Racing Back to the Line

Charlie Spencer said:
Go ahead, throw a caution at the end of the stage, just don't count those laps.

Or, if those laps must count, don't take them out of the second stage. Start the laps counting for the second stage with the green, not with the yellow ending the first stage.

Assuming a 400 lap race with 100 laps for the first two stages:
  • Lap 100 (or whenever) - end of first stage
  • Laps 101 through 105 (or however many) - caution between stages
  • Lap 106 - start second stage
  • Lap 206 - end second stage
  • Laps 207 through 212 - caution between stages
  • Lap 213 - start final stage.
Click to expand...

Just get rid of the cautions at the end of stages :idunno:. (this is in every one of my comments at the end of the Nascar Fan Survey I fill out each week)

The drivers are going to race as hard as they can to win that stage, then without cautions it is up to the individual teams as to how best pit and still win the stage while figuring out how to do that and win the second stage.
Without fake cautions for stage ends it puts it all back on the teams to figure out.

Do not worry about the advertisement BS they claim is the reason for the stage cautions, we had 59 years of racing with commercials throughout the races and that will prevail again. Look at all the advertisements during the race on the lap and position scroll board, pop up advertisement constantly during the race, go to commercial with the race 25% of the screen while the commercial is running, they do all that now.

Me personally, I would gladly pay per view to see the entire race commercial free and I hope they offer that in the near future as a choice.
 
mack said:
One of the most iconic finishes in the history of the sport was The Kings 200th win. Petty and Cale were racing back to the stripe while Doug Hevron was barrel rolling down the infield on the back stretch. It worked well that day. But, consider where the leaders were in contrast to the wreck, and consider the size of the track. There are several factors for me to think about. NASCAR I do believe could make it work to race back to the stripe. It would all depend in the situation.
And a little side note, Harry Gant actually finished 2nd that day. Seems Cale thought the race was over, he pulled down pit road, his crew chief rushed him back out, he lined back up in 3rd place under caution where he would finish. Which, when you think about it, NASCAR waved the checkers and yellow at the same time. I'd probably thought it was over too. My guess is NASCAR knew there wasn't going to be a restart.
Click to expand...
Add Mark Martin to that bad move.
 
StandOnIt said:
I would like to see them go back to it myself. Communications are better today with the drivers, cars are safer. lots of reasons IMO.
Click to expand...
Communication is better and so is safety, yet drivers are still running into spinning and parked cars when they should have had the time to slow ‘er down. Racing through a fluid slick on the track is a real threat & plain stupid.

Racing back to the line is incredbly dangerous and halting the field as the caution flies is the correct call.
 
Racing back to the line was and is a bad idea.

Back when this was allowed and there was no lucky dog, I always thought it was dumb to line up the lapped cars in the inside line, then the next lap the flagman would wave the move over flag. NASCAR put them there, then tells them to get out of the way.
 
Towmater said:
Neither means anything to me. IMO, the lucky dog awards something to a driver that didn't earn anything. Kind of like a participation trophy in kids sports.
Click to expand...
No, If a team gets down a lap do to unforseen circumstances and puts themselves in a position to get the lap back by being the first car a lap down that isnt "giving" them anything.
 
I didn't see a problem with racing back to the line when they introduced the Lucky Dog. A lot has changed since then. Now I think it would be more dangerous than it was back then. I can't explain exactly why that is. What I do know for sure, it has to be one or the other. None of this, in this case but not that case. There has to be a uniform rule across the board, race start to finish.
 
IanMcVittie said:
It makes no sense that a person would want cars running within a hair of wrecking but then freak out about how unsafe it is to race back to the stripe.
Click to expand...
This is not complicated. It's a sporting contest of skill and preparation. It's not "NASCAR - The Musical" or some other Broadway production. It's racing. It's not for everyone. Some people get it... others don't.
 
LewTheShoe said:
This is not complicated. It's a sporting contest of skill and preparation. It's not "NASCAR - The Musical" or some other Broadway production. It's racing. It's not for everyone. Some people get it... others don't.
Click to expand...

The point is that some people who claim that safety is paramount choose to look the other way depending on the situation. It’s safety. It’s not for everyone. Some people get it and others don’t. One can’t have it both ways.
 
A number of times NASCAR has let them race to the finish on the last lap when a crash or spin out happens on the back stretch under the current rules. It's a judgement call and I'm good with that.
 
To give some insight from what it was and now is like on the Spotters stand-

This is how I would call it.

Racing back to the Line - GOTTA SPIN IN 2! CAUTIONS OUT, CLEAR BY 1 ! STAY WITH IT, STAY WITH IT, NOW LOOKING, LOOKING , STILL CLEAR! GOOD JOB BUDDY! DAMN THAT WAS CLOSE!

Not Racing back to the line- Gotta spin in 2! Cautions out, back it down back it down, wave em off! Ok we are all good, you got the floor Crew Chief

Might not seem like much but its a big difference and it was very touchy racing back. I had to be louder and encourage them not to crack it, not even for a second or we could end up losing valuable spots. Mean while we are running by cars that are smoking heaps up against the outside wall, sitting in the middle of the track, down on the apron or a combination of it all. The way we have it now is the only way to go, of course my opinion.
 
The Dale Jarrett incident, and the one at Texas that involved Ernie Irvan and Jeff Gordon are prime examples why racing back to the line is a BAD idea, and nothing has fundamentally changed since those incidents happened other than the cars being safer than makes it a good idea. Of all of the things that ail motorsports at this particular time, not racing back the line is a few dozen pages down the list, IF you believe it's a problem at all, which I don't.
 
Formerjackman said:
The Dale Jarrett incident, and the one at Texas that involved Ernie Irvan and Jeff Gordon are prime examples why racing back to the line is a BAD idea, and nothing has fundamentally changed since those incidents happened other than the cars being safer than makes it a good idea. Of all of the things that ail motorsports at this particular time, not racing back the line is a few dozen pages down the list, IF you believe it's a problem at all, which I don't.
Click to expand...

Ernie had impaired vision at the time if memory serves. I believe one eye was impacted so that probably didn’t help things.
 
Formerjackman said:
The Dale Jarrett incident, and the one at Texas that involved Ernie Irvan and Jeff Gordon are prime examples why racing back to the line is a BAD idea, and nothing has fundamentally changed since those incidents happened other than the cars being safer than makes it a good idea. Of all of the things that ail motorsports at this particular time, not racing back the line is a few dozen pages down the list, IF you believe it's a problem at all, which I don't.
Click to expand...
Nobody touched Jarrett, I guessing that was at Loudon? I don't know about Irvan or Gordon being prime examples either because they raced for years and were involved in many wrecks over the many years of their careers. Any idea which races you are talking about?
 
They are prime examples of of the danger and what COULD happen. In Jarrett's case, you had an already crippled car sitting still while cars raced through the fluid the 88 dumped at full speed. Suppose Jarrett's car takes a second hit in the door area while sitting perfectly still. More than a few drivers have died that way. In the Irvan incident, he rear ended a car that was barely moving, which could have resulted in serious injuries to either or both driver AND the took out an innocent car in the mix. Then let's look at Darrell's 1983 Daytona crash. Not only was he lucky not to be killed, he nearly took out the lead pack of the race, and for what?
 
Formerjackman said:
They are prime examples of of the danger and what COULD happen. In Jarrett's case, you had an already crippled car sitting still while cars raced through the fluid the 88 dumped at full speed. Suppose Jarrett's car takes a second hit in the door area while sitting perfectly still. More than a few drivers have died that way. In the Irvan incident, he rear ended a car that was barely moving, which could have resulted in serious injuries to either or both driver AND the took out an innocent car in the mix. Then let's look at Darrell's 1983 Daytona crash. Not only was he lucky not to be killed, he nearly took out the lead pack of the race, and for what?
Click to expand...

Nascar has sanctioned the lack of safety you describe at 4 plate races for years.
 
I guess I just don't see any greatness in watching drivers ride for 480 miles so they can lose their minds for the last 20 miles and having 3/4ths of the cars I'm interested in finish the race behind a tow truck, usually due to little or no fault of their own. What takes place in those events is just not the kind of racing I'm interested in.
 
Spotter22 said:
No, If a team gets down a lap do to unforseen circumstances and puts themselves in a position to get the lap back by being the first car a lap down that isnt "giving" them anything.
Click to expand...

We have a differing opinion on it. Lucky dogs need to go away in my opinion. Yours is different. OK.
 
Letting certain cars continue at an accelerated speed and pass other cars while the caution is out is just as much of a giveaway as giving them a lucky dog. The ONLY difference is that one is safe, logical and organized, and the other is unsafe, illogical and disorganized.
 
Spotter22 said:
These cars dont run into each other by themselves.
Click to expand...

I agree but Nascar puts drivers and cars in an untenable and unsafe position deliberately 4 times a year. They have had over 30 years to rectify this problem but have turned a blind eye. Nascar use the wrecks to promote future events.
 
Formerjackman said:
Are you SERIOUSLY going to tell me you don't see a difference between the two? AND, for what it's worth, I'd bulldoze the banking at Daytona and Talladega tomorrow if I could.
Click to expand...

The difference between the 2 is that Nascar does not want to put drivers at additional harm by racing back to the stripe in the first case. In the second example Nascar has sanctioned 4 races a year where mayhem normally ensues. These races put drivers and fans at potential for serious injury. You can’t have it both ways
 
Formerjackman said:
I guess I just don't see any greatness in watching drivers ride for 480 miles so they can lose their minds for the last 20 miles and having 3/4ths of the cars I'm interested in finish the race behind a tow truck, usually due to little or no fault of their own. What takes place in those events is just not the kind of racing I'm interested in.
Click to expand...
Its not about you. Its for the good of the sport and these races are well attended and watched on TV.
 
Spotter22 said:
Its not about you. Its for the good of the sport and these races are well attended and watched on TV.
Click to expand...

I agree that the races are well attended and generally have good viewership. However is that worth having cars careen into the catch fence, barrel roll, cars at speed plowing into slower or stopped cars? We have seen cars get airborne and land on other cars and engines ripped from the cars from impact.

I am fine with your opinion as we all have different viewpoints but it sure seems like a lot of potential problems for the good of the series
 
IanMcVittie said:
I agree that the races are well attended and generally have good viewership. However is that worth having cars careen into the catch fence, barrel roll, cars at speed plowing into slower or stopped cars? We have seen cars get airborne and land on other cars and engines ripped from the cars from impact.

I am fine with your opinion as we all have different viewpoints but it sure seems like a lot of potential problems for the good of the series
Click to expand...
We've been doing this for 30 years, since 1988 so Im gonna say yes.
 
Spotter22 said:
We've been doing this for 30 years, since 1988 so Im gonna say yes.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. It sounds like what you are saying is that racing back to the stripe doesn’t have any real upside to mitigate the risk. However racing at Talladega and Daytona have a huge upside to mitigate any risk.
 
I haven't seen one verified source that shows a sitting car getting involved in a serious crash caused because of racing back to the line. According to Larry Mac Nascar pulled the plug after a knee jerk reaction to a close call involving Ned Jarrett at Loudon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pat
StandOnIt said:
I haven't seen one verified source that shows a sitting car getting involved in a serious crash caused because of racing back to the line. According to Larry Mac Nascar pulled the plug after a knee jerk reaction to a close call involving Ned Jarrett at Loudon.
Click to expand...

That is the way I remember it too but I think Ernie Irvan did hit someone while driving the Skittles Pontiac toward the end of his career. A lot of time has past so I can’t be sure.

One thing I like about your idea is that it keeps the race going and doesn’t slow it down. I can’t prove a thing but it seems like caution periods are longer and cleaning up after a wreck takes longer. The 10 minute stage breaks really slow things down too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom