Lowest Car Count For the Daytona 500 Ever?

T

TonyB

Guest
Been doing some research on this. I still haven't found information for 1994, so I can't be absolutely certain.

45 cars have attempted to qualify for this year's Daytona 500.
That is the lowest count in the history of the race (going all the way back to 1959)

Cars attempting to qualify was compiled from numerous sources as as is follows...

2003 - 50
2002 - 53
2001 - 52
2000 - 56
1999 - 59
1998 - 56
1997 - 52
1996 - 51
1995 - 57 to 64 (from a news article that said 57 of the 64 cars in the garage attempted a qualifying effort on day 1 of qualifying - there were 3 days of qualifying)
1994 - ??
1993 - 52
1992 - 57
1991 - 58
1990 - 61
1989 - 60
1988 - 69
1987 - 61
1986 - 62
1985 - 57
1984 - 72
1983 - 70
1982 - 63
1981 - 54
1980 - 67
1979 - 59
1978 - 57
1977 - 66
1976 - 67
1975 - 53
1974 - 58
1973 - 74
1972 - 69
1971 - 63
1970 - 61
1969 - 51
1968 - 50 (couldn't find qualifying but 50 cars were in the race.)
1967 - 56
1966 - 66
1965 - 49
1964 - 46 (the previous low)
1963 - 62
1962 - 50
1961 - 67
1960 - 77
1959 - 59 (couldn't find qualifying but 59 cars were in the race.)
 
I think this is a result of this new 26 - 10 "playoff" format, lots of sponsors are unsure whether to sign with certain cars full or part time because theyre afraid they may not make the top 10 after the 26 week cutoff line, thats why we see the shortage of cars in the field. We're seeing some effects of the 26 - 10 thing already.
 
Like boB said in another post most sponsors commit to the season way in advance. The low car count is most likely due to the economy in general,the other divisions are having tough times with sponsors as well.
 
I do not ever recall as small a field of qualifiers for the Daytona 500. This is the most prestigious race of the year, bar none. The history and honor for any team or driver to say they competed in the Daytona 500 has always been impetus enough to bring large numbers of teams together in an effort to qualify for the event.

This leaves the thought the economy is the culprit. Teams on all levels ranging from small town Saturday night racing to the prestigious Daytona 500, are struggling. It is doubtful the Championship point change has anything to do with the reduced number of qualifiers.

Most established teams had thier contracts signed long before any change in the Championship point structure was put into place. Those that signed after the announcment do not seem concerned and in the event they are, have provisions in the contract for penalties.

All in all, the overall expense required to operate a team has outstripped the number of potential sponsors willing to get involved in this uncertain economy. Another year or two, free from terrorist attack on our shores combined with the continued economic recovery should see an increase of sponsors and challengers once again.
 
In years past, nearly every driver from all the local racing organizations across the country was usually able to pull together enough money to buy a two or three year old car, maybe a few used parts and build a half-way decent engine, find a used car dealer, trucking company, or other local business to kick in between five and ten grand and he'd be at Daytona and entered in the "Great American Race".

Well, time passed, the price of making it to Daytona increased, and then it was maybe a few of the Busch teams that could put together a car and squeeze a few extra bucks, maybe twenty-five to thirty thousand from their sponsors, and they would be an entrant in the "Great American Race".

Now, still more time has past and even the Busch Teams are unable to find the one or two hundred thousand that it takes to put togther two cars, two or three engines, a paid full time team of professional crew people and head to Daytona for a couple of weeks in February.

Actually, I would bet that it is closer to a half million dollars or more; quite a hefty commitment for just one race, wouldn't you folks agree?

Hopefully the changes being introduced, including the new "Chase for the Championship", will create some interest not only amongst a large number of new fans, which in turn will create a larger market and attract more sponsors with the deep pockets the sport requires, both now and in the future.
 
And as the tribe speaks and more survivors are booted off the island to go into Trump's board room and get fired and then don't make it through the rose ceremony, that number may continue to dwindle. Wonder how NASCAR and Nextel are gonna like a starting field of 18 at Richmond?

Serves 'em right if it happens. Maybe they'll listen to the ones paying the bills for a change.
 
They way it's looking for Rockingham...Nascar is going to have a tough time fielding a full 43 car field.
 
I hope they get about 12 Kirk Shelmerdines, Morgan Shepherds, Derrike Copes, and Hideo Fukuyamas. Poetic justice indeed.
 
They will get things under control...but 2-4 races atleast will go with less than 43 cars...
 
Originally posted by EatMorePossum@Feb 9 2004, 08:07 PM
I hope they get about 12 Kirk Shelmerdines, Morgan Shepherds, Derrike Copes, and Hideo Fukuyamas. Poetic justice indeed.
Click to expand...
More 'grocery getters'...I heard that name before or something similar. I almost think I heard TRL say it on a different forum, but the memory is the 2nd thing to go. I always forget what the first thing to go is?
 
I think you are going to see more than a few races with fewer than 43 car fields. Consider it cost about 10 million these days to field a team that will run middle of the pack, what sponsor is going to commit to that unless they really have money to burn. Nascar needs to bring the cost of the sport down before you will se more sponsorship. Sponsors don't want to spend money to see their car not get the tv exposure that a top 10 car would get. The top 10 teams spend upwards of 20 million, that isn't chump change for sure. Childress has over 60 cars in his stable, is this really the way to go? Nascar has to bring the cost down that is the bottom line, if they don't the car counts will dwindle until you have about 20 teams!
 
Originally posted by Mopardh9@Feb 10 2004, 02:40 PM
I think you are going to see more than a few races with fewer than 43 car fields. Consider it cost about 10 million these days to field a team that will run middle of the pack, what sponsor is going to commit to that unless they really have money to burn. Nascar needs to bring the cost of the sport down before you will se more sponsorship. Sponsors don't want to spend money to see their car not get the tv exposure that a top 10 car would get. The top 10 teams spend upwards of 20 million, that isn't chump change for sure. Childress has over 60 cars in his stable, is this really the way to go? Nascar has to bring the cost down that is the bottom line, if they don't the car counts will dwindle until you have about 20 teams!
Click to expand...
How easy for those of us who sit outside looking in to say "NASCAR should bring the cost of racing down".

And what might someone suggest NASCAR do to achieve that ??

The sport is expensive because "THE TEAMS" have placed the price tag where it is today. Not just NASCAR.
NASCAR has helped, but the teams started the trend toward higher expenses associated with their operations began long before the multi-million dollar contracts for television coverage were in existence. The rise in cost began in the early eighties.

As for the "grocery getters", they should be a part of the sport. Not every team in NASCAR began with a championship run and top equipment. These teams are an important part of NASCAR and any sport. Maybe some fans don't like to see them out there, but for many who are chasing the dream, it is a stepping stone to their ambitions. Eliminate them through grimbling and then the number of competitors will go down. Somebody has to finish in last place and not every team is a top notch team. How would NASCAR, or anyone, decide who is a "grocery getter" ?? Once it is determined who is the "grocery getter", what do you do, send them home ??? That would really kill the sport.

As for the "10 - 26" rule and one person stating we are seeing the effects already, this question comes to mind, when and with what team or sponsor has this already had an affect???
And how does anyone know if there will even be an impact at this point ???
Or is this just another "shoot from the hip" opinion.
The Championship point rule rule change was not implemented until after 90% of the teams had already secured sponsors and additional contracts have been signed since the change was announced.

There are a lot of things perceived to be wrong, but NASCAR is not the only guilty party when it comes to breaking down responsibility for the high cost associated with their series of racing.
 
Cost is part sort of problem you have in baseball....

Of course the owners with the deep pockets are going to spend big bucks. They have them and they'll spend them...

NFL, NBA, and NHL have all implemented some sort of significant restraint. MLB and NASCAR haven't...

-----

Just an off the hip thought on controlling cost, why not limit the number of cars a team can have in inventory? The owner's gripe when there is a rule change because they have to "cut up" 62 cars. Not sure what the details would be, but limit 'em to 8-12 cars.

Like I said, just from the hip.
 
Whiz,

I think that alot of the folks are overlooking the real parties to blame for the increased costs.
Let's place the blame where it rightfully belongs: at the feet of the team owners and THE SPONSORS.
The sponsors are the ones who have been paying more and more to team owners in order to see "their" car running out front every week.
Now those same sponsors find themselves being priced out of racing; there are many other advertising and marketing venues which give a larger return for the amount of dollars spent.
We all knew that the vicious circle would come back around and bite itself in the butt sooner or later. Looks as if that may be coming to pass?
I'll be willing to bet that it won't be too long before things level off, we'll see more multiple sponsors on individual cars and car counts will even out.
Unless the economy takes a drastic upturn, I don't forsee 50 or 60 car fields again though. No one is willing to pay the price of towing to a race and then turning around and go home every week. Not going to happen; teams simply can't afford it any longer.
This just ain't your father's NASCAR racing, folks!!
 
I'm not sure there is a really good solution for this. It does seem that something needs to be done, but what?

In some ways it doesn't seem right to tell the Hendrick's, Roush's, Childress' of the world that they can't spend their own money to improve their race teams.

In other ways it seem that if they don't do something of that nature, you will only have 5 or 6 owners who can afford to compete. And after a while even they wouldn't be able to compete because as someone else said, someone has to finish last. Too much time spent in the back of the pack will soon deplete the war chests of even the biggest spenders in that scenario.

It is a mess, I'm just glad it isn't my job to clean it up :huh:
 
I doubt that the Hendricks', Roush's and Childress' of the world are taking very much money out of their own pockets to run their racing teams.
Why do you think that unsponsored teams simply seem to fade away?
Team owners, or at least smart team owners, are not going to spend their own money. They might make a race or two, but that is about as far as they'll loosen the purse strings.
Multi-millionaires are not noted for making poor investments. Those that do, usually don't last long as multi-millionaires.
 
Tony B that is what i'm saying , if you put a limit on the number of cars a team can build and a limit on the number of engines it will bring the cost down. Like you said it is the same in baseball, only the rich get richer,look at how the small market teams are struggling. I say limit the amount of cars to 8...2 road course cars, 2 restrictor plate,2 intermediate, and 2 short track. If a car gets destroyed you are alowed to replace it. As far as engines go, maybe something like 16. Also tire cost could be cut down by limiting the number of tires teams can change under yellow,i believe the Busch series already does this. There are things that can a should be done to bring down costs IMO.
 
Originally posted by boB@Feb 10 2004, 06:41 PM
I doubt that the Hendricks', Roush's and Childress' of the world are taking very much money out of their own pockets to run their racing teams.
Why do you think that unsponsored teams simply seem to fade away?
Team owners, or at least smart team owners, are not going to spend their own money. They might make a race or two, but that is about as far as they'll loosen the purse strings.
Multi-millionaires are not noted for making poor investments. Those that do, usually don't last long as multi-millionaires.
Click to expand...
I guess that didn't come out right.

I meant money they acquire honestly. If they have someone who want to invest money in their team, it doesn't seem quite right to tell them that they can't make their team better in that case.
 
It's called compromise....

If you want to have a universe where only a handful of teams exist, then continue to allow the spending to be unlimited....

If on the other hand, you want to have 40+ full-time teams, then you may have to take something away from some of the teams to allow the others to exist....
 
There are a number of things NASCAR can do. The first thing off of the top of my head would be limit the amount of sponsorship money available to a team. Say for example, a team can recieve a max amount of 9 million from sponsors total. Anymore would have to come out of the owners pocket. This would then trickle down and cause lay offs and smaller stables employees and # of cars. It would make available more sponsors and more teams and make the playing field even more equal.

What do you think?
 
I think we still live in a free economy where a Jack Roush or a Rick Hendrick can still spend their money any damn way they want to. I think when you start setting salary caps, you end up with the Arizona Cardinals and the New England Patriots.

That's what I think.
 
I say let it play out. It's an economic thing and like any economic thing it will seek it's own level eventually. There will be ups and downs. When the money spent does not yeild an incentive to continue spending the costs will be be reduced and then it all starts over again. NASCAR, the sanctioning body has little to do with those cycles besides promoting whatever it is the have at the moment. It's just free enterprise at work. It can get ugly sometimes.
 
Originally posted by EatMorePossum@Feb 10 2004, 09:50 PM
I think we still live in a free economy where a Jack Roush or a Rick Hendrick can still spend their money any damn way they want to. I think when you start setting salary caps, you end up with the Arizona Cardinals and the New England Patriots.

That's what I think.
Click to expand...
the thing with sports is, if a team can buy any amount of talent they want and just destroy the competition. they may eventually drive the competition out of the sport because they can no longer afford to compete. then where is the team that was dominating the competition. they have no one to play against. even if they did, the competition could be too lop-sided and loose fan support. so, it isnt always in the best interest of the dominant teams to have an unleveled playing field. this is the pecular nature of sports. you cannot look at these teams as separte companies but as one company working together. plus courts have in the past uphead the decisions of sports leagues to put spending caps in place, in order to better the league.
 
Reducing the number of cars a team can own or build is unfair and most likely, unenforceable. Who would monitor the cars built and monitor the chassis destroyed ??? We're talking about a NASCAR inspector in place every day at each team, which might be the only way NASCAR could keep control.

And there are a myriad of problems associated with telling a sponsor how much they can spend to support a team. How much of a cap is fair?? Once NASCAR put a cap on sponsorship spending, it would open the field to numerous other sponsors attempting to woo the same teams, knowing there was a cap. SO how does the team choose??

For the sponsor not chosen, where do they go ?? To an unknown commodity of a team ?? The top teams will already be gone so this opens the door to hidden payoffs and backroom politics for the sponsors and teams inviting them to engage in bending the rules. GoodWrench or Dupont will not let someone else take away RCR or HMS teams. Underhanded deals will be struck without the knowledge of NASCAR.

The minute you place sanctions, there is someone figuring a way to sneak around them.

The fault of the high cost of racing lies with the teams more than NASCAR.

To the fans who really want to cut cost, one suggestion is to go the route NASCAR has started with common templates, limit the number of tires per event. Let Hoosier and Good Year battle over price. The competition will keep tire prices down. Make every race a claiming race and use crate engines.
If you are really serious about keeping cost down this will do it. It will also drive spectators away in droves, reduce the popularity and economics of the sport but satisfy the question of rising costs while making every car in the race competitive, thereby doing away with the "grocery getters".

Whaddaya think of that ??????????
 
Originally posted by MCanyon@Feb 11 2004, 01:59 AM
you cannot look at these teams as separte companies but as one company working together. plus courts have in the past uphead the decisions of sports leagues to put spending caps in place, in order to better the league.
Click to expand...
Spoken like a true newbie.

So poor old DW couldn't get past that red number 9 back in the 80s...waaaaaaaahhhh...enter the restrictor plate. We wouldn't want to force Chevy to build a car capable of keeping up, so we'll slow Bill down.

So poor old Todd Bodine doesn't have the resources available that someone else has...wwaaaahhhhhhh....let's make a salary cap and penalize the top teams for being the best so Kirk Shelmerdine can have wind tunnel time.

I hate to break it to ya pal, but sports is full of the haves and have nots. Always has been, always will be, and everyone who doesn't park their head in their rear knows it. You want a level playing field? Show me where one exists.

As to controlling costs, that's easy too. When the fans grow some balls and let NASCAR know they are unhappy and hit 'em in the only place that counts, the pocketbook, then we'll see changes. Suddenly that $84.50 race ticket is going for $25. That lukewarm Coke and stale hamburger that cost a combined $14 is now a more reasonable $5. The *insert favorite driver here* ball cap officially liscensed and endorsed by NASCAR that cost 57 cents and sells for $28 is now $12.

The fans built this sport from obscurity to prominence. I dunno how many of you remember the racing from the Pearson/Petty/Allison era, but I do. No, it wasn't on TV every week. You were damn lucky to get Daytona, Michigan, and maybe a few laps here and there while the golf tournament was in rain delay. And you know what? It was affordable, it was entertaining, and it was competitive. Now every week we get to see what Junior had for breakfast, we get to hear what Benny thinks about the topic of the day, we don't have to look it up because NBC already did, and Donald Trump couldn't afford to take his family to a race.

Think things are really better?
 
Whizzer,

I think that it's pretty obvious that many of these folks honestly believe that auto racing is more sport than the business of entertainment.

Not so now, hasn't been so since the early years of the last century.

Some smart promoter found that fools would pay good dollars to watch other fools tear around chasing themselves like a dog will chase its own tail, in those new-fangled automobiles, trying their darndest to kill themselves and each other, and as the saying goes, "The race was on!".

Daddy told me shortly after I learned to walk that the quickest way to make a small fortune in racing automobiles was to start with a large one; that speed costs money, how fast do you want to go; and that the only thing that would beat cubic inches was cubic dollars.

There were other sayings he shared, many of which I wouldn't repeat on a public message forum, but over the years I have found that my Daddy was a pretty sharp old gent.

Although there are many things which have changed over the last hundred years or so, the idea of fools paying good dollars to watch other fools chase each other around trying to kill themselves and each other is still around.

I read what some of these folks attend for races each season and all about their collections of souviners and wonder if they realize that they are spending about twice as much as we used to have in our annual racing budget.
Some of them could finance a pretty competitive lower tier race car for a season and have money left over to get a start on next year.
They could be part of the circus instead of the crowd, although lately I must admit there are times when I wonder which side of the fence the real clowns are on.

I guess the old sayings about "a fool and his money are soon parted" and "fools never learn" maybe true after all?

Oh well!
 
eatmorepossum,

i'm not trying to say that nascar needs a level playing field. i am just saying that if it does get TOO lop-sided that interest in the sport could be killed, and the weaker competition could be driven out of the sport because they can no longer find sponsorship. This could POSSIBLY be why there are so few teams at Daytona this year. Im not crying cuz this isnt a perfect world and not every team gets to start with the same adavantages as every other team. i just think that there needs to be some checks in place to make sure that nascar doesnt get too lop-sided in the future. this is for the good of the sport and NOT just trying to help out some of the middle of the road teams that are struggling, just to bring more excitement into the sport.
 
OK, fair enough.

But since NASCAR is an independent sanctioning body who basically answers to no one, who imposes this on them? Who monitors it? Can Roush's wife or Hendrick's dad or whoever own teams as well? Can one person drive for one owner and own the car being driven by someone else?

As long as I've been following top level stock car racing there have been teams with the backing (Petty, Woods, Junior Johnson, all the way through to today) and those who made do with less (Buddy Arrington, Dave Marcis, J.D. McDuffie all the way through today). Then every so often, one comes along who starts with nothing and through sheer talent and will builds it into a powerhouse. Bill Elliott and Alan Kulwicki come instantly to mind. Seeing how Alan built his team from scratch, paid the bills best he could, and still beat the big boys in 1992 makes that accomplishment all that much more special. "Underbird" indeed.

I'm just wondering who is supposed to be NASCAR's watchdog on these suggestions. They are the watchdogs over the teams to make sure the rules are followed. So who watches the watchers?
 
Originally posted by EatMorePossum@Feb 11 2004, 12:02 PM
I'm just wondering who is supposed to be NASCAR's watchdog on these suggestions. They are the watchdogs over the teams to make sure the rules are followed. So who watches the watchers?




We, the fans, of course. Who would you suggest?
Click to expand...
:D
 
I screwed up the above post..........that last part is me. :(
 
I see your point possum. I dont have the answers. Im just pointing out the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom