How Carl Edwards Got Busted

We cheered as Tony Stewart and Juan Pablo Montoya mixed it up at Homestead last November, eventually "adjusting each other's cars (in their own words)" out of the race. We applauded NASCAR afterward for deeming the incident the kind of racing the fans want to see, and later announcing that they would give the drivers more leeway in deciding how they wanted to race each other.

So, in some parts of the NASCAR world, there may be some confusion as to why Carl Edwards incurred the wrath of NASCAR officials when, late in the race, he blatantly turned Brad Keselowski's car, causing it to go airborne. NASCAR had Edwards park his car for the remainder of the race, and is now in the position of deciding what other penalties, if any, will be handed down to the #99 team.

Why the seeming reversal of NASCAR policy? It isn't really a reversal; NASCAR's policy is to allow bump drafting where they wouldn't previously, and to allow the type of beating and banging that thrills the crowd when two or more drivers are racing for position. Edwards wasn't racing for position--he was, in fact, more than one hundred and thirty laps behind Keselowski when he made an obvious move to purposefully cause Keselowski's car to spin at 190 miles per hour.

The result of the obvious retaliatory action was that Keselowski's car flipped over into the air and against the fence separating the fans from the track. Seven spectators were hit by fly debris from the accident. The action clearly could have caused a major disaster. Luckily, there were no serious injuries, and Keselowski walked away from the fearsome wreck.

NASCAR has given the drivers the freedom to use their own judgment when racing. With that freedom comes the responsibility to use good judgment. Edwards clearly showed a lack of good judgment in his timing and the manner in which he sought revenge. The drivers, given their freedom, should show professionalism and think about the consequences of their actions.

Putting the Edwards penalty aside, we got a reminder of how dangerous the elevated "wing" on the rear of the racecars can be. When air passes below the wing while the car is turned around, it creates as much lifting force as it provides downforce when the car is in its normal position. This can be very dangerous for both driver and spectator, as we saw at the Firecracker 400 last year, when it was Edwards' car that went airborne, and at Atlanta on Sunday. The traditional spoiler, to which NASCAR will return in April, does not allow air to pass under it when the car is reversed.

There are other advantages to the traditional spoiler--the spoiler provides downforce at all four wheels, and it allows for better side drafting on the straightaways than the wing does--but the main concern should be safety, and we feel that the return of the traditional spoiler can't come soon enough.

Poll Results: Rude racing is acceptable

The poll question was "Should the driver of a slow car in a race pull over to let faster traffic pass?"

67% of those who participated in the poll believe "No, he should make them race for their position"

33% of those who participated believe "Yes, they are going to pass him anyway."

As far as we can recall, NASCAR has never penalized a driver for ignoring the yellow cross on a blue flag that tells the driver to let the faster traffic pass. If a driver is one lap down, it makes no sense for that driver to risk giving up a free pass position to let the faster cars pass. By the same token, there is nothing wrong with a driver wanting to keep whatever position he has earned, no matter if he is on the lead lap or not.

When a driver is falling back because of an ill handling car or bad tires, our readers believe that the driver should make every other driver work to pass him. We may be wrong, but it seems there is no rule against a driver who wants to do everything he can to hold his position, it is merely a "gentleman's understanding" that makes a faster driver believe that there is an obligation for the slower traffic to yield to faster traffic. When a driver does not follow this gentleman's agreement, it often results in a flare up of tempers, and could even cause wrecks and retaliation on the track. That can make for a very interesting race, and/or create a post race altercation. That is the stuff that keeps us watching to see what happens next.

A big thanks to all our readers who participated in the poll. Feel free to participate in the new poll, and Rev Jim promises to try not to forget to publish the poll results in the future.

What if the Championship were determined by race wins?

What if NASCAR's schedule and Cup Championship consisted of thirty-six races where winning the race is the only way to gain Championship points? This suggestion has been discussed on the Internet since the season began this year, and has been taken up by some on-line journalists, such as ESPN.com's Terry Blount. The idea is that if winning was all that counted, the racing would be more intense, and there would be no reason to hang back to protect points standings.

But would the racing be better? How many teams that are presently participating at the Cup level afford to participate in an entire season of "Checkers or Wreckers?" Who would want to be in the lead on the last lap with a pack of hungry racers on his rear bumper? More importantly, how often would the winner of the race be determined by a penalty based on a judgement call by a race official?

The problem of teams entering just for the prize money would not be solved, unless the purse was "winner take all." If that were the case, there would be few teams willing to participate. The number of regulars in the field would likely shrink from the thirty-nine Cup regulars we have now, to twenty or fewer. The teams that are underfunded now, relative to "the big four," would be even more underfunded, and there would be no reason for them to compete if they don't have the equipment to win.

In NASCAR, part of the challenge to the driver in any race is in negotiating lapped traffic, and, with a field of twenty or so, the lapped traffic would be sparse, if not absent. The purse in a checkers or wreckers type race would have to be disbursed pretty much the same as it is now, if there was to be a full field.

There would be no guarantee of better racing in a checkers or wreckers race. In a 334 lap race, the first 270 laps would be the same chess game it is now, with the drivers and teams testing their cars, saving their engines and brakes, and finding the best set up for the final sprint to the finish. There would be no point in going all out in the early part of the race, and risking a blown engine, worn out brakes, or a broken gear box. We would likely see one car pulling an eight to ten second lead for most of the early race while the other teams half-heartedly battle for position, hoping for a caution, or maybe hoping that a team mate, with nothing to lose, will take out the leader while racing to stay on the lead lap. With no points at stake, lapped traffic would have no reason to continue in the race as the laps wind down, unless there is the chance that all the cars on the lead lap will wreck, of course.

That is one reason why a checkers or wreckers series would be more expensive for participants than it is now. Repairing a NASCAR racing car after a wreck is very expensive, and one thing an all or nothing situation will produce is plenty of wrecks. It would be safe to say that we would see plenty of situations in the final laps as we did at this year's All Star Challenge--where, with eight laps to go, Ryan Newman, Kyle Busch, and Jeff Gordon all went into a turn three abreast, and none came out with a car capable of winning the race. All three of them went into that turn with nothing to lose, and everything to gain. It was exciting, for sure, but it really wasn't great racing. It was, however, great and expensive demolition derby.

The leader with five laps to go would be very lucky to be the winner of the race, unless he was so far ahead of the field that nobody could reach him. That would be unlikely, as the cautions and restarts would be frequent, as drivers back in the field give it their all to get into a position where they, theoretically, at least, could catch the leader. That leader would have a big target on his rear bumper, and no driver will have second thoughts about using the chrome horn to get him loose, or move him up the track a little, when winning is all that matters. Of course, there is always the chance that the first car to cross the finish line will be black flagged for rough driving.

So where is the fine line between a legitimate bump and run and a bump and dump that earns a black flag? Any driver will tell the press and the race officials, "I didn't mean to wreck him," after he makes contact and takes the lead. When the winner of the race is determined by a judgement call by a race official, that is not better racing. If no contact at all is allowed, then we are back to the follow-the-leader type race that so many race fans claim to find "boring."

Another situation that would come out of a checkers or wreckers series would be that many top drivers would be absent from some of the races. In 1974, David Pearson only ran in nineteen of the thirty races, and finished the season third in points. He participated only in races where he knew he would have a good chance to win. We would see the same thing in a checkers or wreckers championship. Why risk a season or career ending injury at a track where the driver has had no success, when that driver knows he could win races at tracks at which he has excelled in the past? A driver who has a two or three race lead early in the season would be likely to skip a few races during the remainder of the season, racing only at those tracks where he feels he has a good chance of winning.

Aside from that, there is the possibility that the championship could be determined with several races left on the schedule. There would be no need for the champion who is six races ahead of everyone else to finish the season with five races to go. The rest of the field would be racing for a top ten position in the final standings, and drivers and teams who have no wins would only be there to act as blockers for a team mate, perhaps. For most race fans, the novelty of a demolition derby wore off by the time we graduated from high school, so, instead of an exciting finish to a season, we would likely see a big fizzle.

As with most of these bright ideas that get thrown around in cyberspace, it would be unlikely that such a series would be a success. In forums, blogs, and sports network sites, fans and journalists bemoaned the fact that Rockingham no longer had racing, but when ARCA brought a race to Rockingham, only about three thousand fans showed up initially, and then only 300 fans showed up for the second ARCA race there. And then there are the calls for NASCAR to make the Nationwide Series a replication of the ARCA Series, by banning Cup drivers from racing in that series, and re-defining the Nationwide Series as a ladder series for novice drivers only. We could see that as being a huge success among race fans.....yeah, right!

NASCAR Cup racing is a championship series that requires a test of both drivers and teams, in races of marathon proportion. In other words, the championship not only depends on a driver's skill, but on the skills of the mechanics, engineers, and pit crews on the team. Winning a race is not the only measure of these skills, though it is important. Winning could be, as Terry Blount suggests, be made more important by adding more points to the race winner's score, rather than creating an all or nothing competition. It might make for better competition if the award for winning were raised to 200 points, while keeping the remainder of the points awards the same as they are now. In addition, NASCAR could add an extra ten bonus points to the Chase standings, beyond the bonus points that are already in place for each regular season win. This would make it more difficult to protect points by settling for a top ten finish,and should create a more aggressive form of racing among the top teams. But it would still award consistency to a point, and still give an opportunity for the championship to be determined at the very end of the season. Most importantly, we would still see racing, rather than a series of wreckfests. If we want to see a wreckfest, we can always go to the demolition derby at our local track.

Anything but that

Kyle Busch has achieved what no other driver in the upper tier of NASCAR has done--that is to win two races in the same day. He didn't just win them, he dominated, leading ninety-five of 100 laps in the Camping World Truck Series (CWTS) race, and most of the laps in the Nationwide Series race as well, leading all but seven of the 150 laps around the 2 mile long "D"-oval.

The Nationwide race featured plenty of racing behind the leader, so there was some action in racing for position. The only threat to Busch's lead, however came at the restart with sixteen laps to go. Carl Edwards had beaten Kyle Busch out of the pits, and restarted in the lead. Busch, however had the faster car, and before the lap was over, he had given Edwards a sound of his chrome horn and retaken the lead. It was bye bye Busch after that, and Carl, fell all the way back to sixth place. As Kyle extended his lead, Kevin Harvick took second, and Carl Edwards made his way back to fourth. That is as far as he got. Joey Logano was running in third, and wasn't about to give that spot up. That race for third was one of the most exciting battles of the race, with Edwards making a move, and Logano countering it like a professional with many more years of experience than he has. Logano was soon able to put Edwards behind him and focus his sights on Harvick, providing us with even more racing excitement. Kevin Harvick held his spot, though, as Kyle Busch crossed the finish line nearly four seconds ahead of the combatants.

The truck race, earlier in the day did not have much to offer as far as excitement. Kyle Busch took a huge lead from the start and never lost it. Driving a truck that was set up so perfectly that Gabi DeCarlo--competing in her first truck race--could have won in it, the race was a Sunday drive for Busch, while the field became strung out so far that nobody was challenged for position by anyone.

Which brings us to our rant. If NASCAR has to make changes in the series that usually features the most exciting racing among the top three divisions, why do they want to change it to make it less exciting. The tapered spacers that have been required in all trucks in all races since last year, may make the racing safer and save fuel, but on long tracks like the Auto Club (California) Speedway, it limits what drivers can do during the race. To make matters worse, the rear end gear required by NASCAR for the race was high enough to hamper the ability of the trucks to close on other trucks and be able to race them properly. Racing should be about racing, not how long the trucks can go around the track without crashing.

The effect of the spacer is hardly noticeable in short track races, but not good at all on a long track like California. It is hard enough for the Sprint Cup cars to keep up with each other, so making the trucks so that they can't race is a very bad idea.

One suggestion would be to not have the trucks race at Auto Club. Nobody was there to watch the race, anyway, so why not move it to a smaller venue, nearby. Perhaps nearby Irwindale would be an idea date for the trucks for the second race of the year. After all, the series got its start on the short tracks, and the series seems to race best on short tracks. It may even be easier to sell tickets to the smaller venue, while the truck series as it should be promoted.

Another suggestion would be to allow lower gearing while switching to a smaller engine, without the spacers. The speeds would be below the danger limit for the trucks, as NASCAR sees it, and they would have a better ability to close on each other, and thus, race each other. The problem with this would be that none of the manufacturers want to admit to having a smaller engine that would be appropriate for NASCAR style racing, and the switch could mean added expenses for some teams.

But why has NASCAR turned away from competition in the truck series? With the economic downturn of late, the organization is worried that the field of entrants would be too small, because of expenses, so, they decided to forget about competition, forget about promoting the series as "racing the way it ought to be," and try to "help" the teams to better afford the costs of racing.

One way they saw fit to do so was to limit the number of over-the-wall pit crew members to five, and to limit each pit stop to be for either tires or fuel, but not both. In practice, as seen during the Stater Brothers 200 truck race, Saturday, it is hard to see how this saves teams much money at all. In fact, as we have seen in many of NASCAR's money saving schemes, it may end up costing the teams more money.

When faced with a "tires or fuel" situation at a point in the race where position is crucial, most teams will go with fuel only. The tires could be worn, and ready to blow, but it is better to take that chance, in the mind of the competitive racer, than to run out of fuel while leading the second-to-last lap. We could easily see an increase in late race accidents, thus creating added costs to the teams in repairing wrecked equipment.

The pit rule also creates a situation in which added opportunities for pit road accidents occur. We saw this during Saturday's race, as three trucks got tangled up on the second stop of a caution period. To increase the number of pit stops for each team during a single caution increases the risks of having pit road incidents.

In response to the announcement of the new rules, veteran truck racer/team principal Rick Crawford had this to say, "If it doesn't save me $250,000 there is no point to the rule."

He is right, there is no point to the new pit stop rule. The teams are already limited to three sets of tires--including practice, qualifying, and the race--per event. That was a money saving scheme. Furthermore, the amount of fuel a team uses during each event is going to remain the same, even if the number of fuel pit stops are limited. Although there may be some fans who would find a gigantic crash near the end of the race due to bad tires exciting, it really doesn't mean that the racing would be better.

What NASCAR does need to do is promote the Truck Series as a unique series featuring the best in short track racing. They should limit the venues to tracks that are 1.25 miles or less in length, with the exception, perhaps, of Darlington. A way could be found to bring in more fans, and thus, more revenue. They could also bring in some more sponsors for a higher purse--admittedly difficult in these times, but possible--to make the race more attractive to more participants. They could do anything but what they have done to make the racing less exciting. It would probably be better for the teams in the long run.

The height of stupidity

It is one thing to cheat to win a race. Everybody, it seems, cheats in some way, at least tweaking the "gray areas" in the rules. But they are cheating to get an edge on the competition, not to reduce their chances of winning a race. That is, unless they are very prone to making dumb mistakes.

After last week's Nationwide race at Michigan, NASCAR planned on running chassis dyno tests to see how much horsepower was being transferred to the rear wheels of selected cars from the race. . Before they ran the test, the NASCAR technicians inspected the cars and found that the #20 and #18 cars of Joe Gibbs racing had been tampered with. To be specific, a magnet was placed between the accelerator pedal and the firewall on each car, to prevent the throttle from opening all the way, therefore preventing the engine from producing the full amount of horsepower of which it is capable. In effect, the two teams were caught sandbagging.

This raises the question "why?" Sandbagging in any sport works against the competitive spirit of the sport. Throwing a race is a blow to the integrity of the sport. If a race could be thrown in such a way, it raises questions of gambling involvement, for example.

The two teams had nothing to hide. The cars and the engines were built within the specifications NASCAR requires, and there was nothing in the set up of the cars that would cause a penalty. Except for the extra accelerator stop.

Taking a look back, after the Nationwide race at Chicagoland a few weeks ago, NASCAR pulled the motors from nine different cars and engine dyno-ed them. Because the engine from David Reutiman's Toyota produced 2 horsepower more than David Ragan's Ford, NASCAR saw fit to even things down by implementing a new rule that required the teams with engines that had a cylinder gap of 4.08 inches or more to use a spacer with smaller air intake holes. This reduced the Toyota's output by about sixteen horsepower. Toyota's hp production was accomplished within the rules, but NASCAR had to implement a new one in order for the horsepower advantage to transfer to the Jack Roush Nationwide Series cars. It doesn't matter if that is fair or not, rules are rules. Personally, we would have liked to see the other teams step up to the level of Toyota, rather than seeing Toyota have to step down.

Last Saturday, it was fairly obvious that Toyota had found a way to overcome the disadvantage imposed on them by NASCAR, as the JGR cars could nearly keep up with the Fords on the straightaways. Even though the cars had passed pre-race inspection, somebody in the Gibbs organization saw fit to limit the amount of throttle that could be used during the race. Whether it was to avoid further restrictions, allow an excuse to protest Ford's horsepower advantage, or to hide technology from the competition, it was just plain wrong. Nobody will argue that point--it possibly changed the outcome of the race. If Tony Stewart had been able to use the full throttle, he arguably would have won the race.

It was blatantly stupid. The team's Nationwide series engine tuner, both car chiefs and both crew chiefs were suspended indefinitely from NASCAR. Both crew chiefs were fined $50,000 each by NASCAR, the teams each lost 150 owners points, and Joey Logano and Tony Stewart lost 150 championship points. In addition, Joe Gibbs has promised that those who were responsible for the incident would be fined within the organization as well.

It should be noted that neither driver was involved in the incident, if they were, NASCAR would likely have suspended them as well, and there would have been a monetary fine. Joe Gibbs also acknowledged that neither driver knew anything about the incident.

But for David Rogers, Jr, his brilliant career has ended, all because of a moment of extreme stupidity.

"Parity" doesn't have to restrict competition

From its very beginnings, NASCAR has attempted to impose parity among the teams participating in the races they sanction. From the very beginning, car owners and drivers have been trying to find a way to get an edge on the competition by going around the rules and finding "gray areas."

NASCAR began as a "strictly stock" series, where the only modifications allowed to the cars was to tape the headlights and bolt the doors shut. The "strictly stock" rules only lasted all of 1949 and 1950, because, after constantly having to disqualify cars because of modifications, NASCAR conceded to the owners that modifications were part of the competition.

Since then there have always been parameters within which the teams can modify their cars, but there has also been some leeway in which the teams can try to find a competitive edge. As the NASCAR version of the stock car evolved, so did the methods in which the teams and even the manufacturers "tweaked" their cars to make them run better than the competition. Notorious "tweakings" were Chrysler's Hemi engine, which was disallowed by NASCAR in the mid sixties, and Chrysler's flying wing, which was also disallowed by NASCAR in 1971, and resulted in Chrysler's withdrawal from NASCAR competition as a manufacturer.

In 2007, NASCAR began introducing what was then known as the "Car of Tomorrow" or CoT to the series. The idea behind the car was twofold--safety and parity. Now known as the "Car of Today (CoT)," the "Car of Right Now (CoRN)," or simply "the Cup car," absolutely no aerodynamic modifications to the body or the rear wing are allowed. In addition, NASCAR dictates what rear end gearing can be used, and how far the rear end tracking can be offset. This was supposed to even things up between the well financed and the not-so-well financed teams. It was also meant as a way to cut costs for the teams and sponsors.

While there have been some good races this year, most notably at Lowe's, Phoenix, Talladega, and Martinsville, the Cup car has shown that it still needs a lot of work. Often, "parity" becomes "mediocrity," as the cars are able to catch up to other cars, but unable to complete a pass while racing wheel to wheel. In order to leave the fans completely satisfied at a race, NASCAR needs to allow more competition by allowing the teams to do a little more with the aerodynamics, and allow some experimentation with the other aspects of the car. Until the introduction of the Cup car, the crew chiefs could custom fit the car's handling characteristics to the driver's wants and needs, but now, with specifications nearly as limited as they were in the "strictly stock" days, that has become much harder to do.

If NASCAR wants to find the competitive edge among the teams that would keep the fans happy, while maintaining some semblance of parity, they might want to consider administrively limiting the amount of money a team may spend on a car during the racing season. This would be similar to the salary caps imposed in other professional sports.

It has been estimated that it costs about $7 million to run one race car in the Sprint Cup Series for an entire season. That includes the construction of the car and its engines, testing costs, transportation, salaries, tires, repairs, and entry fees. "Testing" doesn't include wind tunnels and seven post shaker rigs, those are extra. If NASCAR were to limit all teams to $7,000,000 per car, if that were possible, that would be a type of parity. But there would still be engineers and crew chiefs on each team who would want to change something on the car, and they would. In that case there would still be competition within the limits of parity. The downside would be that, just as in the "parity" we see now, innovation would be strictly limited.

Of course, NASCAR is correct in not trying to impose spending. It probably would take too much administration, and would also be an overstepping of authority by the sanctioning body. The idea of the teams having their financial records under review by NASCAR would not sit well. The best sponsors want to see the teams they sponsor have a competitive edge, and will provide as much financial support as is needed. As private corporations, the teams and their sponsors would be free to go to another series and race at venues not sanctioned by NASCAR, if they didn't like the rules that NASCAR imposed. It would likely result in NASCAR losing its top notch participants, and tranfering their power and prestige to, for instance, a new sanctioning body organized by Bruton Smith.*

*In 2004, Bruton Smith was rumored to be involved with Cale Yarborough in forming a new series featuring more traditional style stock car racing than NASCAR offers, but the idea never got off the ground due to lack of interest by sponsors and team owners.

Something that would make the cars race better would be to have tires that were made for the Cup car. NASCAR is still using tires designed by Goodyear for the conventional racing stock car. Since the Cup car has far less downforce than the conventional car, the tires either provide not enough grip to make the car controllable at high speeds, as we saw earlier this year at Atlanta and Texas, or have a compound so soft it does not hold up to the rigors of the track itself, as we saw at Indianapolis and Las Vegas. The Cup car requires a wider tire that would provide more grip while using a rubber compound that would stand up to the track conditions.

Goodyear, who has an exclusive contract with NASCAR through 2012, is working on a tire that would fit the needs of the Cup car, but that tire is not expected to be available for two more years.
This leaves the responsibility for better racing now in the hands of NASCAR.

Putting louvered vents on the left side of the car that would allow air to pass through the oil tank container would give the car a little more downforce, without affecting the aerodynamic characteristics of the car itself. That would be a quick fix that would not require an overall redesign of the body, and would not be too expensive for the teams to implement. Several teams, including the #99 team of Roush-Fenway Racing, tried to get away with leaving the lid of the oil tank container loose to allow air to pass through, so it must be a good idea.

The most practical thing for NASCAR to do right now is to allow a little more adjustment. Raising the front splitter would provide a little more downforce on the front end of the car. NASCAR could allow more adjustment on the rear wing as well, giving the teams a little more leeway. The #66 and #70 teams got caught a few weeks ago trying to raise the rear wing by 1/32 inches, so, again, it must be a good idea.

At Lowe's, for the Coca Cola 600 this year, we saw some great racing. This could be attributed to the fact that NASCAR allowed the teams extensive testing at that track, and also allowed the teams to offset the rear tracking of the car by so much it seemed as thought the cars were crabwalking around the track. This required a tougher differential and rear axle, so, NASCAR, in trying to limit the cost to the teams, limited the rear end offset to 1/2 inch. If NASCAR could ease up on that restriction, and allow the teams up to 1/4 inch offset more, we may get to see, once again, the kind of racing we saw at Lowe's.

It was wrong, in our opinion, for NASCAR to design this car and then leave it up to the teams to figure out how to make it race well, without allowing more tolerance within which the teams could work than they have.

Granted, for the second time around at the tracks, the racing is expected to be better than the first time, because the teams have had some experience at those tracks. But it has become obvious that more testing is needed at each track before the teams race at each track, and NASCAR has promised that more testing will be allowed next year. They have said, however, that there will be no more testing scheduled for this year. The problem is now, and we fear that the final race of the season at Homestead may be a disaster of the kind we saw at Indianapolis.

NASCAR needs to listen to the feedback given them by the teams, and relax the rules just a little bit this year, rather than waiting until next year. Parity shouldn't mean supressing innovation. It seems that a little bit would go a long way toward better racing.

Nationwide Series says "goodbye" to competition, "hello" to mediocrity

In an unprecedented rule change, effective immediately, NASCAR has decided to encourage mediocrity and give a horsepower advantage to Roush-Fenway Racing in the Nationwide Series.

According to discussion on ESPN 2's NASCAR Now, of the engines siezed by NASCAR after the Nationwide race at Chicagoland, July 12, David Reutimann's Toyota showed the highest horsepower production in dynomometer testing, 2 horsepower over the JGR #18. The Roush Fords that were tested followed with a close third and fourth. According to ESPN reporter Marty Smith, the #20 JGR Toyota, which was the reason for the siezure and dynomometer testing of the engines, had the fifth highest hosrepower production in dynamometer testing.

Since the engine used by Toyota is a new engine, while the other manufacturers have been running older engine models in the series, NASCAR evened things down for the non-Toyota teams by implementing a rule change requiring tapered spacers on the Toyota engines. This will take away about sixteen horsepower from the Toyotas, giving the Ford engines roughly a fourteen horsepower advantage over the rest of the field.

NASCAR has said that the new rule would apply to all new engine models regardless of the manufacturer. Toyota is the only manufacturer that has introduced a new engine to the series at this point in time.

This is just the opposite of what we expected. Racing has always been about advancing engine technology, among other things. Having to come up with a new engine that fell within the specs for Nationwide Series racing required much engineering and research, and the engine that Toyota came up with this year required a willingness to spend money for the development of their engine. Nobody accused Toyota of cheating, just that they had a better engine program than the other teams. In fact, with the exception of Roush, the other drivers and teams were pressuring their manufacturers to do more with the engines they had.

In other words, Ford, Chevy, and Dodge were not willing to spend the money and resources Toyota spent on engine development. NASCAR could have evened things up, rather than down by allowing the other manufacturers a few more tools in souping up the engines they had, but, instead put a damper on all new engine development.

The new rule isn't likely to make much of a difference at the short tracks, such as Richmond, or O'Reilly Motorsports Park, but at tracks with long straightaways and at the intermediate tracks, Roush-Fenway will have a noticeable advantage. Carl Edwards undoubtably has the most talent of any full-time driver in the Nationwide Series, and, coupled with the horsepower advantage NASCAR has handed his team, he has been given his second championship in a row in the series. The season may as well be over now.

This is unfortunate for the Nationwide Series, especially for Brad Keselowski, who drives the #88 Chevy for JR-Hendrick Motorsports. Keselowski is within a stone's throw from taking the championship lead, and, if he had been able to win the championship, could have been the first non-Cup series regular to win the championship since Martin Truex, Jr did it in 2005. The series was shaping up to having its own brand of competition and its own identity, but now that trend has hit a concrete wall.

This is not a conspriacy theory, because NASCAR has taken the action above board and in full view of the public. To be fair, the conspiracy theory that NASCAR was allowing Toyota a more powerful engine than the other manufacturers was bad PR for the organization, so they rectified it by openly giving the advantage to the team that complained the most. As the old saying goes, "The squeaky wheel gets the grease."

Congratulations to the 2008 Nationwide Series Champion, Carl Edwards.

Horsepower in the Windy City

The pre-race programming for the Nationwide Series races has the recurring theme of Nationwide teams complaining about the alleged Toyota horsepower advantage. Previous dynamometer tests on the engines have shown that the Gibbs Nationwide engines produce about twenty-two more horsepower than does the team's engine with the lowest horsepower. Rusty Wallace whose team runs Chevy engines, wants NASCAR to restrict the Gibbs team so they can't build powerful engines, while the rest of the Chevy and Ford teams want their manufacturers to step up their engine development programs in the series. The Dodge teams, notably Evernham and Ganassi, have remained strangely quite about the issue, perhaps not wanting to publicize the fact that they have as much horsepower as Toyota, something alluded to by one of the Dodge drivers early in the season (I attributed the blurted out information to Ryan Newman, but it may have been Elliot Sadler who said that).

Chevy plans to introduce the RO-7 engine that they use in the Cup Series to the Nationwide Series in 2009, while Ford and Dodge currently have no new engine program to compete with the Toyota.

NASCAR has said they will look into the difference in horsepower and see if they have to take any action to even things up (Rusty wants to even things down, but "up" is what the rest of the teams are looking for). That could include larger openings in the spacer plates NASCAR uses in the Nationwide and Truck Series for the Chevy and Ford engines.

Anyway, after the race at Chicagoland Friday night, NASCAR confiscated engines from nine different teams to ship to their R&D lab in Charlotte for dynamometer testing. They will see if there is a need to do anything to help the teams with the lower horsepower engines become more competitive with the teams that get more output from their engines.

As far as the race itself went, it was a clean race with only three cautions for the entire 300 miles. There wasn't much racing to talk about, and Kyle Busch won in the JGR #18 car, making it his fifth win in the Nationwide Series this season. The margin of victory was by a little more than three seconds over second place Denny Hamlin, who was driving the #32 Toyota for Todd Braun Racing. During the last part of the race, Hamlin had the fastest car on the track but all he could do in twenty laps was to turn a nine second deficit into a three second deficit. Brad Keselowski, who was ill, did not wimp out and brought his car to a third place finish, the highest finish among the Nationwide regulars.

The #20 team experienced its first missed set-up of the season, fighting a tight condition all evening long. Tony Stewart was able to "trick the car" into making the turns by driving harder than usual into the corners, and ended up with a ninth place finish.

The race should serve to remind us that Chicagoland is a boring track, even with the conventional cars. Still, there is no telling what could happen with the Sprint Cup cars Saturday night until it happens.

Someone will always try!

NASCAR has made it clear, right from the introduction of the new Sprint Cup car, that aerodynamic variations outside the limits set by the rules will not be tolerated. Saturday, however, we have learned that someone will always try, when NASCAR confiscated both cars that Haas CNC had entered in the Coca-Cola 600.

Today, we learned that NASCAR will be consistant, in this case, at least, when they imposed a total of $400,000 in fines on the Haas Teams. That's 100,000 each for each car owner, and each crew chief. Each team and driver was also penalized 150 points.

Still, it is a tradition in racing to try to get around the rules, in any way possible, to make the car faster. For the Haas teams, it was in changing the way the rear spoiler was mounted. Is it worth the fines? If it hadn't been discovered it would have been.

I salute the determination that these crew chiefs have to continue to try to innovate. That is part of NASCAR

A dissenting opinion

I have taken a week to collect my thoughts on the drug testing issue in NASCAR. Before I begin my rant, I must remind the reader that the opinion expressed here does not neccessarily reflect the opinion of all or any of the associate editors at NASCAR Bloggers FT Digest. It is soley my own. I do not advocate the use of drugs in any manner in any sport, professional or amateur.

My first thought is “what has become of the presumption ‘innocence until proven guilty?’”Any mandantory drug testing is based on the presumption of “guilty until proven innocent.”
Testing a person for drugs without probable cause is the equivalent of giving a person a ticket for jaywalking if he happens to be walking down the sidewalk. The pedestrian hasn’t crossed the street illegally, but he could, if he wanted to, so just fine him for something he didn’t do, but may intend to. A driver in NASCAR may have never, in his or her entire life, used substances that would impair his reactions, attention, or abilities to compete in a race, but because we are talking about a living, breathing, human being, there is always the possibility that the person could use drugs.



Granted, the laws against search and seizure without probable cause are only to protect the citizens of this country from the government, and do not apply to businesses and organizations such as NASCAR, but one would think that the presumption of innocence is more important to the state of freedom and well-being, than the paranoid presumption that everybody is doing something wrong, but just hasn’t been caught yet.

The point has often been made that if you are doing nothing wrong, then you have nothing to worry about, but that point is made without considering the psychological effect of not being trusted to have a basic knowledge of right and wrong. There is something rebellious in human nature that suggests, “if they think I am doing something wrong, I may as well do something wrong.”

That is not to say that one would react to the accusation of substance abuse by using illicit substances, but one may react by, for instance, running another car into the wall under the auspices of retaliation. Most of us have experienced the feeling of being accused of something that we haven’t done or ever had any intention of doing. It is not a good feeling; in fact, it is an emotionally painful feeling. We all want to be trusted.

The drivers in NASCAR are professionals. Unless they are caught in the emotional heat of the moment after a wreck, they do exercise immaculate personal responsibility. It is not only a matter of being competitive to them, but a matter of self-preservation. If a driver likes to drink beer, for example, he will make it a point to forego beer, beginning Wednesday night, and begin the process of hydrating and working out for the race Sunday. If the driver did not practice this regiman, he would undoubtably get sick, or lose the required attention skills it takes to race competively and safely. That is what personal responsibility is all about.

NASCAR’s present policy of testing only when there is probable cause isn’t only fair, it is safe. Shane Hmeil was caught under that policy, and Tim Richmond, though he had actually stopped using the drugs neccessary to prolong his life, was banned from racing because he was physically unable to race safely, as a result of NASCAR’s probable cause policy.

Tyler Walker and Aaron Fyke seemed to have slipped through the cracks of this policy, because they were caught by the police, and not by NASCAR. But they were caught, and were taken out of the mix before their drug use resulted in tragedy on the track. It will never be proven that either one of them was under the influence of an illicit substance while they were racing.

You could argue that Fyke said that he did take heroin on the same day he raced last year, when he finished in the top ten of a truck race. Yes he said it, but if he had actually done it, he would have been caught. If you have ever been around a heroin addict, you would know what I mean. If he wasn’t nodding off, his speech would have been slurred, his eyes would have been darting constantly, and his stride would have been unsteady, as if he were drunk. If he were allowed to climb, exhibiting those symptoms, into the racecar, he would have fallen on his butt trying to climb in through the window. He would not have made it past the first turn, much less finish in the top ten. Even if he were not under the influence, and was going through withdrawal, he would have been sweating much more profusely than anyone else around him, he would have been showing visible signs of stomach cramps, and there would have been an unmistakable oder about him, even if he hadn’t defecated in his firesuit because of the loss of control of bodily functions. And no, I am not describing Tony Stewart at Watkins Glen, two years ago–Fyke’s symptoms would have raised a red flag for anyone around him if what he said were true.

And I would rather call one person a liar, from what I know, than accepting what he said as the truth, and therefore having to consider everyone else a liar.

NASCAR’s current policy is not broken, so it doesn’t need to be fixed. However, one thing I would like to see encouraged, because over the counter remedies could also cause judgement problems–even if they sponsor a race or a group of teams–is that if a driver is so sick with the flu or a cold that he has to take medication, he should be replaced for the event. This would also be a matter of personal responsibility, and should be voluntary. Hopefully, that idea will catch on.

Cross posted from NASCAR Bloggers FT Digest, by the author

Is there a quick fix?

Everybody has ideas about how to repair the perceived problems in NASCAR. I say "perceived," because some of the problems are just journalistic pot stirring with no real basis, and I mean "everybody" because even people who don't pay attention to NASCAR have suggestions.
A lot of the blame goes to Brian France, some of it unjustified--"he is in Hendrick's pockets," some say--but much of it is justified. Why? Because Brian thinks like an accountant, without the savvy for NASCAR that his father and grandfather had.
So Brian felt compelled to spell out what he thought were the issues, during the Championship week in NYC. As quoted in this article by Daytona's Mark DeCotis, Brian made himself more of the problem:

"It would have helped if he (Dale Jr.) would have been competitive. He didn't win an event, and he certainly didn't make our playoffs. And that's unhelpful if you're trying to build ratings."

Way to go, Mr. France, you just disenfranchised the rest of the 66% of NASCAR fans who are Dale Jr fans.
Now to be fair, that quote was taken out of context. But, nonetheless what Brian meant to say is still pretty disingenuous. This is the kind of thinking he used when he, the NBC sports producers, and Nextel Racing officials came up with the Chase for the Championship, that people won't watch racing if the competition level isn't up to their expectations. He figures that his ratings are down because Dale Jr wasn't in the Chase.
Part of the drop in television ratings is due to the fact that there are other ways to watch a NASCAR race from home using the Internet. Another part is the ineptness of the broadcasting effort on the part of ESPN/ABC in the second half of the season. These are things that neither Brian France, nor NASCAR can do anything about.
Unlike Brian France, the officials in NASCAR who really are in a position to fix things need to look at three real problems and hope that the TV ratings and attendance fix themselves.
Throwing out complaints that are based on personal gripes, dislike of certain drivers or teams, and conspiracy theories, the three main issues I see that need to be addressed are as follows:
1. The main thing that really grates on our nerves, because it is so useless and disruptive, is the provisional rules for the top thirty five in owners points. When six of the top ten qualifying times are not good enough to be in the race, something is definitely wrong. There are now more than forty three teams that try to make the field every week, so the reasoning for the provisional rule is obsolete. This rule has led to a lot of fan frustration and disenfranchisement. If NASCAR would just get rid of it, it would help things some.
2. Make the CoT racier. Many fans are bored to death thinking about parity and the way it was manifested in the fall Talladega race. The testing at AMS didn't seem very promising either. Though it made for one of the most exciting road races in the history of Watkins Glen, the prospects for exciting racing on the speedways and superspeedways with the CoT don't look very promising. Maybe the tire testing Goodyear will be doing with the car during the off season will amount to something. Almost all of the handling problems drivers had with the car were due to the hard compound on the tires Goodyear insisted on providing. It would be easier to fix the tires than to wait for the drivers to learn to deal with it.
In addition to the tires, the CoT at Talledega was absolutely boring. After Watkins Glen, I had high expectations for the car, but perhaps they were too high. Perhaps some way to reduce the speed other than restricter plates could be found? These cars need something to help them pass, as they are not as aero dependent as the old car, so drafting will never be much more than drafting. I thought NASCAR wanted to discourage bump drafting, but with this big, boxy car there is no way to gain a position unless you are bump drafted. Please, NASCAR, try spacers, or a smaller engine, or something that will allow these cars to have the torque they need to actually race at the superspeedways. Racing need not be about the Big One, so there is no reason to set conditions to create an inevitable multi car wreck. Some fans enjoy crashes, but the majority would rather see more racing and fewer cautions.
3. My last fix is partly serious and partly tongue in cheek. It would do a lot for making an even playing field if NASCAR would follow its precedent of putting the biggest cheaters in the position of finding and penalizing cheaters. For example, according to this article Gary Nelson was the third place cheater in NASCAR history, as far as number and severity of penalties. What did NASCAR do with him after he retired? Since he knew so much about cheating, they put him in charge of race inspections. The same thing with fifth place cheater, Robin Pemberton, who was more recently installed of NASCAR President of Competition. Personally, I feel that if NASCAR is really concerned about a level playing field, they should immediately make Chad Knaus Vice President of competition. After all, at the time the article about the top five cheaters was written, Knaus was one major penalty away from replacing Pemberton in the top five. We could find out for sure, then, if Jimmie Johnson really is that good.
But seriously, NASCAR isn't about to do that, and it really would not be fair. What would be fair, is instead of trying so hard to find something wrong with the cars, NASCAR could be just a little more lenient as far as technical innovation goes. Let the crew chiefs be just a little more creative, and the competition will certainly be tighter.
There is another issue that people still complain about but is no longer a factor--the phantom cautions were ceased shortly after My Favorite Driver's "WWE" comment about the bogus officiating used to tighten up the field.
So, maybe NASCAR is in mind to follow my suggestions, since I am not the only one making these suggestions, they could actually hear these ideas. Perhaps they do make these repairs, and gain back the confidence of race fans.
Perhaps the best thing they could do right now is practice creative use of Duck Tape when Brian France attempts to speak.

Kansas: Whattha...?!?

Photo Credit: Mark J. Rebilas-US PRESSWIRE

We have to say that the Life Lock 400 turned out to be one of the most unique and, well, bizarre races we have ever seen. Even our ruby slippers wore out. And Greg Biffle finally ended up in Victory Lane. One can't help but to think that a mere thirty minutes more of rain would have resulted in a win for Tony Stewart, or even if the NASCAR officials suddenly became rational, Smoke would have won a called race. But, as most of us should know by now, NASCAR is anything but rational.
I will interject here that this isn't a report of the race, but a reaction to the event. If the reader didn't seen the race, I urge them to find somebody who TiVoed it, or at least to read an account of the race.
We wanted to see Da Biff win one. He is, after all one of the top drivers in the sport, and even if we aren't all that fond of him, it seemed frustrating to have to wait so long for him to win one.
The attrition rate among the Chasers was heavy, with seven of the twelve Chase drivers being involved in accidents. The entire Chase for the Championship has brought about moments of intensity that haven't been matched during the short history of the Chase. These guys are racing at a level we have never before seen. Amid all the carnage, we have seen some amazing and superior racing in Dover and Kansas. As dull as Loudon was--excepting Clint Bowyer's first victory--we knew the Chase had to get better, but never would we have expected this.
Who woulda thunk that Dale Earnhardt, Jr. would be the first non-chaser to carry the onus of taking out a championship contender? It was a rare misjudgement on the part of Driver #8, who is among the best drivers when it comes to car control. Running into the back of The Schrub's (Kyle Busch's) car changed the playoff picture quite drastically. But then, so did several other incidents during the race. For instance, Greg Zippadeli and the #20 team should not have waited to look at the decision to gamble in retrospect. We knew that the correct strategy should have been to pit and repair, and we could all foresee that the tire would deflate. This is yet another what if--Tony would have been much closer to the points lead if his team had made the rational decision. My question is, after the gamble to stay out just before the rain hit turned out a winner, did Zippy develop a temporary gambling addiction?
At both Dover and Kansas, Matt Kenseth seemed uncharacteristically aggressive. He had every right to be so, because in both races, he had an exceptional car. However, Dover ended in disaster for him, and he narrowly escaped disaster at Kansas. One should wonder, if Kenseth had stuck to his accustomed driving style, would he have won both races? We'll never know.
After Johnny Paul Montoya cut a tire, and shed debris all over the track with four laps to go, the race should have ended with a green-white-checker shootout. However, darkness fell, and the race ended under a bizarre caution. Bizarre because the race leader, Greg Biffle, ran out of fuel in the final turn and had to coast across the finish line. Now, I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the rules in this case are that the car must cross the finish line under its own momentum, which it did. Nobody pushed the car across the line, and the speed was reasonable in that nobody had to stop to avoid passing it. That is the other applicable rule, that the field is frozen at the time of the caution and that there is no passing under the caution. The Hendrick Motorsports drivers, namely The Gordon and Jimmie Johnson, decided to make their own interpretation of the rule, which, if allowed, would have created a paradoxical situation in which fifth place Casey Mears would have been the winner. For once, probably for the first time in the history of the organization, NASCAR made a rational decision and avoided the paradox, giving Greg Biffle the victory.
Something else that had nothing to do with the race seemed just as bizarre as the race itself. ABC/ESPN ran out of commercials to air. They must have. I don't think there were more than one or two of the annoying interruptions for the entire period after the coverage switched from ABC to ESPN2 due to time constraints. How unusual. once again, it would be a good idea to check CawsnJaws for details.
If it had rained for another thirty minutes, think what we would have missed.

My pick for the best quote of the weekend: Saturday, in the closing laps of the Busch Series race, Kyle Busch was running behind Matt Kenseth before a restart. On the back of Kenseth's Arby's sponsored car are the words "Free fries on Monday if I win."
Kyle radioed his Crew Chief, and asked,"Do I want free fries or radio call-in on Monday?" He chose the media hastle of the radio call-in by beating Kenseth to the checkers.
The best interview is a toss-up between the very informative one with Ray Everham, during the rain delay, and Clint Bowyer's post race interview in which he displayed profound sportsmanship.

Other news:
Stewart will not be penalized for expletive Told ya so. It turns out that it was not the same as it would have been had it been an interview. Though the audio was on with the camera, the commentators were talking over it, and it could not be heard clearly. Besides, no one was watching, anyway.

Motorsports icon Wally Parks dies at 94
Parks founded the NHRA in 1950, and is every bit as much a household word among race fans as Bill France. Drag racing as we know it was practically invented by the man. He served on the Board of Directors of the NHRA until his death last Friday.

How quickly things change.

Photo Credit: Jeff Roberson / The Associated Press


What an exciting finish to the Busch Series race at Kansas on Saturday. Matt Kenseth and Kyle "The Schrub" Busch battled it out for six laps to the finish, bringing back memories of "back in the day," when Petty and Pearson, or Pearson and Bobby Allison or (name your favorite rivalry) raced hard for the checkers. It was one great race.
Unfortunately for The Schrub, his team will be penalized for failing post race inspection. His intake manifold was confiscated, and we will likely hear about a penalty sometime next week.
Speaking about penalties, my favorite bad boy Tony Stewart will most likely get one for using inappropriate language on the air. It doesn't matter that it wasn't during an interview, but, rather, during a random, candid shot by the photographer, he will still get penalized, and likely get a heavy one since he is on probation. I think the ESPN director who switched to that camera and had the audio on should be fined as well. I am hoping that the penalty won't hurt Tony's chances for winning the Championship.
And, this has changed since my previous post: Jimmie Johnson will start at the rear of the field after crashing in Happy Hour practice, and going to a back up car. I'm not saying that the Johnson/Knaus team won't find their way toward the front, because they have demonstrated that they can, but it still changes the complexion of the race's early laps. Scott Riggs will be starting from the pole, as the inside line all moves up one row, so it will be a Ford vs Dodge start.
If Saturday is any indication of what we will see Sunday, we are in for a grand time.

Wrong

My regular reader knows that I am a Tony Stewart fan. Stewart, who finished third at Loudon, last week failed post race inspection for his car being too low at one fender. Under the watchful eyes of top NASCAR officials John Darby and Jim Hunter, the team was allowed to repair the race damage, and the car was reinspected, passing the inspection and resulting in no penalty.
Something similar went on in post-race inspection at Dover with the 99 team of Carl Edwards. His right rear fender was found to be too low, and, even though NASCAR officials found that the infraction was unintentional and not a CoT violation, Edwards was docked 25 championship points, and the team docked 25 owners points. We must be missing something here.
First of all, a low right rear fender would seriously effect the handling of the car, the wrong way. The car would push, meaning it would be difficult to turn in the corners, and would lose rear bite on the straightaways, making it very difficult to pass or avoid hazards. The penalty makes even less sense when considering this.
Right now, it seems like no biggy. It knocks Edwards from third in points to sixth, but still only 28 points behind championship leader The Gordon. As we have seen in the past, 25 points can be huge in the Championship Chase. In 2004, Jimmie Johnson lost the championship by to Kurt Busch by eight points. In 2005, Smoke won the championship by a mere 35 points over the tied second place of Carl Edwards and Greg Biffle.
I have read some comments claiming that the Edwards penalty shows that NASCAR is becoming more consistant, but how is that so? Where do you draw the line between unavoidable race damage and unintentional spec infractions? It now seems possible that NASCAR could use penalties to keep the points chase close, which would seriously compromise the value of the championship. We can only hope that this penalty is overruled by the appeals board. Otherwise, it is very wrong.

A Minor Rant on Points and Provisionals

Some NASCAR journalists and fans believe that giving championship points for winning pole qualifying would be a good idea. It really isn't, because it doesn't make sense under the current qualifying system. First of all, on most tracks on the ciruit, the pole position practically guarantees a five point bonus for leading the first lap, unless there are mechanical problems or the driver's reflexes are slow.
Secondly, bonus points for qualifying in first place would serve no logical purpose. The teams already have the incentive for making the car as fast as possible for qualifying, and the carrot of bonus points won't make the cars any faster. It may result in more reckless qualifying runs, as drivers try to gain bonus points and wreck their cars before the race actually starts. The "have not" teams who are only trying to get into the race would be left out of any chance for any pole position bonus points.
If there is to be any change in qualifying rules, it could be suggested that the top thirty-five provisionals rule be ammended. For instance, rather than carrying the provisional positions from the end of the previous season through the first five races, use the standings only for the first race, the Daytona 500, then apply the new points standings to the next race. The provisional system was added to the mix two years ago, when there were fewer full time teams in the NASCAR Nextel Cup series, and the idea was to reward the full time teams so they would have a starting position in every race. Now that there are more than forty-three teams who are attempting full time participation, the provisional rules are no longer relevant in that sense.
Personally speaking, I was never much of a fan of the thirty-five place provisionals. Being somewhat of a traditionalist, I sincerely believe that the forty-three fastest cars should be in the race. It would be a step in the right direction if the number of qualifying provisionals was reduced, to perhaps the top twenty in points. This would add to the level of competition, in both qualifying and racing, and would still make more sense than points for qualifying.

The Johnny Paul Invitational

Photo by: AFP/Luis Acosta
From the very beginning, there was little doubt that Juan Pablo Montoya (Johnny Paul Beauford to some people in the state of Washington) would win the NASCAR Busch Series road race in Mexico City. He took the lead early, lost it due to a fueling problem in the pits, and quickly returned up to the front of the pack. We got to see the kind of driving that has made JPM both famous and infamous.
It is not my intent to justify for Montoya the wrecking of his teammate to take the lead, it was purely a move of impatience. JPM would have won the race anyway--both he and his car clearly outclassed the rest of the field--so he didn't have to make the "kamikaze" move he did with eight lap to go. It would have been much more fun to watch him take Scott Pruett in the esses, or in the drag race to turn 1, or at least with more finesse in that turn than he exhibited.
In Formula 1, there is an understood "blue flag" rule, where the slower car, even if in the lead, is expected to let the faster car overtake. This could be why he decided to move when he did--he thought Pruett was slower, and that he would be given room to pass. JPM has said that he has much to learn, still, about racing in NASCAR, and we hope he learned something on his way to his first NASCAR victory.
All that aside, it was an exciting race. Denny Hamlin once again showed us his capability and competive prowess while he raced the more experienced JPM hard and close. That race had me on my feet and scaring the cats.
Update: The legislater who made the comments about NASCAR and NASCAR fans, has apologized and spun his earlier statements to mean the ISC. I still don't have his correct name, but I wonder if he read my blog on the subject.
Nah, I'm just being pretentious.

More on the importance of qualifying

NASCAR has now limited the number of champion's provisionals a driver can use in a season to six, according to this article in USA Today on-line.
This is a much needed step, in my opinion, and, to paraphrase Michael Waltrip, if you can't get in on qualifying time after six races, you are not having a good year and you need to do something about your program.
With all the teams that will be trying to qualify in every race this year, the championship provisional is just an added problem. NASCAR has been getting increasingly competitive over the past few years, and no driver really wants to be there as a "place marker." Six is a reasonable number at which to cap the provisionals.
Those of us who want to see Dale Jarrett do well with MWR (Michael Waltrip Racing) and Toyota need to have faith that the equipment is good enough for Dale to make it work. This just adds more excitement to the sport, which is a good thing.

I will go along with the changes NASCAR announced Monday. The additional points for the winner of each race is a points tweak that has been needed for a long time. The following chart showing the potential difference in the points standings is copyright of the Washington Post.

2006 Pre-Chase Standings

Pos. Driver Points
1. M. Kenseth 5,050
2. J. Johnson 5,045
3. K. Harvick 5,040
4. Ky. Busch 5,035
5. D. Hamlin 5,030
6. D. Earnhardt Jr. 5,025
7. M. Martin 5,020
8. J. Burton 5,015
9. J. Gordon 5,010
10. K. Kahne 5,005
11. T. Stewart --
12. G. Biffle --


2006 Pre-Chase Standings Under 2007 Points System*

Pos. Driver Points Wins Adj. Points
1. Kahne 5,000 5 5,050
2. Kenseth 5,000 4 5,040
3. Johnson 5,000 4 5,040
4. Harvick 5,000 3 5,030
5. Stewart 5,000 2 5,020
6. Gordon 5,000 2 5,020
7. Hamlin 5,000 2 5,020
8. Busch 5,000 1 5,010
9. Earnhardt 5,000 1 5,010
10. Biffle 5,000 1 5,010
11. Martin 5,000 0 5,000
12. Burton 5,000 0 5,000


*If the 2007 rules had been in effect, here's how the pre-chase standings would have looked last season

NASCAR may have a good idea

It isn't official, yet, but several news sources have reported that Brian France, Jim Hunter, and the ruling elite of NASCAR are bringing some changes to the Chase for the Championship. While any official announcement is still two weeks away, the changes aim toward allowing more drivers and teams in the playoffs by changing the 400 point cutoff currently in use. Rumors have been saying that the Championship field would be increased from ten to twelve, but according to what I have read, that is only a possibility if the cutoff numbers are increased enough to allow that.
My feelings come from the point of view of a racing traditionalist, and are still lukewarm when it comes to the Chase for the Championship. I am all for increasing the bonus in points for the winning driver of each race, but other than that, changes don't sit well with me. However, the Chase and NASCAR are continuing the recently discovered practice of staying in the news during the off season and giving us plenty to write and think about.
IROC fans who have read the article linked to above may be frustrated to see that the series opener has been postponed due to no sponser as yet. Sad news after an exceptional IROC season in '06.