Xfinity Restrictor Plates confirmed @ Indy and beyond..... probably to Cup too

Matthew2470 said:
What if it works and the racing is awesome? I am willing to change my opinion based on new information.
Click to expand...
I dunno. I guess that depends on one's definition of 'awesome'. I'll watch it, but I'm not optimistic. It's not like Indy puts on a good show anyway.

On the other hand, I don't want NASCAR interpreting any increase in viewer numbers as an indicator they should run even more plate races or continue to have IMS on the schedule.
 
FLRacingFan said:
This has gone so far off topic but what the hell.

It is very difficult for me to get interested in a style of racing where the driver has so much less control over their own destiny than every other track out there. The field is covered by a blanket - if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time you're screwed. Maybe that is somewhat of a factor at a place like Martinsville or Bristol but much less of one. At a given plate race there's probably anywhere from 5-15 cars wrecked out entirely and many more that are affected by crash damage.
The driver can't get away from the rest of the field, and in fact is disadvantaged when they pull out too much of a lead. You're in the wrong line when one gets backed up. You're dependent on so many others around you - you pull out to try to make a move to the front, no one goes with you, and you're toast. How many times does this happen during the closing stretch of a plate race? Too often, I think.

I think I would enjoy it more if there were smaller packs that could break apart with more slingshots and maybe even a little bit of lifting going into and through the corners. I suppose side drafting is a bit of an art but in general I think plate racing leads way too much up to chance and lacks so many other skills that are usually considered essential in stock car racing.
Click to expand...

I couldn't explain it better than this. Plate racing is not just "a different form" of racing that should be viewed as just as legitimate. Frankly, that 53 year-old Michael Waltrip can still be quite competitive in plate races with so little seat time is all the practical reminder I need, technical explanations aside. He would be an utter embarrassment at any other track, or even likely at Daytona and Talladega without plates. He was always a much better plate racer than anything else, but that he can preserve these skills with so little effort is proof that it is less demanding in terms of driver skill, conditioning, etc.

If a race were run with all the cars mechanically restricted to 30 miles per hour, some drivers would be better than others. If they had a parallel parking competition, there would be some surprising winners. This wouldn't make those results as impressive as others.

LewTheShoe said:
It's really very easy for social media keyboard warriors to say, "Nascar should have called in the bulldozers to demolish Daytona and Talladega." A few simple keystrokes, and no consequences. I said the same last night... if I ruled Nascar, the Talladega dates would move to Montreal and Mexico City. But of course it's a different deal in the Real World.
Click to expand...

It's easy to type any online opinion about racing or anything. That's what we do here. It is harder to make supported arguments, but there is nothing inherently lazy about disliking the plate racing product and complaining about NASCAR's approach to it than accepting the status quo.

We're coming up on 30 years of plate racing now. The drum has been beat about how plates are the only practical solution for that entire period. The obvious 'perfect world' answer was always that Daytona and Talladega needed to be reconfigured to produce significantly lower corner speeds. While it is understandable that plates were an immediate band-aid, I do not believe it is excusable that NASCAR has embraced them for 30 years. I believe that the economics of modifying the tracks were much more favorable from the '90s through the early '00s. Today we are stuck with them as they are, I will grant that. It was never under consideration not because it was impossible, but because NASCAR was seduced by the appeal of pack racing at marquee events. It was shortsighted thinking, as interest in plate races is dropping at least as much or more than the rest of the schedule. While there are remaining enthusiasts, fatigue has set in. These impulses to add plates at tracks that don't need them for 'safety' reasons reveals the real motivations.

I get highly irritated because I believe they have actually been playing a dangerously unsafe game while on the surface the rationale is about safety. Especially in the lower series, I don't know how they have avoided real carnage in the stands that might force the whole shebang to a sudden and nasty end. While I wish for everyone involved that they continue to be lucky, I kinda wish the Austin Dillon incident a few years ago had served as more of a wake-up call. Or Brad and Carl, or others. Instead unless someone notable gets killed or maimed, everyone breathes a sigh of relief and carries on.
 
^^ I don't want to quote this whole post above me but you say how Michael Waltrip's success is the reason plate racing is such an embarrassment. I guess with that kind of thought we should scrap road courses as for years we've had ringers in that as well who specialize in that style of racing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Mispeedway15 said:
^^ I don't want to quote this whole post above me but you say how Michael Waltrip's success is the reason plate racing is such an embarrassment. I guess with that kind of thought we should scrap road courses as for years we've had ringers in that as well who specialize in that style of racing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Doesn't compare. Plate racing is mash the gas and hang on. Road course racing includes shifting, left and right turns, elevation changes, setting up a pass sometimes 3 corners in advance. There are certain people who excel at both, but it's for completely different reasons. Waltrip is only good at plate racing because it requires less driving skill than the rest of the tracks do. Waltrip himself said a monkey could win at Daytona and Talladega.
 
Indy has become such a debacle at this point it really doesn't matter what they do at this point.

Restrictor plates at Pocono would be idiotic due to the wide range of speed/rpm's at the track. Nothing like horsepower choked cars chugging off of turn 3! The races at Pocono have generally been pretty good with the return of shifting a few years ago.

Michigan is a wide open track and should remain so.
 
NASCAR announced the Indy Xfinity package

As reported earlier, not just slapping a plate on the cars. It includes a taller spoiler (though I can't seem to find how much), the plates, and "aero ducts" in the front bumper. It seems like these ducts are a new thing and are really important to the whole package, but I don't think we've seen them before anywhere. Also they are trying to dispel the myth that this will be like Daytona or Dega. Give it a read and let me know your thoughts.
 
Acs said:
NASCAR announced the Indy Xfinity package

As reported earlier, not just slapping a plate on the cars. It includes a taller spoiler (though I can't seem to find how much), the plates, and "aero ducts" in the front bumper. It seems like these ducts are a new thing and are really important to the whole package, but I don't think we've seen them before anywhere. Also they are trying to dispel the myth that this will be like Daytona or Dega. Give it a read and let me know your thoughts.
Click to expand...
Plate racing sucks. Period.

It was introduced as a safety measure at certain tracks whose designs were left behind by advancing technology, and retained because of a refusal to update those tracks. Now it's going to be inflicted on another track layout NASCAR has no business competing on, an idea flung at the metaphorical wall not in the name of safety but in pursuit of ... of ... Gods, who knows? What does "increased competition" really mean? At least it acknowledges there's an existing problem.

Here's an idea: instead of monkeying with the cars, creating yet another configuration customized to a single track, with all the attending extra costs in this sponsor-starved era, why not run on tracks suited to the existing cars?

Oh, and plate racing sucks. Period.
 
Last edited:
Acs said:
NASCAR announced the Indy Xfinity package

As reported earlier, not just slapping a plate on the cars. It includes a taller spoiler (though I can't seem to find how much), the plates, and "aero ducts" in the front bumper. It seems like these ducts are a new thing and are really important to the whole package, but I don't think we've seen them before anywhere. Also they are trying to dispel the myth that this will be like Daytona or Dega. Give it a read and let me know your thoughts.
Click to expand...
Maybe they could have 'Improved Competition' by simply eliminating Kyle Busch's Xfinity Entry Form from consideration?

Time will tell on this plate story. There's already a bad taste in most everyone's mouth with the original move to this venue. This had better be a success story of monumental proportions in order to be accepted.
 
dpkimmel2001 said:
Maybe they could have 'Improved Competition' by simply eliminating Kyle Busch's Xfinity Entry Form from consideration?

Time will tell on this plate story. There's already a bad taste in most everyone's mouth with the original move to this venue. This had better be a success story of monumental proportions in order to be accepted.
Click to expand...
Gosh darn it, the X cars put on a great show at Road America, Watkins Glen, and Mid-Ohio. Open your eyes, run the road course, and use the R/C package the teams have already developed. That layout still crosses the bricks.

Few things frustrate me more than continuing to do something solely for the sake of 'tradition'. The oval doesn't produce entertaining racing with stock cars, and everyone knows it. If the series only remains there due to some grandiose notion that it gives NASCAR some vague sense of validation, it's way past time to move on and quit trying to needlessly leech off open-wheel's history.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Gosh darn it, the X cars put on a great show at Road America, Watkins Glen, and Mid-Ohio. Open your eyes, run the road course, and use the R/C package the teams have already developed. That layout still crosses the bricks.

Few things frustrate me more than continuing to do something solely for the sake of 'tradition'. The oval doesn't produce entertaining racing with stock cars, and everyone knows it. If the series only remains there due to some grandiose notion that it gives NASCAR some vague sense of validation, it's way past time to move on and quit trying to needlessly leech off open-wheel's history.
Click to expand...
Maybe my post should have come with a disclaimer? It was in no way, shape or form and endorsement on racing @ Indy for Xfinity or Cup. I never thought we should have set foot there since NASCAR's first move in that direction.
 
Acs said:
NASCAR announced the Indy Xfinity package

As reported earlier, not just slapping a plate on the cars. It includes a taller spoiler (though I can't seem to find how much), the plates, and "aero ducts" in the front bumper. It seems like these ducts are a new thing and are really important to the whole package, but I don't think we've seen them before anywhere. Also they are trying to dispel the myth that this will be like Daytona or Dega. Give it a read and let me know your thoughts.
Click to expand...
Unlike several members who posted reactions, I don't do CFD analysis in my head, don't have a wind tunnel in the back yard, and did not attend the Indy test session. So I will have to wait to see the results.

Clearly the objective is to create an aero advantage to the trailing car as occurs in IndyCar oval races. Gene Stefanyshyn describes the intent in detail, and it is precisely the IndyCar situation. I'm not a big fan of the aero-dominated racing IndyCar does at IMS or Fontana or other ovals, but some fans and the IndyCar media eats it up. So I'm wait-and-see. JMO.
 
Last edited:
Charlie Spencer said:
Plate racing sucks. Period.
Click to expand...
How bad does IndyCar suck? *If* the racing resembles IndyCar, with a distinct aero advantage to the trailing car, I suspect many fans and media members will like it.

BTW, the cars already have plates at every track. Some are flat, some are tapered. As always, the devil is in the details.
 
dpkimmel2001 said:
Maybe my post should have come with a disclaimer? It was in no way, shape or form and endorsement on racing @ Indy for Xfinity or Cup. I never thought we should have set foot there since NASCAR's first move in that direction.
Click to expand...
I see the oval as worthless. Having seen the IMSA race on the R/C, I'd prefer seeing NASCAR give that a shot instead of plates (and here's where we completely agree) IF THEY INSIST ON REMAINING HERE.

Which they shouldn't. :rolleyes:
 
LewTheShoe said:
Unlike several members who posted reactions, I don't do CFD analysis in my head, don't have a wind tunnel in the back yard, and did not attend the Indy test session. So I will have to wait to see the results.

Clearly the objective is to create an aero advantage to the trailing car as occurs in IndyCar oval races. Gene Stefanyshyn describes the intent in detail, and it is precisely the IndyCar situation. I'm not a big fan of the aero-dominated racing IndyCar does at IMS or Fontana or other ovals, but some fans and the IndyCar media eats it up. So I'm wait-and-see. JMO.
Click to expand...
When I want to watch an IndyCar race, and I often do, I turn on an IndyCar race. I agree that they also run on some circuits they aren't well suited to, particularly some of their ovals.
 
dpkimmel2001 said:
Maybe they could have 'Improved Competition' by simply eliminating Kyle Busch's Xfinity Entry Form from consideration?

Time will tell on this plate story. There's already a bad taste in most everyone's mouth with the original move to this venue. This had better be a success story of monumental proportions in order to be accepted.
Click to expand...
I'd put money on it that it won't be!
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Gosh darn it, the X cars put on a great show at Road America, Watkins Glen, and Mid-Ohio. Open your eyes, run the road course, and use the R/C package the teams have already developed. That layout still crosses the bricks.

Few things frustrate me more than continuing to do something solely for the sake of 'tradition'. The oval doesn't produce entertaining racing with stock cars, and everyone knows it. If the series only remains there due to some grandiose notion that it gives NASCAR some vague sense of validation, it's way past time to move on and quit trying to needlessly leech off open-wheel's history.
Click to expand...
Truth
 
gnomesayin said:
I couldn't explain it better than this. Plate racing is not just "a different form" of racing that should be viewed as just as legitimate. Frankly, that 53 year-old Michael Waltrip can still be quite competitive in plate races with so little seat time is all the practical reminder I need, technical explanations aside. He would be an utter embarrassment at any other track, or even likely at Daytona and Talladega without plates. He was always a much better plate racer than anything else, but that he can preserve these skills with so little effort is proof that it is less demanding in terms of driver skill, conditioning, etc.

If a race were run with all the cars mechanically restricted to 30 miles per hour, some drivers would be better than others. If they had a parallel parking competition, there would be some surprising winners. This wouldn't make those results as impressive as others.



It's easy to type any online opinion about racing or anything. That's what we do here. It is harder to make supported arguments, but there is nothing inherently lazy about disliking the plate racing product and complaining about NASCAR's approach to it than accepting the status quo.

We're coming up on 30 years of plate racing now. The drum has been beat about how plates are the only practical solution for that entire period. The obvious 'perfect world' answer was always that Daytona and Talladega needed to be reconfigured to produce significantly lower corner speeds. While it is understandable that plates were an immediate band-aid, I do not believe it is excusable that NASCAR has embraced them for 30 years. I believe that the economics of modifying the tracks were much more favorable from the '90s through the early '00s. Today we are stuck with them as they are, I will grant that. It was never under consideration not because it was impossible, but because NASCAR was seduced by the appeal of pack racing at marquee events. It was shortsighted thinking, as interest in plate races is dropping at least as much or more than the rest of the schedule. While there are remaining enthusiasts, fatigue has set in. These impulses to add plates at tracks that don't need them for 'safety' reasons reveals the real motivations.

I get highly irritated because I believe they have actually been playing a dangerously unsafe game while on the surface the rationale is about safety. Especially in the lower series, I don't know how they have avoided real carnage in the stands that might force the whole shebang to a sudden and nasty end. While I wish for everyone involved that they continue to be lucky, I kinda wish the Austin Dillon incident a few years ago had served as more of a wake-up call. Or Brad and Carl, or others. Instead unless someone notable gets killed or maimed, everyone breathes a sigh of relief and carries on.
Click to expand...

If people like plate racing I am fine with it as it is just a personal preference but where the disconnect comes with me is trying to legitimize it as racing. How many first time or once in a while winners have we seen at Bristol or Darlington compared with Daytona or Talladega. If you were a Danica Patrick, David Ragan, Aric Almirola, Trevor Bayne or Austin Dillon fan do you think your driver has a better chance at winning Talladega or Martinsville?
 
Mispeedway15 said:
^^ I don't want to quote this whole post above me but you say how Michael Waltrip's success is the reason plate racing is such an embarrassment. I guess with that kind of thought we should scrap road courses as for years we've had ringers in that as well who specialize in that style of racing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

How many ringers have won cup events on road courses?
 
Skoalbandit33 said:
If people like plate racing I am fine with it as it is just a personal preference but where the disconnect comes with me is trying to legitimize it as racing. How many first time or once in a while winners have we seen at Bristol or Darlington compared with Daytona or Talladega. If you were a Danica Patrick, David Ragan, Aric Almirola, Trevor Bayne or Austin Dillon fan do you think your driver has a better chance at winning Talladega or Martinsville?
Click to expand...
It is unquestionably true that Talladega and Daytona plate races have a larger random component in finishing positions than any other Cup tracks, and thus more "one off" or "wildcard" winners. Pit Rho has published the numbers that prove it, not that anyone doubted it anyway. This has always been my biggest gripe about them. IMO they are compelling TV races - I can't look away - but at the same time, I didn't respect them as legitimate racing with winners determined by merit.

I've softened my position somewhat in recent years. Earnhardt results are the reason why. Both Dale Sr and Dale Jr have so many plate wins. Their results are not random, not even close. A roulette wheel would clearly not produce their RP records.

So merit is involved. But the skills are different, and don't necessarily translate to non-plate wins. Michael Waltrip is an example. Dale Jr is another.

Someone here wrote last year that Daytona and Talladega require a "peculiar and idiosyncratic skill set." That's a perfect descriptor. Those skills won't win Darlington. But they can win 11% of the races, including Nascar's marquee event. And that's why I respect the legitimacy of these races more than I used to.

Plate racing at Indy, if that comes, will be nothing like Daytona or Talladega according to those who have done the work. Different deal altogether.
 
Larsonfan1995 said:
Doesn't compare. Plate racing is mash the gas and hang on. Road course racing includes shifting, left and right turns, elevation changes, setting up a pass sometimes 3 corners in advance. There are certain people who excel at both, but it's for completely different reasons. Waltrip is only good at plate racing because it requires less driving skill than the rest of the tracks do. Waltrip himself said a monkey could win at Daytona and Talladega.
Click to expand...

I agree, but to clarify the real thrust of my comment wasn't really about diminishing Michael Waltrip during the prime of his career. He was at one time a completely decent driver who was capable of racing respectably at many venues. What speaks particularly ill of plate racing is that he was able to jump in the car as a washed up retiree and still drive to the front and contend. Robby Gordon, who still races all year in other disciplines, would not be competitive anymore in a Cup road race, and maybe not even in an Xfinity one. Boris Said wouldn't run up front anymore, because his skills deteriorated with age. Michael Waltrip can still hack it in a plate race because it requires less skill period. That's the further reason I find not to respect about it.

LewTheShoe said:
Someone here wrote last year that Daytona and Talladega require a "peculiar and idiosyncratic skill set." That's a perfect descriptor. Those skills won't win Darlington. But they can win 11% of the races, including Nascar's marquee event. And that's why I respect the legitimacy of these races more than I used to.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the "peculiar and idiosyncratic" remark was mine, ha. I can't verify because the post was wiped out. I still believe that, but that doesn't inherently legitimize it . To make a crude analogy to explain what I mean, particular and different skills would be required to excel at basketball with a goal that is six feet tall, or with four balls in play at any time that can all be scored with. That doesn't mean the results of contests held with those rules would be deserving of the same respect. I don't believe that everything is just different and equal. We can make qualitative judgments, as you did in your thread advocating in favor of the "cookie cutters". You explained well there what you consider to be the most difficult elements of skill-based racing. To my mind nothing in the world of NASCAR or oval racing could be further from that than the low HP / high grip plate racing at Daytona and Talladega.

I understand your comparison to IndyCar to some extent, but I think you're being uncharitable to IndyCar and generous to NASCAR plate racing to equate the two. Far more traditional race driving skills are required to race well in IndyCar oval events, and it is far less random on the whole. Reading your story of coming around, I understand about realizing that some have real skill at it, but otherwise it's almost like you gave in and accepted it. To me it's a shame this is what became of the sport's marquee race, and a greater shame nothing more comprehensive was ever done to fix it.

LewTheShoe said:
Plate racing at Indy, if that comes, will be nothing like Daytona or Talladega according to those who have done the work. Different deal altogether.
Click to expand...

You're right. We end up discussing it because those of us who don't accept plate racing at Daytona and Talladega are incensed to see it spread like a virus elsewhere, not as a necessity but as a tool to provide 'better' racing. The pack racing randomness is almost sure to be less present at a one-groove track like Indy.
 
The Nature Boy said:
If plate racing requires no skill then why are there guys who are clearly better at it than others? That implies that there's a skill that someone has learned.
Click to expand...

I think most people think it's easy because the track in which NASCAR runs the plates are huge and for the most part you're on the throttle 100% around the track.

I dont think that applies to a place like Indy. This is such a bad idea.

Between Goodyear's inability to have lasting tires to Brian's awesome ideas that pop into his head every 5 minutes, you can actually have something bad brewing here.
 
The Nature Boy said:
If plate racing requires no skill then why are there guys who are clearly better at it than others? That implies that there's a skill that someone has learned.
Click to expand...

Every type of racing requires skill(well other than Bowman grey) but there is a lot more luck involved in plate racing than non plate racing. I mean Derrick Cope has a plate win. Michael Waltrip has 2 Daytona 500s to his credit.
 
KodiakRusty89 said:
Indy has become such a debacle at this point it really doesn't matter what they do at this point.

Restrictor plates at Pocono would be idiotic due to the wide range of speed/rpm's at the track. Nothing like horsepower choked cars chugging off of turn 3! The races at Pocono have generally been pretty good with the return of shifting a few years ago.

Michigan is a wide open track and should remain so.
Click to expand...

These are my exact thoughts on the subject.
 
kymartin6 said:
A handful of us like Daytona and Talladega........ I actually think a lot more like it but are afraid to admit it because of being chastised......
Click to expand...

I love it. It is a great place for drivers to show off the special skills it takes to run those races.
 
The Nature Boy said:
If plate racing requires no skill then why are there guys who are clearly better at it than others? That implies that there's a skill that someone has learned.
Click to expand...

I don't think that plate racing doesn't require skill but it is a much easier skill to learn than short track, intermediate track and road courses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom