What is the future of the Xfinity and Truck Series?

Biggest problem is the economy and how it affects millennials. Owning a car is something of a burden now.

A new car costs, on average, over $33,000. This isn't the 1960s where you could get a job in high school and, in a few months, have enough money to buy a new car.

You're also required to carry insurance if you have a car or, in some states, if you just have a license. Auto insurance costs are steep, and they're skyrocketing. On top of that, many states pass laws every few years mandating insurance premium increases.

Then there's the burdensome almost Orwellian regulations, annual inspections, annual emissions, maintenance and repairs ... stuff adds up.

While to most of us, this doesn't seem like much, keep in mind that millennials are generally dirt poor -- and there is no reason to believe things are ever going to get better.
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
Biggest problem is the economy and how it affects millennials. Owning a car is something of a burden now.

A new car costs, on average, over $33,000. This isn't the 1960s where you could get a job in high school and, in a few months, have enough money to buy a new car.

You're also required to carry insurance if you have a car or, in some states, if you just have a license. Auto insurance costs are steep, and they're skyrocketing. On top of that, many states pass laws every few years mandating insurance premium increases.

Then there's the burdensome almost Orwellian regulations, annual inspections, annual emissions, maintenance and repairs ... stuff adds up.

While to most of us, this doesn't seem like much, keep in mind that millennials are generally dirt poor -- and there is no reason to believe things are ever going to get better.
Click to expand...

Hit the nail right on the head..the fix has been in for a while. Millennials get most of their entertainment using their cell phones and those are approaching what a decent car would cost back in the day. Can't afford both in many cases
 
StandOnIt said:
Hit the nail right on the head..the fix has been in for a while. Millennials get most of their entertainment using their cell phones and those are approaching what a decent car would cost back in the day. Can't afford both in many cases
Click to expand...

My next phone is going to be an off-brand because the new Apple and Samsung phones are just too ****** expensive.
 
Right now there is a battle going on with the internet. Pressure from the greedy few to be able to charge more for higher speeds. It never ends.
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
Biggest problem is the economy and how it affects millennials. Owning a car is something of a burden now.

A new car costs, on average, over $33,000. This isn't the 1960s where you could get a job in high school and, in a few months, have enough money to buy a new car.

You're also required to carry insurance if you have a car or, in some states, if you just have a license. Auto insurance costs are steep, and they're skyrocketing. On top of that, many states pass laws every few years mandating insurance premium increases.

Then there's the burdensome almost Orwellian regulations, annual inspections, annual emissions, maintenance and repairs ... stuff adds up.

While to most of us, this doesn't seem like much, keep in mind that millennials are generally dirt poor -- and there is no reason to believe things are ever going to get better.
Click to expand...

One of the things that shocks me with millennials is the massive debt some carry upon leaving school. How can a degree in Event Management, Underwater Basket Weaving or How to Run a Soundboard in 4 years can cost so much beats the hell out of me. There is still money to me made depending on aptitude and desire as Dental Hygienists do well as do carpenters, excavators, builders, electricians, HVAC, plumbers, RV/MH production workers, entrepreneurs, and many things technology related.

I would never brand all millennials as the same but in speaking with some they were under the mistaken assumption that you deserve to work in an industry that you like and work for people that understand, value and care about you. IDK how many feel that they should be able to make a living inventing/testing/playing video games as a buddy of mine is experiencing that with his grandson and his room mates. They think grandad is an ATM. When you believe something and then the truth is found to be lies all the joy within you dies. It has to be a bitch when you find out that adult life can often suck for long periods of time but as the saying goes "life is what you make of it" and I am blessed to know very many contented people that don't possess much by the World's standards.
 
Towmater said:
Maybe because one of your partners, GM, has stated publicly that they are attempting to move away from gas powered engines. Another partner, Ford, announced it was moving forward with 13 electric or hybrid vehicles in the next 5 years. China, California, and Europe are starting to mandate no gas powered engines by certain dates. Paris won't allow them after 2030. Britain and China have announced 2040 as cut off years for them. Lastly, India is shooting for 2030.

China is the number 1 market in the world. If they mandate something then the auto makers have no choice but to follow suit. That's what all these changes are about.

Lastly, it will start to make more sense for a auto maker to dump R&D money into an electric series than to keep dumping money into a technology that will go the way of the dodo bird in the next 30 years.
Click to expand...
We're back to my position that the manufacturers in NASCAR apparently don't care that what's on the track has no resemblance to what's in the show rooms, esp. in terms of power trains. As to R&D, I know other makes view the racing they're involved in as R&D, but do NASCAR manufactures view it as a test bed? I don't see how they can get much that applies to production models from what they develop for their race cars: safety improvements, maybe? Perhaps they'll use electric racing as a proving ground, but I'll believe it when I see it.
 
Skoalbandit33 said:
...There is still money to me made depending on aptitude and desire as Dental Hygienists do well as do carpenters, excavators, builders, electricians, HVAC, plumbers, RV/MH production workers, entrepreneurs, and many things technology related....
Click to expand...
This. American society has placed too much emphasis on 4-year degrees at the expense of the trades. Ask any manufacturing manager how many teeth he'll trade for a CNC operator or tool and die man. He'll smille, hand you the pliers, open wide, and tell you to take as many as you want.

Get a two-year tech school paper in any number of areas and you can get good starting money. Many of those companies will offer tuition assistance so you can then finish your 4-year on their dime. It may take you until your 28 or 30 to finish that Bachelor's, but you'll be debt free AND making a paycheck at the same time. Then if you want to go after a white collar job, you'll have some solid real-world experience.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
We're back to my position that the manufacturers in NASCAR apparently don't care that what's on the track has no resemblance to what's in the show rooms, esp. in terms of power trains. As to R&D, I know other makes view the racing they're involved in as R&D, but do NASCAR manufactures view it as a test bed? I don't see how they can get much that applies to production models from what they develop for their race cars: safety improvements, maybe? Perhaps they'll use electric racing as a proving ground, but I'll believe it when I see it.
Click to expand...

I'm having trouble understanding your point about R&D and what's in the showroom. There is a HUGE difference in racing a vehicle that has fuel injection vs carburetors and racing a internal combustion engine vs electric engine. In 30 years I do NOT believe that NASCAR will be racing petroleum powered engines. If they are then what auto company is going to fund development of the engines? If manufacturer A does doesn't build vehicles that have internal combustion engines why would they be involved in racing them? They wouldn't get anything back for their investment. The world is moving in a different direction.

Ford is going into a 50/50 venture with a company in China to manufacture AFV vehicles. They are looking to expand their market share there and world wide.
 
Towmater said:
I'm having trouble understanding your point about R&D and what's in the showroom. There is a HUGE difference in racing a vehicle that has fuel injection vs carburetors and racing a internal combustion engine vs electric engine. In 30 years I do NOT believe that NASCAR will be racing petroleum powered engines. If they are then what auto company is going to fund development of the engines? If manufacturer A does doesn't build vehicles that have internal combustion engines why would they be involved in racing them? They wouldn't get anything back for their investment. The world is moving in a different direction.

Ford is going into a 50/50 venture with a company in China to manufacture AFV vehicles. They are looking to expand their market share there and world wide.
Click to expand...

no manufacturer makes a nascar engine to go into their automobiles. they haven't for years. o_O It's a race car that looks roughly like a production car..that might be throwing you off a bit. There isn't nothing that fits on a production car.
 
Towmater said:
I'm having trouble understanding your point about R&D and what's in the showroom. ...
Click to expand...
No problem, I'll try again. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the type of R&D you were originally referring to. I assumed you were talking about developing technologies for the race track with the goal of applying the new tech to production models. I haven't seen NASCAR participants benefiting from that type of return on R&D in a while. Most of the R&D they do appears to be strictly to benefit the racing only, with little to no benefits being passed on to the production models. Maybe some safety improvements, but even most of those are developed and mandated by NASCAR itself.
Towmater said:
... If manufacturer A does doesn't build vehicles that have internal combustion engines why would they be involved in racing them? ....
Click to expand...
I agree completely, but they continued to be involved in racing with carbs long after they'd dropped them for fuel injection. I don't know why, but they did.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
I agree completely, but they continued to be involved in racing with carbs long after they'd dropped them for fuel injection. I don't know why, but they did.
Click to expand...
You always bring that up and then fail to point out that the manufacturers forced NASCAR to change to fuel injection. Must have been some reason? Hmmm, nobody put them in cars anymore might have been at the top of the list.
 
Towmater said:
Simply laughable on how you twisted what I stated.
Click to expand...
read post 51 too. Your guess about racing and manufacturers could be right. But I tend to look at what race cars are all over the world and the majority don't look like a manufacturers showroom vehicles. Some at best have roughly a similar outside skin.
 
Towmater said:
You always bring that up and then fail to point out that the manufacturers forced NASCAR to change to fuel injection. Must have been some reason? Hmmm, nobody put them in cars anymore might have been at the top of the list.
Click to expand...
where did you read that?
 
Towmater said:
You always bring that up and then fail to point out that the manufacturers forced NASCAR to change to fuel injection. Must have been some reason? Hmmm, nobody put them in cars anymore might have been at the top of the list.
Click to expand...
And it only took them, what, 10-12 years after they abandoned carbs to 'force' NASCAR to do so? That was hardly twisting NASCAR's arm. I haven't heard of them 'forcing' NASCAR to adopt front-wheel drive or automatic transmissions, but those have been gone from most models for quite a while. The engines in many other forms of racing don't burn the same fuel as street cars, yet there are manufacturers involved with them too.

But let's go back to R&D. What type of R&D do you see manufacturers doing for a potential electric racing series?
 
StandOnIt said:
read post 51 too. Your guess about racing and manufacturers could be right. But I tend to look at what race cars are all over the world and the majority don't look like a manufacturers showroom vehicles. Some at best have roughly a similar outside skin.
Click to expand...
I highly doubt that Mercedes-Benz spends 1 billion dollars a year (that what was reported on 60 Minutes) to just race and win trophies in F1. Yep, them funny F1 cars sure ain't for sale in their dealerships. Thus, they are spending all that money for some reason. The use lighter stronger materials that originated in racing (in funny cars that don't look like those in showrooms) and were funded by racing R&D dollars somehow didn't make it back into street machines to get better fuel mileage? If that's the case then I wonder hhow they found those materials, and decided if they might have a practical purpose.
 
I tend to compare electric car racing to early 1900's racing when they had a mechanic ride along. the difference is that they got rid of the mechanic, and get a completely new car, and they have shortened the distance raced drastically. Long ways to go. They have raced hybrids at good speeds but so what. They haven't taken off.
 
Towmater said:
I highly doubt that Mercedes-Benz spends 1 billion dollars a year (that what was reported on 60 Minutes) to just race and win trophies in F1. Yep, them funny F1 cars sure ain't for sale in their dealerships. Thus, they are spending all that money for some reason. The use lighter stronger materials that originated in racing (in funny cars that don't look like those in showrooms) and were funded by racing R&D dollars somehow didn't make it back into street machines to get better fuel mileage? If that's the case then I wonder hhow they found those materials, and decided if they might have a practical purpose.
Click to expand...
You're making my point. Manufacturers are involved in other forms of racing for the R&D benefits that will pass on to the factory floor. And many of those manufacturers aren't aimed at the same market segments as NASCAR manufacturers. Ferrari and Chevy don't compete for the same buyers.

Manufacturers are in NASCAR to just race and win trophies and make sales at the dealership. Excluding some safety features, all the technologies involved in NASCAR were developed for and adopted on consumer models first. That goes back to NASCAR's roots of cars being modified in the garage on weekends by the individual driver and crew with minimal manufacturer involvement. It's all about 'Win on Sunday, sell on Monday'. That's the primary (only?) benefit manufacturers get from NASCAR involvement.
 
Last edited:
Charlie Spencer said:
But let's go back to R&D. What type of R&D do you see manufacturers doing for a potential electric racing series?
Click to expand...
Battery, and battery life, systems to change a battery, recharging, engine life and stress testing that engine at high RPMs to name a few
 
Charlie Spencer said:
You're making my point. Manufacturers are involved in other forms of racing for the R&D benefits that will pass on to the factory floor. Manufacturers are in NASCAR to just race and win trophies and make sales at the dealership.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ. The bump in sales isn't what it used to be and they admit that. They are doing it for other reasons.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
This. American society has placed too much emphasis on 4-year degrees at the expense of the trades. Ask any manufacturing manager how many teeth he'll trade for a CNC operator or tool and die man. He'll smille, hand you the pliers, open wide, and tell you to take as many as you want.

Get a two-year tech school paper in any number of areas and you can get good starting money. Many of those companies will offer tuition assistance so you can then finish your 4-year on their dime. It may take you until your 28 or 30 to finish that Bachelor's, but you'll be debt free AND making a paycheck at the same time. Then if you want to go after a white collar job, you'll have some solid real-world experience.
Click to expand...

IDK if this is true or false but I have spoken to some kids and parents of kids (high school aged) and they felt that once a college track was not chosen in high school they became second class citizens. I would have dismissed this out of hand but more than one person from different school systems mentioned it. There is a lot of manufacturing in my area and recruiters are going out of state to find workers. When you apply for a job that involves a drug test prospective employees are told to wait a week and come back if they think there will be problems. As you mentioned there are many opportunities available.
 
Disagree with the general direction of this thread. The truck race at Michigan is routinely one of the best of the season. IMO bc they can't quite hit the speeds that Cup cars can while punching a bigger hole in the air allowing for a slingshot.

Going to short tracks mostly would not be wise and would hurt TV ratings. Casual fans love Bristol and big tracks
 
Mispeedway15 said:
Disagree with the general direction of this thread. The truck race at Michigan is routinely one of the best of the season. IMO bc they can't quite hit the speeds that Cup cars can while punching a bigger hole in the air allowing for a slingshot.

Going to short tracks mostly would not be wise and would hurt TV ratings. Casual fans love Bristol and big tracks
Click to expand...

yeah they put on a good show, but the expense for a speedway truck is the problem as I see it.
 
Towmater said:
I beg to differ. The bump in sales isn't what it used to be and they admit that. They are doing it for other reasons.
Click to expand...
Then we'll have to disagree as to what those other reasons may be. I'll accept R&D if you can link to any non-safety technology that's gone from a stock car to the showroom in the last 15 years.
 
Towmater said:
Battery, and battery life, systems to change a battery, recharging, engine life and stress testing that engine at high RPMs to name a few
Click to expand...
I see the big difference as electrics are just now getting rolling in the US. Combustion engines were established long before NASCAR came along, and stock car racing didn't really develop as an R&D proving ground. It could work for electrics, but I still think hanging a NASCAR brand (and the accompanying baggage) on a series would be a bad move.

Electric racing is probably where Monster should have taken its dollars in the first place.
 
Mispeedway15 said:
Disagree with the general direction of this thread. The truck race at Michigan is routinely one of the best of the season. IMO bc they can't quite hit the speeds that Cup cars can while punching a bigger hole in the air allowing for a slingshot.

Going to short tracks mostly would not be wise and would hurt TV ratings. Casual fans love Bristol and big tracks
Click to expand...
Another reason NASCAR should move trucks up to their top series and put the 4-door sedans in the third tier.

Uh, but isn't Bristol a short track?
 
Mispeedway15 said:
The truck race at Michigan is routinely one of the best of the season. IMO bc they can't quite hit the speeds that Cup cars can while punching a bigger hole in the air allowing for a slingshot.

Going to short tracks mostly would not be wise and would hurt TV ratings. Casual fans love Bristol and big tracks
Click to expand...
What good is a development series that doesn't give drivers time on the racetracks they aspire to in Cup cars?

And beyond that ...Evergreen Speedway, in my back yard, cannot make the payout for a Truck race without a substantial TV money injection. The grandstand is simply not big enough. The track couldn't afford the Trucks in 1995 and the Trucks can't tow across the continent for less than they make now.
 
aunty dive said:
What good is a development series that doesn't give drivers time on the racetracks they aspire to in Cup cars?

And beyond that ...Evergreen Speedway, in my back yard, cannot make the payout for a Truck race without a substantial TV money injection. The grandstand is simply not big enough. The track couldn't afford the Trucks in 1995 and the Trucks can't tow across the continent for less than they make now.
Click to expand...

The TV money is making it sustainable now
 
StandOnIt said:
The TV money is making it sustainable now
Click to expand...
I understand that.

I also understand that the TV deals are tied to current schedules, which include companion events.

The production costs for a race at Evergreen are problematic for that reason ... and it's across the continent. Don't misunderstand ... I'd love it and I would be there with all my pals and our families, just like we were 20 years ago.
 
aunty dive said:
I understand that.

I also understand that the TV deals are tied to current schedules, which include companion events.

The production costs for a race at Evergreen are problematic for that reason ... and it's across the continent. Don't misunderstand ... I'd love it and I would be there with all my pals and our families, just like we were 20 years ago.
Click to expand...

They have been dragging Sprint cars all over the country for years and they aren't going broke and that is without TV money. It wouldn't be like the trucks drove from east to west for the race, plenty of places in between.
 
Mispeedway15 said:
Disagree with the general direction of this thread. The truck race at Michigan is routinely one of the best of the season. IMO bc they can't quite hit the speeds that Cup cars can while punching a bigger hole in the air allowing for a slingshot.

Going to short tracks mostly would not be wise and would hurt TV ratings. Casual fans love Bristol and big tracks
Click to expand...

Interesting counterpoint as at least in cup the most viewed and best attended tracks are of the plate variety so maybe a steady diet of short tracks is not the answer. Say it ain't so!
 
StandOnIt said:
They have been dragging Sprint cars all over the country for years and they aren't going broke and that is without TV money. It wouldn't be like the trucks drove from east to west for the race, plenty of places in between.
Click to expand...
Yes, they have ... and they race more than once a week while they're doing that. I did that.

I don't want to argue or even disagree about this.
 
Skoalbandit33 said:
One of the things that shocks me with millennials is the massive debt some carry upon leaving school. How can a degree in Event Management, Underwater Basket Weaving or How to Run a Soundboard in 4 years can cost so much beats the hell out of me. There is still money to me made depending on aptitude and desire as Dental Hygienists do well as do carpenters, excavators, builders, electricians, HVAC, plumbers, RV/MH production workers, entrepreneurs, and many things technology related.

I would never brand all millennials as the same but in speaking with some they were under the mistaken assumption that you deserve to work in an industry that you like and work for people that understand, value and care about you. IDK how many feel that they should be able to make a living inventing/testing/playing video games as a buddy of mine is experiencing that with his grandson and his room mates. They think grandad is an ATM. When you believe something and then the truth is found to be lies all the joy within you dies. It has to be a bitch when you find out that adult life can often suck for long periods of time but as the saying goes "life is what you make of it" and I am blessed to know very many contented people that don't possess much by the World's standards.
Click to expand...

One of the biggest problems for millennials is that a lot of boomers' life savings were wiped out in 2008, and they're generally still in the workforce. And given the stigma that comes with millennials, employers would rather hire them.

The simple fact is, wages are down and cost of living is sky high. And the problem keeps getting worse.
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
One of the biggest problems for millennials is that a lot of boomers' life savings were wiped out in 2008, and they're generally still in the workforce. And given the stigma that comes with millennials, employers would rather hire them.

The simple fact is, wages are down and cost of living is sky high. And the problem keeps getting worse.
Click to expand...
What percentage of the jobs went to automation or were simply eliminated because of software?
 
I have seen TV money mentioned in this thread and several others and read where the pie may need to be redistributed. It seems to me that it would be better for Nascar to concentrate on Cup and X and get those series healthy and let the truck series die if it is unsustainable.
AndyMarquisLive said:
One of the biggest problems for millennials is that a lot of boomers' life savings were wiped out in 2008, and they're generally still in the workforce. And given the stigma that comes with millennials, employers would rather hire them.

The simple fact is, wages are down and cost of living is sky high. And the problem keeps getting worse.
Click to expand...

IMO things were much more defined for me when I started out and I had more options than young people do today. I think because of the way so many boomers have mismanaged finances over a lifetime some will literally drop dead on the job .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Xfinity isn’t really the development series it’s supposed to be, but I guess it’s never been that. It’s become a buy a ride league and it’s wained in interest to me because of that
 
The most watched Truck Series race of the season on TV was Martinsville. Eldora had strong and increasing numbers. These should be the template for going forward with a cost-sustainable series. The 1.5 and superspeedway races should be the exception, not the other way around.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
We're back to my position that the manufacturers in NASCAR apparently don't care that what's on the track has no resemblance to what's in the show rooms, esp. in terms of power trains. As to R&D, I know other makes view the racing they're involved in as R&D, but do NASCAR manufactures view it as a test bed? I don't see how they can get much that applies to production models from what they develop for their race cars: safety improvements, maybe? Perhaps they'll use electric racing as a proving ground, but I'll believe it when I see it.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom