What exactly was better about NASCAR back in the day, and why was that way better?

I honestly hate asking this because I don't know if it would actually be cool or not, but with the interest in automobiles changing going away and it turning more into a niche sport. I would be interested to see development of a electric racing car or something that they could test out in a Dash Series type of environment.
 
Could be. Recharge at various segments throughout the event.

I was just worried the poster may venture into somethin' uncool.
 
In the pre-Brian France era you had 43 teams competing against each other to win a race and a season long championship that rewarded consistency. Post
LewTheShoe said:
The vibe around here has been brutally negative this off-season and I am genuinely interested to understand why. So explain to me like I'm a newbie what was better about Nascar 20 or 30 or 50 years ago, in your opinion. Why was that better? And is it something that Nascar could change if it wanted to, or natural evolution beyond the sport's ability to control?

One thing I liked about the 1970s and 80s is that the bodywork was tougher and more able to withstand light contact without loss of performance. A little beating and banging, or lightly brushing the wall was no big deal. I believe we could go back in that direction and racing would be better if we did.

Another thing I liked about the early days of Nascar was that it was more of a cottage industry, with many small teams competing and less domination by the big guys. It created more diversity and innovation. But that was always destined to change IMO. A job worth doing is worth doing well. Survival of the fittest is a natural evolution that cannot be thwarted. We should complain about things that can be controlled, and accept those that can't, IMO.
Click to expand...

Go to youtube sometime and google a random race from the late 1980s through to the late 1990s (Yes, you can find full races). You'll see 43 guys competing to win a race without bogus cautions and constant commercial breaks. Softer tires and much less aero-dependency meant driver skill played a much bigger role. Earnhardt, Wallace, Labonte, Martin, Rudd, Waltrip.... Do I really need to compare these personalities with the guys on the track now? It's night and day.
 
^ LOL. I can offer partial agreement with two of your assertions, but not the rest of it.

1. I agree the Latford points scale rewarded consistency above all, which is the main reason it was fundamentally unfair to the best teams, and resulted in the most deserving driver not winning the championship in multiple years. It was designed that way to keep the points close, not to crown the most deserving champion.

2. I agree that there have been more questionable debris cautions in the last decade than previously. Undoubtedly some of those were bogus, and I dislike that intensely. However, some people scream BOGUS when actual evidence is otherwise, so I try to make up my mind case by case.

3. My experience is that every era has great drivers, excellent drivers, journeymen, and some field fillers. Only a fool would classify the quality of racers by the era they raced, rather than by their individual attributes and accomplishments.

4. The 1990s had substantial downforce and aero dependency. We have less now, I believe. The 1990s had some great races and others that weren't. Your platitudes and absolutes appear uninformed IMO.
 
RowdyBusch said:
In the pre-Brian France era you had 43 teams competing against each other to win a race and a season long championship that rewarded consistency. Post


Go to youtube sometime and google a random race from the late 1980s through to the late 1990s (Yes, you can find full races). You'll see 43 guys competing to win a race without bogus cautions and constant commercial breaks. Softer tires and much less aero-dependency meant driver skill played a much bigger role. Earnhardt, Wallace, Labonte, Martin, Rudd, Waltrip.... Do I really need to compare these personalities with the guys on the track now? It's night and day.
Click to expand...
What I really miss is the little teams having a chance every weekend.Now the mega- teams dominate races,I don't ever see a owner- driver winning again with the current format.
 
LewTheShoe said:
Your love for the Latford points scale seems bizarre, given your knowledge and training in quantitative analysis. It was never intended to crown the most deserving champion. Its purpose was to keep the points close until the end of the year. It under-rewarded winning and encouraged a coast-and-collect mentality toward points racing. And as a result, the most deserving driver/team was denied the Cup in multiple years.
Click to expand...

At the risk of repeating myself . . .

The pre-Chase points system with more points to the winner works for me all day, every day.
 
pjmolo said:
At the risk of repeating myself . . .

The pre-Chase points system with more points to the winner works for me all day, every day.
Click to expand...
Yes, for sure. But we've never had that in Nascar.
 
LewTheShoe said:
^ LOL. I can offer partial agreement with two of your assertions, but not the rest of it.

1. I agree the Latford points scale rewarded consistency above all, which is the main reason it was fundamentally unfair to the best teams, and resulted in the most deserving driver not winning the championship in multiple years. It was designed that way to keep the points close, not to crown the most deserving champion.

2. I agree that there have been more questionable debris cautions in the last decade than previously. Undoubtedly some of those were bogus, and I dislike that intensely. However, some people scream BOGUS when actual evidence is otherwise, so I try to make up my mind case by case.

3. My experience is that every era has great drivers, excellent drivers, journeymen, and some field fillers. Only a fool would classify the quality of racers by the era they raced, rather than by their individual attributes and accomplishments.

4. The 1990s had substantial downforce and aero dependency. We have less now, I believe. The 1990s had some great races and others that weren't. Your platitudes and absolutes appear uninformed IMO.
Click to expand...


I'll skip the LOLs and insults, I don't feel the need to put you down :)

1. You can argue people played it safe and cruised to titles with the old system, but with the clusterf*** of today why would you bother? The best team last year wasn't in the final 4.

2. "I agree that there have been more questionable debris cautions in the last decade than previously." Understatement of the century, lol. Bill France Jr was no saint, there were the occasional Jaques Debris in turn 4 cautions back in the day as well, but they were so rare that Buddy Baker and Ned Jarrett would have a laugh speculating about them. Now three debris cautions per race is the norm, and you KNOW it's coming out if a stinker of a finish is in the works.

3. I wasn't comparing generational talent at all and I specifically used the word personalities. I'm not sure how you misinterpreted that. If you prefer a Kasey Kahne interview to an Earnhardt interview then may the good lord above be with you. Small town southern racers over spoiled rich kids any day of the week for me, bud!

4. This is a Winston cup car from the 1990s:

1990-nascar-4.jpg


This is a Sprint Cup car from 2014:

347zj7s.jpg


And finally this is a...... Wait, who's the sponsor this year? This is from this year, I swear.

daniel-suarez-2017-arris-diecast-1-64-preorder-anticipated-july-or-august-delivery-date-3.gif


Much smaller spoiler.... No more gaping splitter.... You're right, I'd say they're headed back in the right direction. ;)
 
LewTheShoe said:
Your love for the Latford points scale seems bizarre, given your knowledge and training in quantitative analysis. It was never intended to crown the most deserving champion. Its purpose was to keep the points close until the end of the year. It under-rewarded winning and encouraged a coast-and-collect mentality toward points racing. And as a result, the most deserving driver/team was denied the Cup in multiple years.
Click to expand...

pjmolo said:
At the risk of repeating myself . . .

The pre-Chase points system with more points to the winner works for me all day, every day.
Click to expand...

LewTheShoe said:
Yes, for sure. But we've never had that in Nascar.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'll try to be more specific next time.

The pre-Chase points system with more points to the winner would work for me all day, every day.
 
LewTheShoe said:
... replies, and the vast majority of them pine for a simpler time when men competed with simpler tools. And yet almost nothing is mentioned that is actionable . Sorry, but "Make it 1978 again" is not actionable. We decry the inevitable evolution brought about by the spirit of competition. A task worth doing is worth doing well. Competing in Nascar races is a worthwhile task, and yet we hate that the drivers and teams do their best to be successful.

We liked the suspense created by poor reliability. Blown motors and other broken parts mean races are lost, but we hate that the teams worked and innovated to do a better job. Weird.

We want fewer rules and more room to innovate. But we hate engineers and the innovations they have brought. Also weird.

We love the close finish of the Daytona 24 Hours, but we ignore the wave upon wave of BoP revisions to manipulate it, including literally dozens of adjustments AFTER qualifying last year. And we also ignore the 22 full course cautions that consumed nearly half of this year's race, including two in the final hour.

I fully understand looking over the history of Nascar and having a favorite era from the past. I get that. What I don't get is the next step beyond that, vowing that because that favorite era is gone, everything that came after is crap and deserves nothing but disdain.

To me, Nascar's hook is competition between drivers and teams on the racetrack. Hard edged, brass knuckle competition. It's always been prominent at the front of the grid, and continues unfettered today. The field has never been deeper in quality entrees. And the championship format has never rewarded winning as much as now, so I can live with it despite the needless complexity and the regrettable winner-take-all finale at Homestead.
Click to expand...

note the first few words of Lews post omitted to focus on actionable.

There are several areas that could be improved upon if there was a desire.

The points: There will never be a perfect system that everyone agrees upon. Rewarding both Winning and Consistentcy rightously is an elusive goal.
I would just like to see the resets go away or the chase elimination. Races should be good enough as stand alone items anyway.

Cup races are long enough to make perseverance a great story, and the journey itself is a great story. The all or nothing is a headline item, but it isnt the body of work. The simple truth is that without the debri cautions we would still have some run aways, they would not be as big as the 80s or 90s. But it would still be a huge significant reality, if they didn't do the flagrant debri cautions.

There will always be cars that had a great race if they finish in the top 15. It one of the beautiful things about lining up 40 cars to go after a single checkered flag. When one of the big contenders has some bad luck and looses a few laps, it should be costly and get no mercy. I want to see that driver fight his way back with as few sanctioned assists as possible.

I realize that there will always be unavoidable cautions, and it will upset the natural flow. I can accept those for being a natural part of racing. But they shouldn't be encouraged.
And they are, it is an undeniable reality.

Am I talking about the chase, or the cautions? Actually I am trying to talk about something bigger, and thats would be the mindsets that dont get racing. Primarily Nascar cynical add-ons, to prop up something that doesn't need the crap. A Degradation is the best most accurate description in my opinion.

It takes a cynical mind to willingly purse making restarts the most contested and biggest item of the race. A designated crap shoot were drivers will even slow down on the pit exits because starting 3rd is better than starting 2nd.
And the chases biggest drama in recent years has been the fisting the air fights on pit road. And they talking heads cover the Springer crap too like thats the greater drama. You will get the its Chase Elimination crap repeated hundreds of times but very little Xs and Os about the actual race itself.

Even when they get an eventful last few laps at Homestead like they did in November, it still leaves a ridiculous aftertaste. If Nascar had let the race play out Edwards would have won the title, and I write that as a Chevy fan that was thrilled with who got the trophy.

Still the same the car that should have won didn't and it was the result of Nascars cynical mindset: Cause just letting a race play out aint good enough anymore.

Last of all please note these are actionable items that could be corrected, in short they are mindsets. There is a reason why people say Brian doesn't even like racing, and it goes much deeper than being MIA on sunday.
He is a leader that obviously doesn't believe the racing alone is worthy.
And the masses will not respect the product anymore than the man or Nascar does himself.
 
The fact that NASCAR wouldn't let Carl Edwards and Joey Logano run that race out at Homestead without throwing what I consider a BS caution flag at the end forever stains this "final four" Chase (sorry, playoff) format and I'm not a fan of either driver.

Sure, the system has been "gamed" before (see my signature photo (Alan Kulwicki)) but it was done fair and square within the rules without the aid of bogus cautions. As long as the "final four" system exists we will only have a 1 in 4 chance of crowning a deserving NASCAR champion, at least in my mind.
 
LewTheShoe said:
The vibe around here has been brutally negative this off-season and I am genuinely interested to understand why. So explain to me like I'm a newbie what was better about Nascar 20 or 30 or 50 years ago, in your opinion. Why was that better? And is it something that Nascar could change if it wanted to, or natural evolution beyond the sport's ability to control?

One thing I liked about the 1970s and 80s is that the bodywork was tougher and more able to withstand light contact without loss of performance. A little beating and banging, or lightly brushing the wall was no big deal. I believe we could go back in that direction and racing would be better if we did.

Another thing I liked about the early days of Nascar was that it was more of a cottage industry, with many small teams competing and less domination by the big guys. It created more diversity and innovation. But that was always destined to change IMO. A job worth doing is worth doing well. Survival of the fittest is a natural evolution that cannot be thwarted. We should complain about things that can be controlled, and accept those that can't, IMO.
Click to expand...
LewTheShoe said:
The vibe around here has been brutally negative this off-season and I am genuinely interested to understand why. So explain to me like I'm a newbie what was better about Nascar 20 or 30 or 50 years ago, in your opinion. Why was that better? And is it something that Nascar could change if it wanted to, or natural evolution beyond the sport's ability to control?

One thing I liked about the 1970s and 80s is that the bodywork was tougher and more able to withstand light contact without loss of performance. A little beating and banging, or lightly brushing the wall was no big deal. I believe we could go back in that direction and racing would be better if we did.

Another thing I liked about the early days of Nascar was that it was more of a cottage industry, with many small teams competing and less domination by the big guys. It created more diversity and innovation. But that was always destined to change IMO. A job worth doing is worth doing well. Survival of the fittest is a natural evolution that cannot be thwarted. We should complain about things that can be controlled, and accept those that can't, IMO.
Click to expand...
 
Just finished watching the 1998 Daytona 500, man from with 50 to go just exciting. The whole race was awesome to watch, still get goosebumps watching Dale Earnhardt win it
 
Don't fret the loss. It's better now.

Someone will come along shortly and explain it to you in no uncertain terms - because they said so.
 
First time in my life I have seen this, from the 1993 awards banquet. Says Brooks and Dunn sang it, not too sure. But this video captures how awesome NASCAR used to be.
 
Snappy D said:
First time in my life I have seen this, from the 1993 awards banquet. Says Brooks and Dunn sang it, not too sure. But this video captures how awesome NASCAR used to be.
Click to expand...


Yep, Kix is singing.

Thanks for posting. Great stuff. That video also captures how awesome country music used to be :D
 
Snappy D said:
First time in my life I have seen this, from the 1993 awards banquet. Says Brooks and Dunn sang it, not too sure. But this video captures how awesome NASCAR used to be.
Click to expand...


Good stuff. I am amazed how high off the track the cars ran. They actually let air under their cars back then!
 
NJJammer said:
Good stuff. I am amazed how high off the track the cars ran. They actually let air under their cars back then!
Click to expand...
Cars looked so much cooler. Like they could actually beat and bang an not have their day ruined due to aero
 
Have a buddy that hates NASCAR...well to be fair if it isn't a Ducati he hates it. Used to be Honda motorcycles...he's definitely "all in" on his fandom. OK. Now the point. His big bitch is the cars aren't stock. He wants production cars with roll cages. I've tried to explain how, for oval tracks, that won't work. Struts/mounts, wheel bearings, FWD, unibody cars would have to be completely gutted and rebuilt. Much like rally cars are now. How much you suppose a rally car chassis goes for? What would be gained? Serious opinions please. I suppose they race Mustangs and Cameros in IMSA, so? How much chassis mods do they do/allow? Would you be comfortable seeing one of those pound the wall at Talledaga at 190mph?
 
Snappy D said:
First time in my life I have seen this, from the 1993 awards banquet. Says Brooks and Dunn sang it, not too sure. But this video captures how awesome NASCAR used to be.
Click to expand...

thanks, forgot that brooks and dunn done that.
 
Maybe started just a little earlier when Mike Helton announced NASCAR was "Modernizing Tradition"
 
Drivers would drive the pickup that towed the flatbed trailer with the race car on it.
Sometimes the drivers would hop out and work on their own car
during pit stops.
 
kymartin6 said:
Maybe it wasn't..... but...... for some unknown reason I sure enjoyed it better......
Click to expand...
bingo. we can go back and worth with this all day. for what ever reason I too enjoyed nascar better back in the day then what I see now with all these new rules.
 
Skoalbandit33 said:
I will add to the mix and say I liked it when there were more teams plus engine builders and chassis makers plus crew chiefs were allowed a lot more latitude in setting up their car. I liked things better before restrictor plates, pit road speeds, radial tires and fuel injection. Having a greater variety of tracks and more short tracks suited me and I liked the more rag tag aspects of the series. Being able to talk to the drivers was cool and not really a big deal as it happened all the time. I could go on and on but that is my 2 cents worth for now.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on all statements except one. FUEL INJECTION. REALLY!!!!!!!! This isn't 1969 buddy it's 2017.
 
KTMLew01 said:
Have a buddy that hates NASCAR...well to be fair if it isn't a Ducati he hates it. Used to be Honda motorcycles...he's definitely "all in" on his fandom. OK. Now the point. His big bitch is the cars aren't stock. He wants production cars with roll cages. I've tried to explain how, for oval tracks, that won't work. Struts/mounts, wheel bearings, FWD, unibody cars would have to be completely gutted and rebuilt. Much like rally cars are now. How much you suppose a rally car chassis goes for? What would be gained? Serious opinions please. I suppose they race Mustangs and Cameros in IMSA, so? How much chassis mods do they do/allow? Would you be comfortable seeing one of those pound the wall at Talledaga at 190mph?
Click to expand...

You don't see V8 supercars, or any of the touring car series, having a problem doing it. It could be easily done. As far as being stock cars, I'm sure he was talking about the bodies, not the rest of the car. I may not be correct about that, but most people that support that position, are usually talking stock bodies. What was better in the old days? They raced on dirt tracks too. That should be brought back IMO, it sure couldn't hurt.
 
Yogisd1 said:
You don't see V8 supercars, or any of the touring car series, having a problem doing it. It could be easily done. As far as being stock cars, I'm sure he was talking about the bodies, not the rest of the car. I may not be correct about that, but most people that support that position, are usually talking stock bodies. What was better in the old days? They raced on dirt tracks too. That should be brought back IMO, it sure couldn't hurt.
Click to expand...

Nascar became arrogant and built tracks suitable for holding fans instead of good races, they built a series of ugly cars and expected the fans to accept them and changed rules every other day and said "take it or leave it." A lot of people said leave it, a good amount didn't care for a lot of the changes and are hanging on and a few drank the Nascar Kool Aid and are unabashed supporters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom