W
Walrus_3
Guest
from the pre-race show, I liked the drivers input to that question, and was wondering if you all heard that and what you thought about it.
E
Excellerator
Guest
I missed the pre-race show, didn't know there was one. 
H
HardScrabble
Guest
Tough question and good answers.
Notice there is no universal agreement. But I do think its coming and should. Focus of this issue is on the height deals and I believe that zero tolerance is coming. These guys are sharp enough to find the right springs and such to prevent it and if the word is out that it will not be tolerated the entire "controversy" vanishes.
Notice there is no universal agreement. But I do think its coming and should. Focus of this issue is on the height deals and I believe that zero tolerance is coming. These guys are sharp enough to find the right springs and such to prevent it and if the word is out that it will not be tolerated the entire "controversy" vanishes.
D
DE Wrangler 2
Guest
I agree with the zero tolerance. It's evidently done consistantly so there's no excuse for being too low or wrong part or whatever. Forget who said it but one driver stated that they know the minimum height of the car after the race so they should compensate at the beginning......the car a little taller to start to compensate for settling.
The other part of that pre-race thing was the monkeying around with the rules as the season progresses. I think all the drivers said "Make the rules at the beginning of the season, then leave it alone" (paraphrased but something similar). I can go along with that too!!
The other part of that pre-race thing was the monkeying around with the rules as the season progresses. I think all the drivers said "Make the rules at the beginning of the season, then leave it alone" (paraphrased but something similar). I can go along with that too!!
H
HappyHour
Guest
Excel, it's called "Countdown to Green" or something like that now. Almost missed it myself!
H
HardScrabble
Guest
One thing I was very glad to see in the pre-race deal was that NBC had and showed everyone a copy of the rule book. I, for one, was growing very very tired of hearing that NASCAR has no rule book. They do and they always have.
What I understood from the quotes was that competitors would love to see the rules set at the beginning of the year and no changes made. However most of them acknowledged that with the expertise and innovation that the teams are capable of once the season starts that this will impossible to implement. When you deal with 4 maufactures, three different engines and four aero setups; the covering of every conceivable improvement the teams might try to gain an advantage is not plausible in a single pre season set of rules.
What I understood from the quotes was that competitors would love to see the rules set at the beginning of the year and no changes made. However most of them acknowledged that with the expertise and innovation that the teams are capable of once the season starts that this will impossible to implement. When you deal with 4 maufactures, three different engines and four aero setups; the covering of every conceivable improvement the teams might try to gain an advantage is not plausible in a single pre season set of rules.
D
DE Wrangler 2
Guest
Sure it is HS......someone comes up with a good way of doing things and it's within the rules then the others catch up themselves!! It's called competition......competition is not only on the race track. It's in the engineering rooms, shops, wind tunnels, etc. What's so important about "parity" anyway? The teams and drivers that come up with the best solutions to problems encountered during the season are the best teams....plain and simple. It hurts the smaller, underfunded teams yes.....but, that's the nature of the sport. The best wins, others don't. Parity is what makes for boring races, and races like Daytona and Dega. JMO
W
Walrus_3
Guest
DE W,
Wasn't Jr. who brought up parity during his answer, whoever it was I liked it. Something to the effect if it's all about parity then why are we even racing?
Wasn't Jr. who brought up parity during his answer, whoever it was I liked it. Something to the effect if it's all about parity then why are we even racing?
D
DE Wrangler 2
Guest
My point exactly Walrus.
A
abooja
Guest
It was Jarrett who talked of parity ruining the competetion.
It was Junior who said he approves of zero tolerance, and that they'll just have to know to make their cars higher pre-inspection so that they'll pass post-inspection.
It was Junior who said he approves of zero tolerance, and that they'll just have to know to make their cars higher pre-inspection so that they'll pass post-inspection.
W
Walrus_3
Guest
Thank You Abooja,
Please excuse, my brain old. You make so much correct. Again many thousand thanks. May happiness follow you always.
Please excuse, my brain old. You make so much correct. Again many thousand thanks. May happiness follow you always.
T
TN-Ward-Fan
Guest
A level playing field is one thing, but parity is another. Allow me to elaborate.
Fer instance, if the Oakland Raiders have a play in their playbook that calls for a fade pass to the corner of the end zone so their 6'10" tight end can catch it over anyone's head, the NFL does not make them take the play out just because the Dallas Cowboys don't have a 6'10" tight end. The Raiders didn't cheat; they went and found something the other competitors don't have that is legal by the rules. I ain't no Jimmie Johnson fan, but 5/16 inch on the placement of a bolt, in order to force more traction by a naturally occurring phenomenon of physics, ain't cheating. It's innovation.
Racing, Mr. Helton et al, is a competition. We already have IROC for the parity stuff. Keep 'em honest by enforcing restrictions on engine size, body templates, a range on height to allow for a damn spring rubber, pit speeds, and the other more fundamental rules of fair competition. Come off the other crap and let the teams compete.
Fer instance, if the Oakland Raiders have a play in their playbook that calls for a fade pass to the corner of the end zone so their 6'10" tight end can catch it over anyone's head, the NFL does not make them take the play out just because the Dallas Cowboys don't have a 6'10" tight end. The Raiders didn't cheat; they went and found something the other competitors don't have that is legal by the rules. I ain't no Jimmie Johnson fan, but 5/16 inch on the placement of a bolt, in order to force more traction by a naturally occurring phenomenon of physics, ain't cheating. It's innovation.
Racing, Mr. Helton et al, is a competition. We already have IROC for the parity stuff. Keep 'em honest by enforcing restrictions on engine size, body templates, a range on height to allow for a damn spring rubber, pit speeds, and the other more fundamental rules of fair competition. Come off the other crap and let the teams compete.
H
HardScrabble
Guest
Kyle also had a bit to say about parity. And what he had to say echoes something Smokey Yunick proclaimed as the 60's wound down. No racer wants parity. A racer wants to build a machine faster and stronger than any of his competitors. A racer wants to win every with a comfrotable margin of no less than one lap. This makes a racer very happy. It does not put, as the saying goes, "butts in the seats".
NASCAR entire premise of growth to national prominence has been parity. THis is ot some new phenomenon. Why do you think both Chrysler and Ford opted to boycott NASCAR in the mid 60's? Was it because in the good old days these factory sponsored teams were allowed to "run what ya brung"? Hardly. The boycotts were because NASCAR decreed that in its turn the hemi and then the SOHC would not lend to the parity they wanted to present to the fans.
Nor does the history of NASCAR's quest end there. Hundreds of examples of rulings striving to maintain parity in Winston Cup or Grand National racing can be found in every decade and every era of NASCAR's storied past
While it might be true that some portion of fans would have no problem with a season in which the only cars with a decent chance of posting a victory are of one particular make, or in this time belonging to one particular owner, this percentage would be ghastly low. Certainly not enough to support the sport anywhere near the size of fields and number of races we enjoy today. Soon the racing would again find itself relegated to the pocket of special interest and shown only in condensed replay versions on obscure sports shows.
It is not perfection. It is not all that every fan wants it to be all the time. This is very true now, but no more true today than it was in the beginning. Controversy has raged around the rulings and judgements of this sanctioning body since it inception over 50 years ago. And it is no more likely to be perfect 50 years from now.
NASCAR entire premise of growth to national prominence has been parity. THis is ot some new phenomenon. Why do you think both Chrysler and Ford opted to boycott NASCAR in the mid 60's? Was it because in the good old days these factory sponsored teams were allowed to "run what ya brung"? Hardly. The boycotts were because NASCAR decreed that in its turn the hemi and then the SOHC would not lend to the parity they wanted to present to the fans.
Nor does the history of NASCAR's quest end there. Hundreds of examples of rulings striving to maintain parity in Winston Cup or Grand National racing can be found in every decade and every era of NASCAR's storied past
While it might be true that some portion of fans would have no problem with a season in which the only cars with a decent chance of posting a victory are of one particular make, or in this time belonging to one particular owner, this percentage would be ghastly low. Certainly not enough to support the sport anywhere near the size of fields and number of races we enjoy today. Soon the racing would again find itself relegated to the pocket of special interest and shown only in condensed replay versions on obscure sports shows.
It is not perfection. It is not all that every fan wants it to be all the time. This is very true now, but no more true today than it was in the beginning. Controversy has raged around the rulings and judgements of this sanctioning body since it inception over 50 years ago. And it is no more likely to be perfect 50 years from now.