making races 300 miles

J

jasn88cubs

Team Owner
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
198
Points
203
how would you feel about that?

isntead of having races 400 or 500 miles make em 300 miles.

i'd keep daytona 500, coca cola 600 and southern 500 though due to the history and status

but i think 300 mile races would build up urgency and make the race much more watchable

plus the days of blown engines, piston rods, transmissions are basically over. you hardly ever see that anymore

i know i dont wanna watch 400 miles at michigan or dover or 500 miles at bristol anymore

thoughts?
 
Absolutely not.

Only in NASCAR would you have fans asking for less of the sport they love. :confused: I've never heard of an NFL fan asking for a 45 minute game, MLB fan asking for 6 innings, NHL fan asking for 2 periods. Leave the length of the races alone. It's no secret what time these races are starting. Tune in an hour into the race and you'll get the shorter race you desire.
 
I like the idea of shorter races. That said the tracks could also have entertainment to make the trip enjoyable. Shorter races is only one thing that needs changing. They have to change other things like "no pit stops under caution" (except with permission). Get rid of the mandatory caution because of rain etc. Hold drivers one lap for throwing things outside the car. Make pit crews accountable for tear offs. With pitting only allowed under green flag conditions, get rid of or raise the pit road speed.
 
dpkimmel2001 said:
Absolutely not.

Only in NASCAR would you have fans asking for less of the sport they love. :confused: I've never heard of an NFL fan asking for a 45 minute game, MLB fan asking for 6 innings, NHL fan asking for 2 periods. Leave the length of the races alone. It's no secret what time these races are starting. Tune in an hour into the race and you'll get the shorter race you desire.
Click to expand...

I completely agree, it's always interesting to me no matter how long. But I certainly don't want less of it. I pay attention to strategies, multiple drivers, lap times, amongst other things to keep me interested though. A lot of people like watching just what the announcers are talking about.
 
jasn88cubs said:
how would you feel about that?

isntead of having races 400 or 500 miles make em 300 miles.

i'd keep daytona 500, coca cola 600 and southern 500 though due to the history and status

but i think 300 mile races would build up urgency and make the race much more watchable

plus the days of blown engines, piston rods, transmissions are basically over. you hardly ever see that anymore

i know i dont wanna watch 400 miles at michigan or dover or 500 miles at bristol anymore

thoughts?
Click to expand...

Bristol is 500 laps which equates to 250 miles according to my math but I suck at math so I could be wrong.

I think reducing the number of miles/laps in anymore races would cause a further erosion of race attendance as the guy who is going to travel 2000 miles round trip to see a 400-500 mile race may just say "screw it" and do something else if the race was 300 miles/laps.

The viewer at home can control exactly how much he sees by either tuning in later or having a nap in the middle of the race or simply by using a DVR and fast forwarding through the middle part of the race where many are just riding until go time.

IMO any changes Nascar makes should be geared to attracting younger fans as the series cannot sustain itself with the old audience it has now.
 
500 miles or 500 laps should be the minimum, drivers worked hard to win at Rockingham 493 laps, Dover 500 laps.
 
Skoalbandit33 said:
Bristol is 500 laps which equates to 250 miles according to my math but I suck at math so I could be wrong.

I think reducing the number of miles/laps in anymore races would cause a further erosion of race attendance as the guy who is going to travel 2000 miles round trip to see a 400-500 mile race may just say "screw it" and do something else if the race was 300 miles/laps.

The viewer at home can control exactly how much he sees by either tuning in later or having a nap in the middle of the race or simply by using a DVR and fast forwarding through the middle part of the race where many are just riding until go time.

IMO any changes Nascar makes should be geared to attracting younger fans as the series cannot sustain itself with the old audience it has now.
Click to expand...

Obviously the younger generation is not attracted to 200 laps of follow the leader while experienced drivers are saving their cars for a late charge.
I think the tracks would do much better if they had other entertainment with more racing of other series. I know I would like it if my ticket included a motorcycle race and younger drivers coming up through the ranks. If this was available at the track and clips shown on social media where all the young people are then they may have a chance of interesting some.
 
Prove to me that new fans are going out to their local tracks to watch 50 lap races. I'm not seeing it.
 
Just like NASCAR has devalued the regular season, they have devalued the first 3/4ths of the race through lucky dogs, wave arounds, and debris cautions. In the 'old days,' I was on the edge of my seat if my driver was about to be lapped. I knew the odds were very long that he would be able to recover. Every lap mattered in the 500 miles. Now, when Harvick had to pit for a potential flat at Indy, I barely cared. I knew that, even if he got lapped, the Lucky Dog and continual fake cautions would allow him to get back in contention. If NASCAR continues to manipulate races, I might agree to a shorter length. More and more, every race seems to be like Talladega or Daytona: the drivers know they can ride around until 20 laps to go, then all Hell breaks loose. This also leads to a lot of winners who are undeserving.


If NASCAR continues to manipulate the show, shorter races might be the right answer. If we can get back to every lap mattering, then no.
 
We have 300 mile races, two each at Phoenix and New Hampshire. The races at Bristol and Martinsville are roughly 260 miles. The two road course races are 220 miles each, give or take.

That's 10 races on the schedule at 300 miles or less. That enough for NASCAR. Indy and F1 run much shorter races; IMSA runs timed races, with most of those 2:15 or 2:45; motocross events are even shorter. Sample those if you're hunting shorter races with different strategies. They can be just as competitive and entertaining as NASCAR.
 
Team Penske said:
Obviously the younger generation is not attracted to 200 laps of follow the leader while experienced drivers are saving their cars for a late charge.
I think the tracks would do much better if they had other entertainment with more racing of other series. I know I would like it if my ticket included a motorcycle race and younger drivers coming up through the ranks. If this was available at the track and clips shown on social media where all the young people are then they may have a chance of interesting some.
Click to expand...

From what I have read here young people are looking for an "experience" when they go to events and do things. I don't have a grasp of what an experience encompasses but those are the sort of things Nascar should be implementing in order to attract a new and younger fans.
 
ted@economy said:
Prove to me that new fans are going out to their local tracks to watch 50 lap races. I'm not seeing it.
Click to expand...

I don't see many young people at local car shows or at my local short track. That doesn't prove a thing but if others have noticed the same thing it may indicate a trend.
 
29-4 said:
Just like NASCAR has devalued the regular season, they have devalued the first 3/4ths of the race through lucky dogs, wave arounds, and debris cautions. In the 'old days,' I was on the edge of my seat if my driver was about to be lapped. I knew the odds were very long that he would be able to recover. Every lap mattered in the 500 miles. Now, when Harvick had to pit for a potential flat at Indy, I barely cared. I knew that, even if he got lapped, the Lucky Dog and continual fake cautions would allow him to get back in contention. If NASCAR continues to manipulate races, I might agree to a shorter length. More and more, every race seems to be like Talladega or Daytona: the drivers know they can ride around until 20 laps to go, then all Hell breaks loose. This also leads to a lot of winners who are undeserving.


If NASCAR continues to manipulate the show, shorter races might be the right answer. If we can get back to every lap mattering, then no.
Click to expand...

At the recent Brickyard I saw JJ got a speeding penalty and then was eventually lapped by Kyle Busch. The next time I looked up he was deep in the field on the lead lap and then in the top 10 and finished up in 3rd. Don't get me wrong as I like JJ and appreciate what he and Knaus have accomplished but there is no way in hell he should have been in a position to get his lap back so easily and finish top 5.

Penalties, flat tires, loose lug nuts and slow pit stops mean nothing as you can have a car get multiple unearned laps back in a race and it is not uncommon to see a driver lap(s) down at the 3 quarter point of the race and finish on the lead lap. There are no real consequences for screwing up as you see in stick and ball sports which is another reason I can't see Nascar as a legitimate sport.
 
Skoalbandit33 said:
Penalties, flat tires, loose lug nuts and slow pit stops mean nothing as you can have a car get multiple unearned laps back in a race and it is not uncommon to see a driver lap(s) down at the 3 quarter point of the race and finish on the lead lap. There are no real consequences for screwing up as you see in stick and ball sports which is another reason I can't see Nascar as a legitimate sport.
Click to expand...
There's nothing new about drivers getting unearned laps back. It happened with the old 'Let your buddies get past you racing back to the caution' system that the Lucky Dog replaced. At least with the Dog, it's only one driver at a time.

I'll agree that penalized drivers should not be eligible for the free pass.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
There's nothing new about drivers getting unearned laps back. It happened with the old 'Let your buddies get past you racing back to the caution' system that the Lucky Dog replaced. At least with the Dog, it's only one driver at a time.

I'll agree that penalized drivers should not be eligible for the free pass.
Click to expand...

True . And there is nothing new about drivers who got a lap back racing there way back up through the field . It just seems like if they don't then take the lead away from Kyle Busch , then there wasn't much passing and it was a dull race .
 
ted@economy said:
True . And there is nothing new about drivers who got a lap back racing there way back up through the field . It just seems like if they don't then take the lead away from Kyle Busch , then there wasn't much passing and it was a dull race .
Click to expand...
That goes back to the TV coverage concentrating on the front of the field, instead of looking at their own graphics and shifting focus to the cars that are making competitive passes.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
There's nothing new about drivers getting unearned laps back. It happened with the old 'Let your buddies get past you racing back to the caution' system that the Lucky Dog replaced. At least with the Dog, it's only one driver at a time.

I'll agree that penalized drivers should not be eligible for the free pass.
Click to expand...

Nascar could freeze the field as they do now and not allow racing back to the stripe so if you wanted your lap back you lined up beside the lead lap cars and got 'er done the old fashioned way.

That may not work any longer as if popular drivers got laps down with a much slimmer way of getting back on the lead lap TV ratings may plummet further and fans may leave the stands en masse like when Dale crashed out or had no chance of a decent finish.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
That goes back to the TV coverage concentrating on the front of the field, instead of looking at their own graphics and shifting focus to the cars that are making competitive passes.
Click to expand...

IMO the clunker that was the Brickyard had nothing to do with the 18 team's excellence and everything to do with a track unsuitable for the car Nascar uses.
 
Skoalbandit33 said:
Nascar has shortened several races over the years but I think instead of shortening more they should concentrate on making the on track product better.
Click to expand...

agree, the question is how do we goose the drives/teams into a talladega situation in which they think the race will end just after halfway when the weather rolls in?

I think the real issue is the cars. We wouldn't be talking about shortening the races or goosing the drivers if the cars were capable of more beatin and bangin. Right now, if a car hits the wall, they are basically done for the day.

If you run into another car, the sheet metal folds like paper or cuts a tire. All three series have this problem. The sheet metal is just so thin that any contact just destroys the vehicle so drivers know not to make contact with anything. Compare today's Bristol races with those of 10-15 years ago.
 
Last edited:
LouieLouie said:
Haven't we been down this road already? Before the lucky dog was instituted you had lap cars fighting with lead lap cars. The drivers whined about it, fans complained that the lap cars were in the way, and so NACAR gave us the lucky dog and moved the lappers to the back of the field during restarts.
Click to expand...

Nascar could use the old method except not allow racing back to the stripe so if a car wanted to get a lap back they would have to do it the old fashioned way and un-lap themselves. I don't see anything like that happening though as for optics and potential drama Nascar likes as many cars on the lead lap as possible even if it gives the series a black eye by allowing lucky dogs and reach arounds lol.
 
LouieLouie said:
agree, the question is how do we goose the drives/teams into a talladega situation in which they think the race will end just after halfway when the weather rolls in?
Click to expand...

IDK how you accomplish it other than to go with multiple shorter races as longer races lend themselves to settling in and riding until it is time to go. The way traditional stick and ball sports are played by nature you have to give 100% when play is on but motorsports have never been that way.
 
LouieLouie said:
Haven't we been down this road already? Before the lucky dog was instituted you had lap cars fighting with lead lap cars. The drivers whined about it, fans complained that the lap cars were in the way, and so NACAR gave us the lucky dog and moved the lappers to the back of the field during restarts.
Click to expand...
And they whined about the leader slowing down to let his buddies past . The long and short of it is , the fastest car in the field can get a lap down for a problem not of his making . Another driver's mistake , trash on the track , etc . . I want that car to have an opportunity to get back in the race . I don't care who it is . I'd be happy with the lap down cars lining up on the inside row . There was nothing wrong with that , except stupid fans wanted a change . Ooops , something like now (not politically correct , sorry )
 
I'd be fine with getting rid of the lucky dog altogether, nothing should be free in racing. As for lapped cars on the inside, no. Keep the leaders up front battling the other leaders. The way caution cycles work now is just fine.

Shortening races? Not really. If I'm going travel hundreds of miles to see a race it better last me at least 3 hours, long enough for me to get well and proper drunk.
 
Skoalbandit33 said:
Nascar has shortened several races over the years but I think instead of shortening more they should concentrate on making the on track product better.
Click to expand...

Yeah, personally I would rather have 500 miles at fontucky. Feels like more bang for the buck. They shortened races to improve quality of racing. A lazy move IMO.

Big difference between 500>400 miles as opposed to 400>300 miles too. That's the length of an Xfinity race.
 
ted@economy said:
And they whined about the leader slowing down to let his buddies past . The long and short of it is , the fastest car in the field can get a lap down for a problem not of his making . Another driver's mistake , trash on the track , etc . . I want that car to have an opportunity to get back in the race . I don't care who it is . I'd be happy with the lap down cars lining up on the inside row . There was nothing wrong with that , except stupid fans wanted a change . Ooops , something like now (not politically correct , sorry )
Click to expand...

IDK who was clamoring for the free pass but it wasn't me!
 
LouieLouie said:
LOL.

What about only being able to use the lucky dog once in a race. If you use it once, it goes to the next driver that hasn't used it and you can only get one lap back.

Again, probably never happen since NASCAR wants all their teams on the lead lap.
Click to expand...

That would be an idea or maybe give a team a certain number they could use a year at their discretion.
 
Acs said:
I'd be fine with getting rid of the lucky dog altogether, nothing should be free in racing. As for lapped cars on the inside, no. Keep the leaders up front battling the other leaders. The way caution cycles work now is just fine.

Shortening races? Not really. If I'm going travel hundreds of miles to see a race it better last me at least 3 hours, long enough for me to get well and proper drunk.
Click to expand...

I disagree. A driver races hard and laps 10 cars, the second place car can't race that hard and has 10 cars between him and the leader. Caution comes out and the second place car is now on the bumper of the leader. That to me is the biggest gift in NASCAR and is unearned.
Leave the lapped cars in their positions and no pitting under caution. That way the most deserving driver wins the race which seldom happens these days.
 
One major change that I think would help: no wave-arounds in the last 1/4 of the race. The wave-around is okay (I guess) when there is a risk-reward gamble component to it. But it's ridiculous to have wave-arounds during the GWC.
 
Michfan said:
Isn't almost a third of the schedule already 300 miles or less
Click to expand...
More than a third.

There are 8 X 500 mile races, 16 X 400 milers and 12 X 300 miles or less. It all works for me.
 
Michfan said:
Isn't almost a third of the schedule already 300 miles or less
Click to expand...

Yes...sort of.

300 miles and under:

M'ville 2x
Bristol 2x
Sonoma
Richmond 2x
Watkins Glen

If you include New Hampshire and Phoenix (310-320 miles) that's 4 more races for 12 races under or around 300 miles...which would be 1/3rd of the schedule.


Here's some interesting stats... let's look at the number of endurance races races.

1996: 12/31 races 499-600 miles in distance (Daytona, Dover 2x, Pocono 2x, Charlotte 2x, Atlanta 2x, Talledaga 2x, Darlington)

2006: 12/36 races 499-600 miles in distance (Daytona, Fontana (Auto Club for the young'un's) 2x, Charlotte 2x, Talledaga 2x, Atlanta 2x, Texas 2x, Darlington)

2016: 9/36 races 499-600 miles in distance (Daytona, Atlanta, Texas 2x, Talledaga 2x, Charlotte 2x, Darlington)


IMO, all tracks 1.5 miles and larger (plus Darlington) should get a 500 mile race...and if that track has a second date it should be 400 miles or less...especially if that second race is a Chase race. You'd actually make a pretty good schedule. The real race fans get a 500 mile race, and the Chase sells its self...especially with the younger fans who want shorter races.
 
aunty dive said:
More than a third.

There are 8 X 500 mile races, 16 X 400 milers and 12 X 300 miles or less. It all works for me.
Click to expand...
Twelve? 2 each Bristol, Martinsville, New Hampshire, Phoenix. 1 each Sonoma and the Glen. Which two did I miss?

12 wouldn't be more than a third; it'd be exactly a third.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom