Truck RACE thread --- Daytona

Just rewatched it this morning - the spotter on the last lap

"Keep diggin, keep diggin......damn!"
 
I muted the whole race. MW is a jackhole and has theee most irritating ahhhhh, everything.
 
I really don't enjoy Daytona anymore. Watching the majority of the field wreck out time and time again is not the kind of racing I enjoy. I don't know how I feel about the stages yet but meh. Between the stage stoppages, normal yellows and commercials the actual amount of racing on the TV was short. Thank god for dvrs.
 
dave corthell said:
How about that! Johnny Sauter finished in 15th place, but is second in points after the first race.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I was calling attention to and said would happen. He sure had a good first 40% of the race though, and drove particularly well during those long scheduled caution periods. A lesser driver could have fallen asleep, and that alone is worth some championship points.
 
It was a good time just heard a lot of bitching from the crowd jaded from so much change. The race was exciting but it seems as though it's almost completely out of the drivers hands the 4 had an awesome save though
 
Michfan said:
In some ways I like it. Pays to have a dominant night and it's not all lost on the last lap
Click to expand...

The system as designed doesn't exactly reward having a "dominant night". It pays massively to have a dominant first 40-50% of the race. No points are rewarded at the 3/4 mark for instance. Why is the first quarter worthy of points but not the third? A driver who leads or runs top 5 in the first 40-50% of the race has a huge points gap over anyone who didn't run up front early that outweighs the race finish. It makes no sense.
 
gnomesayin said:
The system as designed doesn't exactly reward having a "dominant night". It pays massively to have a dominant first 40-50% of the race. No points are rewarded at the 3/4 mark for instance. Why is the first quarter worthy of points but not the third? A driver who leads or runs top 5 in the first 40-50% of the race has a huge points gap over anyone who didn't run up front early that outweighs the race finish. It makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Sounds like the system will benefit those that unload good. Others that run in the back but work on the car throughout the day and finish well will be the losers.
 
BobbyFord said:
Sounds like the system will benefit those that unload good. Others that run in the back but work on the car throughout the day and finish well will be the losers.
Click to expand...

Yep. At the very least, everyone should acknowledge this is an enormous upheaval and not some minor tweak. Running up front in the first half of the race has meant essentially nothing by itself for the entire history of NASCAR and comparable auto racing. Now it provides greater reward than finishing the race well (except for the winner). If you think that's an improvement and that's the way racing always should have been, fine. In reality it's ass backwards and the system will need to be 'enhanced' again soon.
 
gnomesayin said:
Yep. At the very least, everyone should acknowledge this is an enormous upheaval and not some minor tweak. Running up front in the first half of the race has meant essentially nothing by itself for the entire history of NASCAR and comparable auto racing.
Click to expand...
Agree with that, it is a significant change. The stage concept is intended to address the sizable portion of the fan base that is bored by the middle part of the races. Complaints about boring mid race periods are rampant, even among long standing fans here at R-F. Go back and read "Rate the Race" threads.

One way to address this problem would be to chop out the middle, i.e. shorten that 500 mile race to 200 or 250 miles. Thankfully, the team of stakeholders working on this project did not go that way.

Another option is to add some milestone achievements in the middle with some rewards to make it meaningful. I don't have a philosophical objection to this approach. If performance in the first half of the race has meant nothing throughout history, doesn't that amount to proof that the races have been too long throughout history? How can you defend a race format where the first half means "essentially nothing?"
 
Most fans tune in for good, side by side racing and a chance to see their driver win. I really don't care how many points my driver has at the end of the event, so long as he wins. This point system is extremely flawed and I'll almost guarantee a change to the point system before the end of the season.
 
LewTheShoe said:
Another option is to add some milestone achievements in the middle with some rewards to make it meaningful. I don't have a philosophical objection to this approach. If performance in the first half of the race has meant nothing throughout history, doesn't that amount to proof that the races have been too long throughout history? How can you defend a race format where the first half means "essentially nothing?"
Click to expand...

My answer to that spans a few different levels:

1. I'm not against shorter race lengths for the majority of races. I believe the historically significant races should be left alone (Daytona 500, Southern 500, etc.), but I do not necessarily believe that current overall race lengths are the optimal length in the context of what would best sell the sport. What they've done is a foolish compromise.

2. I perhaps didn't express it clearly enough, but I didn't mean to state that performance in the first half of the race has always mean nothing. I've said "in and of itself" and "by itself" to indicate that the "results" from the first half of the race shouldn't carry final scoring weight by themselves, and never have. For the bulk of NASCAR history and in most other forms of racing, performance in the early portions of events is very important, because it gives one a much greater chance of finishing the event well. This is all the incentive that is needed. Football teams don't need to be rewarded in the standings for winning quarters and halves, but I guarantee that the teams that tend to win the most quarters and halves win the the most games over time.

The main reason this dynamic has changed in recent NASCAR history is because of the all the gimmicks introduced to induce and force closer racing. Without lucky dogs, wave arounds, and most importantly, intentional cautions that breed other cautions that bunch up the field and put nearly every semi-competitive car back on the lead lap with multiple restart opportunities to snatch races away, performance during the entirety of races would still be essential. As I have said previously, they are now trying to solve problems of their own creation.

3. I don't have a philosophical objection to 'spicing up' the early portions of races with enticements, if this is needed for practical entertainment purposes. To my mind, these should be $$ bonuses and not something tied to the official standings. If I were to yield to the idea that points should be paid throughout a race, they should be paid in equal increments. If the first quarter is worth points, the third quarter sure should be. But none of that is actually necessary or wise. These are over-regulated and over-manipulated contests and the sanctioning body is still throwing bad rules on top of the pile to try to stem the unwanted effects of previous rules. It only gets worse from here unless they start to pare down the interference, not add to it.
 
gnomesayin said:
My answer to that spans a few different levels:

1. I'm not against shorter race lengths for the majority of races. I believe the historically significant races should be left alone (Daytona 500, Southern 500, etc.), but I do not necessarily believe that current overall race lengths are the optimal length in the context of what would best sell the sport. What they've done is a foolish compromise.

2. I perhaps didn't express it clearly enough, but I didn't mean to state that performance in the first half of the race has always mean nothing. I've said "in and of itself" and "by itself" to indicate that the "results" from the first half of the race shouldn't carry final scoring weight by themselves, and never have. For the bulk of NASCAR history and in most other forms of racing, performance in the early portions of events is very important, because it gives one a much greater chance of finishing the event well. This is all the incentive that is needed. Football teams don't need to be rewarded in the standings for winning quarters and halves, but I guarantee that the teams that tend to win the most quarters and halves win the the most games over time.

The main reason this dynamic has changed in recent NASCAR history is because of the all the gimmicks introduced to induce and force closer racing. Without lucky dogs, wave arounds, and most importantly, intentional cautions that breed other cautions that bunch up the field and put nearly every semi-competitive car back on the lead lap with multiple restart opportunities to snatch races away, performance during the entirety of races would still be essential. As I have said previously, they are now trying to solve problems of their own creation.

3. I don't have a philosophical objection to 'spicing up' the early portions of races with enticements, if this is needed for practical entertainment purposes. To my mind, these should be $$ bonuses and not something tied to the official standings. If I were to yield to the idea that points should be paid throughout a race, they should be paid in equal increments. If the first quarter is worth points, the third quarter sure should be. But none of that is actually necessary or wise. These are over-regulated and over-manipulated contests and the sanctioning body is still throwing bad rules on top of the pile to try to stem the unwanted effects of previous rules. It only gets worse from here unless they start to pare down the interference, not add to it.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your passion for the sport, and I appreciate your argument although I disagree with most of it.

1. I am opposed to dramatically shorter races on grounds of historical tradition and what makes Nascar unique. I'm not one who has a problem with mid race boredom, but those who do would probably be satisfied if races were cut back to 60-90 minutes, which would leave me unsatisfied. I don't think shorter races are the answer to the question being addressed.

2. Not many Nascar races go green from start to finish, not now, not ever. And complaining about the lucky dog is flailing at shadows. Fast cars that lose a lap due to misfortune have always had various mechanisms to get a lap back. And slow cars that get a lucky dog lap are generally still slow cars and unable to go to the front. These are not avenues to solve the mid race boredom problem.

3. If a team qualifies poorly, or blows a tire, or has a pit infraction... such problems can often be overcome during a long race. So far, I don't see a problem with that team suffering loss of stage points. Or if a team works a strategy to capture stage points, no problem. But the end of the race is more points (40 vs 10 and 10) and that is appropriate IMO. I can't believe you are petitioning for another stage at 3/4 distance. No thanks, I like the final stage being longer. In fact, I think Xfinity and trucks need just one interim stage, not two, because they are shorter races.

Overall, I'm still in wait-and-see mode on the stages. And I remain very happy about the changes in how the championship works, and restored importance of the regular season.
 
Last edited:
To be clear, I'm petitioning for no stages whatsoever, and declaring that it is a bad and unnecessary idea. I would rather have no artifical stoppages. Next best would be a single halftime stoppage, which would not cause a lot of the points anomalies we will see. I am merely stating that it makes no logical sense to declare that results from the first 20-25% of a race are worth points, but results at 75% aren't. Just as it wouldn't make sense to stage a boxing match with several three minute rounds scored equally followed by a much longer round scored with the same gaps.
 
Points are still being awarded at the end of the race. Bonus 5 which carry over.

Drivers are now incentivized to race for a few points during the event. We used to complain that they were stroking it until the last 50 miles.

New complaints are no surprise.
 
aunty dive said:
Points are still being awarded at the end of the race. Bonus 5 which carry over.

Drivers are now incentivized to race for a few points during the event. We used to complain that they were stroking it until the last 50 miles.

New complaints are no surprise.
Click to expand...
There has never been a stronger fan disconnect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom