of business. At the time, it was sound thinking. But fast forward to today, maybe it is time to revisit that rule. I don't know how many teams could expand over what they have other than Gibbs and Hendrick.
 
If it were that big of an item on the agenda for the big players it'd probably be addressed. I don't think RTA is going to go beating on NASCAR's door begging for 5-car teams again anytime soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom