Discussion:
If you could change ONE NASCAR rule, what would it be?
(too old to reply)
NasCzar
2006-07-24 14:33:17 UTC
Permalink
If you could change (or create) just one NASCAR rule, what would it be, and
why?

For me, that rule would be: No pitting under caution. The penalty would be
one lap and back of the pack. When the caution flag flies, everybody holds
their position on track until the restart.

Pros:
1. Pit crew safety. Currently, having all the cars come in nose to tail is
arguably the most dangerous situation for the pit crews. If the cars pitted
under green they would be more spread out, even if everyone pitted on the
same lap.
2. Shorter caution periods = more green flag racing. You could often skip
the multiple laps of caution needed to 1) gather up the field behind the
pace car 2) lead lap cars pit 3) lapped cars pit 4) double up the field
behind the pace car. If all that is needed is to go pick up a piece of
debris, you could be back to racing in just two laps.
3. Fewer half-fixed race cars running around the track dropping parts and
fluids trying to stay on the same lap after a wreck. Since you are going to
get a one lap penalty and start at the back of the pack, you might as well
take the extra time to repair the damage as best you can.
4. Fewer races decided by fuel conservation strategies. You couldn't risk
stretching a tank of gas to the very last lap lest the caution come out
before you pit.
5. No more double-file restarts (see below, too.) It has always bothered
me that a car that had been lapped by the top ten cars (for example) is
allowed to pull up beside the leader.
6. No more confusion caused by cars at the tail end of the lead lap. The
twits at TNT failed to notice on the lap 195 restart at Loudon that 7 cars
that were a lap down that had not unlapped themselves by not pitting were
allowed to pull up beside the first car at the tail end of the lead lap
instead of pulling up beside the leader, 8 cars back. This effectively
unlapped them without them doing anything to earn it, and also allowed them
to gain positions on the cars that were at the tail end of the lead lap. (I
really need accurate lap charts to figure out exactly who gained an unfair
advantage, so if anybody has a source for those, please let me know!)
7. Cars that are trapped laps down by a caution won't be at a disadvantage,
because they will gain those laps back when the other cars pit under green,
too.

Cons:
1. A lot more confusion on timing and scoring, because there will be a lot
more green flag pit stops jumbling up the running order.
2. It won't be as obvious to the fans at the track or TV viewers which
drivers and crews gained or lost on pit stops.
3. No more double-file restarts. I will admit that this makes the racing
more exciting, even if it is often unfair to the lead lap cars.
4. More arguments between Larry and Darrell or Wally and Benny about pit
strategy (do we really want to give them MORE to talk about?)

Let me know what you think about my rule, and tell me about yours!
--
The NasCzar

Overheard on the radio at Darlington:
Junior Johnson: "Darrell, what turns are you having trouble in?"
Darrell Waltrip (in a high-pitched voice): "The lefts!"
jim
2006-07-24 19:51:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by NasCzar
If you could change (or create) just one NASCAR rule, what would it be, and
why?
For me, that rule would be: No pitting under caution. The penalty would be
one lap and back of the pack. When the caution flag flies, everybody holds
their position on track until the restart.
SNIP

Ya know, that actually isn't a bad idea! Needs to have some rules worked out
concerning the wrecked cars and those caught on pit road when cautions come
out but it might just make better racing!
Jim
WildWeasel
2006-07-24 22:29:24 UTC
Permalink
"NasCzar" wrote ...
Post by NasCzar
If you could change (or create) just one NASCAR rule, what would it be, and
why?
I'd create a rule to turn the rule making over to RASNM and not let nascar make
any more rules AND make this new rule retroactive to prior to the lucky dog and
the chase thereby rolling back those rules.
Post by NasCzar
For me, that rule would be: No pitting under caution. The penalty would be
one lap and back of the pack. When the caution flag flies, everybody holds
their position on track until the restart.
1. Pit crew safety. Currently, having all the cars come in nose to tail is
arguably the most dangerous situation for the pit crews. If the cars pitted
under green they would be more spread out, even if everyone pitted on the
same lap.
2. Shorter caution periods = more green flag racing. You could often skip
the multiple laps of caution needed to 1) gather up the field behind the
pace car 2) lead lap cars pit 3) lapped cars pit 4) double up the field
behind the pace car. If all that is needed is to go pick up a piece of
debris, you could be back to racing in just two laps.
This is an interesting rule you propose but I'm going to challenge this point:
I don't see cautions getting any shorter. Cautions are when nascar and their
teevee partners ring the sales bell and open the cash register. Even if your
plan COULD make shorter cautions (which I don't see as you still need to gather
up the field, some will still pit and take the penalty, now you have to sort out
the penalties, then one to go and ... so even if you COULD, nascar has no
fiscally sound reason to shorten them. More and longer (perhaps even planned
stoppages) are going to be the rule (hence MY rule!).
Post by NasCzar
3. Fewer half-fixed race cars running around the track dropping parts and
fluids trying to stay on the same lap after a wreck. Since you are going to
get a one lap penalty and start at the back of the pack, you might as well
take the extra time to repair the damage as best you can.
Ok, and this one. As all other things will be equal, wrecks will still be on
the track if there are points to be gained. Making all points after ... say
35th position the same, say 15 points, THAT would get the last 8 wrecks off the
track.
Post by NasCzar
4. Fewer races decided by fuel conservation strategies. You couldn't risk
stretching a tank of gas to the very last lap lest the caution come out
before you pit.
5. No more double-file restarts (see below, too.) It has always bothered
me that a car that had been lapped by the top ten cars (for example) is
allowed to pull up beside the leader.
6. No more confusion caused by cars at the tail end of the lead lap. The
twits at TNT ...
Here you'll need to do something about the twits. If not this, they'll screw up
something else (Marty will pass it off to them being human, just watch!)
Post by NasCzar
failed to notice on the lap 195 restart at Loudon that 7 cars
that were a lap down that had not unlapped themselves by not pitting were
allowed to pull up beside the first car at the tail end of the lead lap
instead of pulling up beside the leader, 8 cars back. This effectively
unlapped them without them doing anything to earn it, and also allowed them
to gain positions on the cars that were at the tail end of the lead lap. (I
really need accurate lap charts to figure out exactly who gained an unfair
advantage, so if anybody has a source for those, please let me know!)
7. Cars that are trapped laps down by a caution won't be at a disadvantage,
because they will gain those laps back when the other cars pit under green,
too.
1. A lot more confusion on timing and scoring, because there will be a lot
more green flag pit stops jumbling up the running order.
Not a problem with scoring loops and computers.
Post by NasCzar
2. It won't be as obvious to the fans at the track or TV viewers which
drivers and crews gained or lost on pit stops.
It was beautiful out and was outside, less and less is obvious to me.
Post by NasCzar
3. No more double-file restarts. I will admit that this makes the racing
more exciting, even if it is often unfair to the lead lap cars.
Why not double them up like the start?
1-2
3-4
5-6 ...
Post by NasCzar
4. More arguments between Larry and Darrell or Wally and Benny about pit
strategy (do we really want to give them MORE to talk about?)
(see "Twits" above)
Post by NasCzar
Let me know what you think about my rule, and tell me about yours!
--
The NasCzar
Junior Johnson: "Darrell, what turns are you having trouble in?"
Darrell Waltrip (in a high-pitched voice): "The lefts!"
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
2006-07-25 00:53:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by WildWeasel
Post by NasCzar
...
6. No more confusion caused by cars at the tail end of the lead lap. The
twits at TNT ...
Here you'll need to do something about the twits. If not this, they'll screw up
something else (Marty will pass it off to them being human, just watch!)
Yes, I will.

Being human covers a multitude of sins. ;o)
Post by WildWeasel
Post by NasCzar
... Let me know what you think about my rule, and tell me about yours!
I don't mind pit stops under cautions.

If I could change one rule, I'd make all the cars line up EXACTLY
where they were in the on-track order at the time of the caution.

In other words, if a lapped car was the fifth car behind the leader,
it would go in row three, not get to interfere with the four cars that
were ahead of it on the track.

To implement this, there would have to be some real-time
heads-up displays on the driver's dashboard controlled by
NASCAR. When the yellow warning light flashed inside
the car (part of the system), the starting position for the
driver would be displayed. As cars went to the pits,
the starting position would be recalculated and
re-displayed as needed.

I'd also let the heads-up display tell the driver his
speed on pit road according to NASCAR's reading
of it. I hate the guessing games about tach readings.
Give the drivers all the information they need to drive
right on pit road. They need to be looking out the
window, not watching the tach.

Marty
NasCzar
2006-07-25 18:09:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin X. Moleski, SJ
If I could change one rule, I'd make all the cars line up EXACTLY
where they were in the on-track order at the time of the caution.
In other words, if a lapped car was the fifth car behind the leader,
it would go in row three, not get to interfere with the four cars that
were ahead of it on the track.
So let me get this straight. You want to keep the cars in order, but have
double-file restarts?
So if the running order on track (regardless of what lap they're on) is 1,
2, 3, 4, 5, 6
they would restart

1 2
3 4
5 6

Is that what you want?

If so, I have a couple of questions for you.

1. Does the leader get to choose which line to restart from (as is
currently the case only on road courses?)
2. Don't you think this is unfair to the even-positioned cars at many
tracks? (I'm assuming the leader will choose the preferred line every
time.)

The part I like about your rule is that lapped cars do not get to make up
positions on lead lap cars that have passed them under green. That is one
consequence of the current system that really needs to be fixed. As I've
written elsewhere, and will say many times (get used to it) I don't see what
NASCAR seems to see, that more cars on the lead lap leads to better racing.

The NasCzar
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
2006-07-25 18:22:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by NasCzar
So let me get this straight. You want to keep the cars in order, but have
double-file restarts?
Yes.
Post by NasCzar
So if the running order on track (regardless of what lap they're on) is 1,
2, 3, 4, 5, 6
they would restart
1 2
3 4
5 6
Is that what you want?
Yes.
Post by NasCzar
If so, I have a couple of questions for you.
1. Does the leader get to choose which line to restart from (as is
currently the case only on road courses?)
That's OK with me.
Post by NasCzar
2. Don't you think this is unfair to the even-positioned cars at many
tracks? (I'm assuming the leader will choose the preferred line every
time.)
It may be. But it keeps the really slow cars out of the
way of guys who want to race each other for position,
and it doesn't take anything away from someone who
has been racing to try to pass the leader and get a
lap back.
Post by NasCzar
The part I like about your rule is that lapped cars do not get to make up
positions on lead lap cars that have passed them under green.
Yup.

Please note that I don't have strong feelings about this.
I'm not going to go on a campaign to change the rules. ;o)

Marty
avalanche*
2006-07-26 02:26:27 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:53:04 CST, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
Post by Martin X. Moleski, SJ
I'd also let the heads-up display tell the driver his
speed on pit road according to NASCAR's reading
of it. I hate the guessing games about tach readings.
Give the drivers all the information they need to drive
right on pit road. They need to be looking out the
window, not watching the tach.
Marty
I go with this. Announcers noted Kyle took pit 1 at Pocono-so he
couldn't speed -again- into pit road. So dummy sped *off* pit road!
Bob Paxton
2006-07-24 22:54:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by NasCzar
If you could change (or create) just one NASCAR rule, what would it be, and
why?
For me, that rule would be: No pitting under caution. The penalty would be
one lap and back of the pack. When the caution flag flies, everybody holds
their position on track until the restart.
I don't know about that. That opens up the possibility that a caution
would come out at the end of a fuel run. It hardly seems fair that an
ill-timed caution would end up costing a team the penalty you mentioned
because they *had* to pit for fuel.

If you're looking to reduce the number of pit stops, I wouldn't mind
seeing a tire rule like they have in Busch.

But to answer your question, there are actually two rules I'd like to
change. I'm not sure which one I'd pick if I could only have one.

One rule I would change is the one that makes the lead lap cars start
on the outside of a double file restart. I say give the lead lap cars
the preferred line. The way they do it now defies common sense.

The other rule I'd change is the way the Lucky Dog works. I'd
establish a "Lucky Dog Zone" behind the leader. Every lapped car in
the zone (which would be defined as seconds behind the leader) gets a
lap back when the yellow comes out. That would more closely resemble
the way it worked when the leader would slow down and several cars
would get by before crossing the line. It would also eliminate the
ridiculous practice of giving a lap back to someone who is nowhere near
being "in touch" with the leader at the moment of caution.
Kevin
2006-07-25 00:56:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Paxton
The other rule I'd change is the way the Lucky Dog works.
I'd get rid of it altogether!
NasCzar
2006-07-25 18:13:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin
Post by Bob Paxton
The other rule I'd change is the way the Lucky Dog works.
I'd get rid of it altogether!
My rule would eliminate the lucky dog, so I'm with you on that.

But if you could change just ONE rule, would that be your choice?

The NasCzar
Tom S
2006-07-26 02:00:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by NasCzar
Post by Kevin
Post by Bob Paxton
The other rule I'd change is the way the Lucky Dog works.
I'd get rid of it altogether!
My rule would eliminate the lucky dog, so I'm with you on that.
But if you could change just ONE rule, would that be your choice?
You have to remember the reason they instituted the Lucky Dog rule in
the first place. It was a safety issue; it eliminated racing back to
the yellow.

Before the Lucky Dog, every one could and would continue at full speed
until they "received the yellow", I.e., passed under the flagstand
with the flagman waving the yellow flag. This meant that a
significant portion of the field was racing, at full tilt, past the
wreck, through debris, slowing the emergency response 'cause they
can't enter the track until the cars have slowed, placing the wrecked
drivers in increased danger, etc.

The Lucky Dog was implemented to stop racing back to the yellow and to
formalize the gentleman's understand that the leader would slow down
some to let passed cars make up a lap, as long as he could do so
without losing the lead.

I don't especially like it either, but I can's think of a better
solution the problem.

Tom S
NasCzar
2006-07-25 12:00:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Paxton
I don't know about that. That opens up the possibility that a caution
would come out at the end of a fuel run. It hardly seems fair that an
ill-timed caution would end up costing a team the penalty you mentioned
because they *had* to pit for fuel.
That's what I meant about taking fuel conservation strategies out of the
game. Since teams couldn't risk being caught out of the pits at the end of
a fuel run, they would have to pit at least a few laps early. Since you
won't be planning to use all the fuel in the tank, the driver could drive as
hard as necessary. I think this would lead to better racing.

We already see the same thing today because of the green-white-checker rule.
It used to be that teams would short pit at Pocono (for example, this won't
work at Bristol) as soon as they could make it to the end on fuel. Now they
have to wait a few more laps before they can do that because they have to
allow for "overtime".
Post by Bob Paxton
If you're looking to reduce the number of pit stops, I wouldn't mind
seeing a tire rule like they have in Busch.
I'm not looking to reduce the number of pit stops, I'm looking to reduce
the number of caution laps.
I do like limited tire rules, though. When you limit the number of tires
allowed, Goodyear has to make a harder tire, which leads to less grip, which
requires more driving skill and lets good driving win more races than the
luck of when you pit and when the cautions fall. (My English teacher hated
that run-on sentence, I know.)
Post by Bob Paxton
The other rule I'd change is the way the Lucky Dog works.
My rule would eliminate the lucky dog. If you want back on the lead lap,
you will have to outrun the leader.
I'm not sure where NASCAR got the idea that having more cars on the lead lap
makes for better racing. As it is, unless you can afford to go to the
race, you only get to see the top five or ten most of the time anyway. The
way I see it, if being a lap down was still a difficult thing to overcome,
you'd see more drivers at the back of the pack trying to race harder to stay
ahead of the leader. That would produce better racing, IMHO.

The NasCzar.
Bob Paxton
2006-07-25 17:39:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by NasCzar
That's what I meant about taking fuel conservation strategies out of the
game. Since teams couldn't risk being caught out of the pits at the end of
a fuel run, they would have to pit at least a few laps early. Since you
won't be planning to use all the fuel in the tank, the driver could drive as
hard as necessary. I think this would lead to better racing.
Somehow this just seems somewhat related to the idea of moving first
base closer to home plate in order to eliminate close plays. I don't
see how you can take fuel strategy out of the game, and I don't
necessarily consider fuel strategy a detriment to the quality of
racing.

For example, consider this. Team A routinely pits five laps early
fearing the consequences of your rule. Team B gambles and runs the
full length of every fuel run. What you have there in effect is a
bigger fuel tank in Team B's car--and the possibility that Team B can
make the race on one less stop--or at least come in for just a spash at
the end while Team A needs nearly a full tank.

Also, how often do you see a driver back it down for the specific
purpose of saving fuel? Not very often, so it seems to me that the
positive effects you see for your rule are largely theoretical.
Post by NasCzar
My rule would eliminate the lucky dog. If you want back on the lead lap,
you will have to outrun the leader.
That sounds good in theory, but creates problems in practice.

If you eliminated the Lucky Dog, it would make life hell for the
frontrunners because you'd see a dramatic upsurge in slower cars trying
to block the leader in order to avoid going a lap down. That would
clearly be a more dangerous situation than the one where the slower car
lets the leader by cleanly knowing he can get his lap back on a
caution.

Of course NA$CAr could make an anti-blocking rule, but now you've just
put more judgment in the officials hands--not a good thing.
Post by NasCzar
I'm not sure where NASCAR got the idea that having more cars on the lead lap
makes for better racing.
What makes for better racing is fewer wrecked cars, and my bet is that
eliminating the Lucky Dog would make for more wrecks.
NasCzar
2006-07-25 19:35:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Paxton
Somehow this just seems somewhat related to the idea of moving first
base closer to home plate in order to eliminate close plays. I don't
see how you can take fuel strategy out of the game, and I don't
necessarily consider fuel strategy a detriment to the quality of
racing.
I think you're right about that; changing fuel strategies won't eliminate
fuel strategies.
Post by Bob Paxton
Post by NasCzar
My rule would eliminate the lucky dog. If you want back on the lead
lap, you will have to outrun the leader.
That sounds good in theory, but creates problems in practice.
If you eliminated the Lucky Dog, it would make life hell for the
frontrunners because you'd see a dramatic upsurge in slower cars trying
to block the leader in order to avoid going a lap down. That would
clearly be a more dangerous situation than the one where the slower car
lets the leader by cleanly knowing he can get his lap back on a
caution.
I disagree. The lucky dog rule has only been around a couple of years, and
I haven't seen any reduction in the number of crashes. I see just as many
wrecks caused by lapped cars trying to unlap themselves (or save laps) as
before.
The stated purpose of the lucky dog rule was to make up for the lost
opportunity to make up a lap by racing back to the flag stand when the
caution flag flies. The rule change to eliminate racing back to the flag
stand was for safety purposes, to which end it does seem to be effective. I
would keep that, but the lucky dog would go.

Your argument about lapped cars being more willing to let the leader by
fails to convince me due to your own "first base" argument. Why would
drivers be any more willing to let the leader by if they thought the next
driver ahead of them is going to do the same thing?
I also disagree with your argument that it makes for a more dangerous
situation. I think it is more dangerous when a driver can't anticipate what
others drivers are going to do. Even with the lucky dog rule, the nearly
lapped driver may fight to stay on the lead lap just as hard as before, but
maybe not. Some drivers will fight you every time, others will let you go
(almost) every time, but with most, the leader doesn't know what to expect.
I think that the leader knowing that every driver will fight for the lap
will lead to a LESS dangerous situation.
Post by Bob Paxton
Of course NA$CAr could make an anti-blocking rule, but now you've just
put more judgment in the officials hands--not a good thing.
NA$CAR already has an anti-blocking rule. The driver ahead may choose the
line he takes; changing lines can be considered aggressive driving and
penalized. It is their weak enforcement which makes it seem that they don't
have a rule. I have been to drivers' meetings, and at every one I've been
to, they refer to the rule and say "We want you drivers to keep the
'gentleman's agreement' about this; don't make us step in." Well, NASCAR
realized that the 'gentleman's agreement' about racing back to the flag
stand wasn't being kept, so they finally made that a hard and fast rule.
They need to do the same thing about blocking.

However, I can think of no way to write an anti-blocking rule which can be
consistently enforced (and like you, I'm not in favor of official judgement
calls, either.) So I wouldn't have an anti-blocking rule at all. An
unenforceable rule is worse than no rule at all.

Of course, one might argue that this policy would lead to more wrecks. I
doubt it, since there is effectively no rule now. You can't miss what you
don't have.

The NasCzar
WildWeasel
2006-07-25 20:15:54 UTC
Permalink
"NasCzar" wrote ...
Post by NasCzar
I disagree. The lucky dog rule has only been around a couple of years, and
I haven't seen any reduction in the number of crashes. I see just as many
wrecks caused by lapped cars trying to unlap themselves (or save laps) as
before.
The stated purpose of the lucky dog rule was to make up for the lost
opportunity to make up a lap by racing back to the flag stand when the
caution flag flies. The rule change to eliminate racing back to the flag
stand was for safety purposes, to which end it does seem to be effective. I
would keep that, but the lucky dog would go.
How can you say that the ending of racing back to the yellow has been effective
with regards to safety? Fewer wrecks while racing back to the yellow? Fewer
than zero?

I think the elimination of racing back to the yellow had little to do with
actual safety and all to do with the growing absurdity of letting teammates get
their lap back.
Steve Scott
2006-07-25 23:26:03 UTC
Permalink
Then why did the rule change occur after the DJ incident at Loudon
instead of after someone let a team mate ahead of them?

Is there any other motor racing series, tracks, etc that allow racing
back to the flag under yellow? There may be but none I'm aware of.
In all other instances the racing stops once the yellow is displayed
and most go back to the positions under the last completed green flag
lap.

Personally, I'd like to see NASCAR go to about a 30 minute race. Run
the trucks, Busch and then the Cup cars all at the same venue. Never
happen but the racing would be better.

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:15:54 CST, "WildWeasel"
Post by WildWeasel
I think the elimination of racing back to the yellow had little to do with
actual safety and all to do with the growing absurdity of letting teammates get
their lap back.
--
2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.
WildWeasel
2006-07-26 02:46:37 UTC
Permalink
"Steve Scott" wrote ...
Post by Steve Scott
Then why did the rule change occur after the DJ incident at Loudon
instead of after someone let a team mate ahead of them?
First, there was no "DJ incident" - nothing happened. If you want talk about
incidents of REAL danger with actual crashes and injuries how about plate racing
in general, slam drafting and anything Tony Stewart. There are some actual
incidents nascar may want to address before they go after phantom incidents.
And second, nascar was looking for a reason to stop the teammate lap giving that
had gotten ridiculous and DJ handed them the perfectly matched set of smoke and
mirrors.

Most times there was no problem, the leader kept going, everybody maintained
their position and life was good. It got to be a problem when the leader would
slow to let some get a lap back, then there was a jail break to pass the leader
and 2003 saw a lot of that stupidity. Then came the lucky dog and the random
red flag and the GWC. 2003 was a weird year. And then we got the chase in 2004
...

(The only reason for not racing back to the yellow (in my view) is track safety
crew response time)
Post by Steve Scott
Is there any other motor racing series, tracks, etc that allow racing
back to the flag under yellow? There may be but none I'm aware of.
In all other instances the racing stops once the yellow is displayed
and most go back to the positions under the last completed green flag
lap.
Personally, I'd like to see NASCAR go to about a 30 minute race. Run
the trucks, Busch and then the Cup cars all at the same venue. Never
happen but the racing would be better.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:15:54 CST, "WildWeasel"
Post by WildWeasel
I think the elimination of racing back to the yellow had little to do with
actual safety and all to do with the growing absurdity of letting teammates get
their lap back.
--
2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.
Bob Paxton
2006-07-26 13:32:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by WildWeasel
(The only reason for not racing back to the yellow (in my view) is track safety
crew response time)
BINGO. And that's a good enough reason to override any and every
argument for doing it the other way.

99.999% if the time it's not hugely significant, but the day could come
when giving the safety crew that extra minute or so could be the
difference between life and death for an unconscious driver in a
burning car.
WildWeasel
2006-07-26 15:12:35 UTC
Permalink
"Bob Paxton" wrote ...
Post by Bob Paxton
Post by WildWeasel
(The only reason for not racing back to the yellow (in my view) is track safety
crew response time)
BINGO. And that's a good enough reason to override any and every
argument for doing it the other way.
99.999% if the time it's not hugely significant, but the day could come
when giving the safety crew that extra minute or so could be the
difference between life and death for an unconscious driver in a
burning car.
I agree Bob, but is making a huge change for the .001% chance the only way? If
that were the criteria they'd be running with air bags, brake lights, turn
signals and REALLY LOUD HORNS!

In cases of fire, *serious* wreck, wreck at the start finish line ... the yellow
and red simultaneously could stop all racing immediately (as opposed to the red
alone that stops all cars). For the other 99,999 cautions out of 100,000 the
old yellow seemed to be just fine. (BTW, over the last 3 years nascar has
averaged 333 cup cautions (for ~1,800 laps) each year making it a once every 300
year occurrence (using your 99.999% swag, which may be off by a factor of 10,
<g>))*

Just seemed to me to be a overreaction to a problem that didn't really exist and
was used to fix a totally unrelated problem.

Especially considering that racing is dangerous and there were more real issues
they could have been addressing.

------------------------------------------------------

* so, while I have the numbers out, cautions over the last 3 years:

2003: 315 for 1811 laps
2004: 313 for 1775
2005: 373 for 1786
2006 through 20 races (assuming cautions through the season are linear) on pace
for: 337 for 1521
WildWeasel
2006-07-26 15:26:23 UTC
Permalink
"WildWeasel" wrote ...
Post by WildWeasel
2003: 315 for 1811 laps
2004: 313 for 1775
2005: 373 for 1786
2006 through 20 races (assuming cautions through the season are linear) on
pace for: 337 for 1521
ooops, thanks to www.racing-reference.info
John McCoy
2006-07-27 01:59:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by WildWeasel
In cases of fire, *serious* wreck, wreck at the start finish line ...
the yellow and red simultaneously could stop all racing immediately
(as opposed to the red alone that stops all cars).
That is exactly what I suggested, a year or two back.

This deal where the yellow comes out, then the pace car stops
the field, and then the red is displayed, is a pretty new
system (and an excellent example of NASCAR's current managment
being devoid of clue). In the old days, when the red was
displayed it meant stop now! There's no reason that system
couldn't be reinstated - yellow comes out, you race back to
the line. Serious problem, red comes out, you stop racing
immediately (and proceed slowly to the pits).

However, if that system was reinstated NASCAR would (as much
as I hate to say it) have to do something about the giving
of laps back. That whole "gentlemens agreement" that Gordon
and others moaned about was bullpucky - back when the likes
of Petty & Pearson raced, if a guy was a lap down the leader
kept him a lap down, if there was any way it could be done.
They'd never consider slowing to let guys get their lap
back "gentlemanly", they'd consider it effete. Solve that
problem & you've cured the reason we got the no racing &
lucky dog rules in the first place.

John
Steve Scott
2006-07-29 16:55:39 UTC
Permalink
Nothing happened...that time. Should NASCAR again wait until
something happens to act - a la Earnhardt?

DJ was spun facing oncoming traffic right off the corner. To make
matter worse he had unstrapped and pulled his steering wheel off.
Dumb on his part but some times people do things without fully
thinking of the consequences.

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:46:37 CST, "WildWeasel"
Post by WildWeasel
"Steve Scott" wrote ...
Post by Steve Scott
Then why did the rule change occur after the DJ incident at Loudon
instead of after someone let a team mate ahead of them?
First, there was no "DJ incident" - nothing happened.
--
2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.
Scott Stevenson
2006-07-26 12:18:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Scott
Then why did the rule change occur after the DJ incident at Loudon
instead of after someone let a team mate ahead of them?
I've gotta agree with you. I'm not a huge fan of the way NASCAR
makes its rules, but that's a call I agree with. It's a lot better to
make the rule before somebody gets seriously hurt.
Post by Steve Scott
Is there any other motor racing series, tracks, etc that allow racing
back to the flag under yellow? There may be but none I'm aware of.
I'm not aware of any.
Post by Steve Scott
In all other instances the racing stops once the yellow is displayed
and most go back to the positions under the last completed green flag
lap.
Personally, I'd like to see NASCAR go to about a 30 minute race. Run
the trucks, Busch and then the Cup cars all at the same venue. Never
happen but the racing would be better.
Or if you wanted to do a real "short track Saturday night" kind of
promotion, each Busch driver (in order of Busch points) picks a CTS
driver to be his/her "partner" before truck qualifying. Where the
truck guy finishes is where you start the Busch race, and you do the
same thing with the Cup guys picking a Busch driver to partner with.
For added spice, invert each field. The number to be inverted is
equal to the car/truck number of the winner of the previous race. If
Aaron Fike wins the Busch race, then the first shall be last...

take care,
Scott
Mike Marlow
2006-07-26 16:02:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Scott
Then why did the rule change occur after the DJ incident at Loudon
instead of after someone let a team mate ahead of them?
The rule had been under discussion for several weeks before "the DJ
incident" as you call it. There was of course, no incident. He simply
wrecked and people drove around him.
Post by Steve Scott
Personally, I'd like to see NASCAR go to about a 30 minute race. Run
the trucks, Busch and then the Cup cars all at the same venue. Never
happen but the racing would be better.
Well - tape the race off of the TV, then go back and watch it and fast
forward through all of the commercials. You'll end up with 30 minutes of
real racing to watch. Of course you won't get the Trucks and Busch cars in
the same race, but if that's what you really think would be good you need to
find another race series to follow.
--
-Mike-
***@alltel.net
David Long
2006-07-25 15:11:45 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:54:11 CST, "Bob Paxton"
Post by Bob Paxton
One rule I would change is the one that makes the lead lap cars start
on the outside of a double file restart. I say give the lead lap cars
the preferred line. The way they do it now defies common sense.
I certainly agree here. I mean, when they line up, the Pole Position
car is on the INSIDE line - has the CHOICE to go to the outside if he
wants (like at a road course).

At ovals, the lead lap cars should be on the inside.
NasCzar
2006-07-25 20:23:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Long
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:54:11 CST, "Bob Paxton"
Post by Bob Paxton
One rule I would change is the one that makes the lead lap cars start
on the outside of a double file restart. I say give the lead lap cars
the preferred line. The way they do it now defies common sense.
I certainly agree here. I mean, when they line up, the Pole Position
car is on the INSIDE line - has the CHOICE to go to the outside if he
wants (like at a road course).
At ovals, the lead lap cars should be on the inside.
I beg to differ with both of you. The lack of double-file restarts in
open-wheel racing doesn't seem to detract from the quality of the
competition. Of course, in open-wheel, the rationale behind single-file
restarts is safety. Double-file restarts in open-wheel cars is ludicrously
dangerous, so they don't have them. I'm surprised they have continued the
practice at the start of the race.

I'll admit I'm stubborn in holding my opinion that giving drivers unearned
positions is unfair. But until someone convinces me that these practices
actually produce better competition, I'm sticking to it.

The NasCzar
Chuck Steak
2006-07-26 19:49:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by NasCzar
Post by David Long
At ovals, the lead lap cars should be on the inside.
I beg to differ
until someone convinces me that these practices
actually produce better competition, I'm sticking to it.
The NasCzar
Example.
Bristol.
One of the most difficult tracks to pass on.

16 laps to go, there is a caution.
First 6 guys are running bumper to bumper.
Pretty much still anyone's race.
Yellow is out, fast guys are on the outside, "no man's land".
Guy in 6th spot for the last 25 laps is now 12th
because Joe Nemechek has hit the wall for the third time...

Would have been a better finish had the top 6 guys raced each other,
and not lapped traffic.

I see absolutely NO legit reason why the backmarkers are "owed"
the fast lane on the restarts, while the guys that have been putting
on the "show" and going for the money,
are forced to start in the crapper lane...


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan

I got a new Matco tool box for my wife.
Best trade I ever made...
NasCzar
2006-07-26 22:43:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chuck Steak
Example.
Bristol.
Since I think giving the lapped cars ANY track position is unfair, I have to
agree with you that giving them track position and the preferred line is
REALLY unfair.
But, using Bristol as an example of what's wrong with a particular rule is
using an exception to prove the rule. Not to mention that things change.
At one time, Harry Gant used to paste the competition at Bristol running
right up against the wall. He would love to start on the outside (then, not
now.)

The NasCzar

P.S. Since your particular beef is with the lapped cars starting on the
inside, it might be instructive to you to know why NASCAR does it that way.
Quite simply, since the lapped cars pit after the lead lap cars, when they
come out of the pits they are on the inside of the track. It is much
quicker to get the cars lined up for the restart if you leave them there.
It has nothing to do with NASCAR trying to give lapped cars an advantage,
it's just much easier to restart the race that way.
John McCoy
2006-07-27 02:02:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by NasCzar
P.S. Since your particular beef is with the lapped cars starting on
the inside, it might be instructive to you to know why NASCAR does it
that way. Quite simply, since the lapped cars pit after the lead lap
cars, when they come out of the pits they are on the inside of the
track. It is much quicker to get the cars lined up for the restart if
you leave them there. It has nothing to do with NASCAR trying to give
lapped cars an advantage, it's just much easier to restart the race
that way.
I don't buy that. The Busch series used to line the lappers up
on the outside - if the "less experienced" drivers in that series
could figure it out, there's no reason the big names in the Cup
series couldn't do likewise.

John
NasCzar
2006-07-27 22:19:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McCoy
I don't buy that. The Busch series used to line the lappers up
on the outside - if the "less experienced" drivers in that series
could figure it out, there's no reason the big names in the Cup
series couldn't do likewise.
The key words there are "used to". In order to get the lapped cars to the
outside of the track, they used to hold the cars at the end of pit road
until the end of the field had passed by. This caused traffic jams (but no
accidents that I can recall.) Under the current system, they only hold the
cars at the end of pit road if the pace car has crossed the start finish
line, and then only until the pace car has passed the end of pit road.

That reminds me of a minor pet peeve of mine. Why don't they make the
official timing and scoring line the end of pit road under caution? That
would eliminate the need for the official at the end of pit road (a
dangerous looking job if ever I saw one.) You either beat the leader to the
line or you didn't. One camera, no fuss, no muss. (Of course, there is
electronic timing and scoring, but you can't SEE that. For some people,
only seeing is believing.)

Now if someone could find a press release from NASCAR explaining why they
changed that rule, we might get some insight into the rationale for the
current system. However, it was a much different NASCAR then. They didn't
seem to feel the need to explain their actions to anyone (which is perfectly
fine with me, that's the way I would run a racing series.)

The NasCzar
Chuck Steak
2006-07-27 23:07:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by NasCzar
P.S. Since your particular beef is with the lapped cars starting on the
inside, it might be instructive to you to know why NASCAR does it that way.
It is much
quicker to get the cars lined up for the restart if you leave them there.
Since when has NASCAR been interested in making things 'quick'??

Taking 6 laps to pick up a piece of foam rubber??
Bringing out a yellow when a guy does a 360 and hits nothing??

I say... yellow means track is under caution.
When it is no longer under 'caution' it should be green.
If you want to make a stop, do it. If you think it will hurt you,
don't do it.
But a caution's length should not be controlled by
how many guys can make a stop.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan

I got a new Matco tool box for my wife.
Best trade I ever made...
NasCzar
2006-07-28 17:48:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chuck Steak
I say... yellow means track is under caution.
When it is no longer under 'caution' it should be green.
If you want to make a stop, do it. If you think it will hurt you,
don't do it.
But a caution's length should not be controlled by
how many guys can make a stop.
I'm with you on that, Dan. How about this? Now that we have all these
timing and scoring loops in all the tracks, let's eliminate the pace car.
When the caution flies, you have half a lap to reduce your speed to pit road
speed. Everybody not only maintains their track position, but their
relative distance as well. Like you said, anyone can pit if and whenever
they want to. Whatever position they end up in at the end of pit road is
what it is. And when the reason for the caution (does NASCAR really always
HAVE a reason?) is gone, the green flag waves, no matter where the leader is
on the track.

Unfortunately, that really won't work for the track workers. Trying to get
to a wrecked car while the other cars are spread all around the track would
be tough. And for me, safety of the track workers trumps competition every
time (safety of the drivers is up to them.) That was the primary reason for
my proposed rule in the first place. No pitting under caution is safer!
--
The NasCzar

The only part of my car I can't fix is the nut behind the wheel!
John McCoy
2006-07-29 01:57:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by NasCzar
Now that we have all
these timing and scoring loops in all the tracks, let's eliminate the
pace car. When the caution flies, you have half a lap to reduce your
speed to pit road speed. Everybody not only maintains their track
position, but their relative distance as well.
That was done at Indy in the late 60's. Didn't work worth a
d*mn. I don't think it'd work any better in NASCAR.

(the problem being, of course, that every driver cheated on it.
The USAC officials could see the cheating, but given a choice
between extending the caution indefinately to put everyone back
in their right places, or just ignoring it and getting on with
the race, they sensibly chose to ignore it and drop the green).

John
NasCzar
2006-07-29 08:35:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McCoy
Post by NasCzar
Now that we have all
these timing and scoring loops in all the tracks, let's eliminate the
pace car. When the caution flies, you have half a lap to reduce your
speed to pit road speed. Everybody not only maintains their track
position, but their relative distance as well.
That was done at Indy in the late 60's. Didn't work worth a
d*mn. I don't think it'd work any better in NASCAR.
Yes, unfortunately. Technology will never solve human problems (or is that
problem humans?). Like Ron White says, you can't fix stupid.

The NasCzar
WildWeasel
2006-07-29 14:45:42 UTC
Permalink
"NasCzar" wrote ...
Post by NasCzar
When the caution flies, you have half a lap to reduce your speed to pit road
speed. Everybody not only maintains their track position, but their
relative distance as well.
THAT ain't gonna work a lick without Marty's Heads-up Display indicating green
for in position and red or yellow for out of relative position.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
2006-07-29 15:47:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by WildWeasel
"NasCzar" wrote ...
Post by NasCzar
When the caution flies, you have half a lap to reduce your speed to pit road
speed. Everybody not only maintains their track position, but their
relative distance as well.
THAT ain't gonna work a lick without Marty's Heads-up Display indicating green
for in position and red or yellow for out of relative position.
I think the heads-up displays are monochrome only.

We'll have to use symbols of some kind instead of colors.

I don't expect heads-up displays to come to NASCAR for
several decades, if then. :o(

Marty
NasCzar
2006-07-29 20:00:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin X. Moleski, SJ
I don't expect heads-up displays to come to NASCAR for
several decades, if then. :o(
What? We see them all the time!

Oh, wait, you probably don't count the heads up their asses displays. Never
mind!

But since you brought up a very good suggestion, one variation might be the
visor HUD. Even if NASCAR doesn't want to put windshield HUDs in the cars,
I can't see that stopping a team from putting one in the helmet.
--
The NasCzar

The only part of my car I can't fix is the nut behind the wheel!
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
2006-07-29 20:38:30 UTC
Permalink
... But since you brought up a very good suggestion, one variation might be the
visor HUD. Even if NASCAR doesn't want to put windshield HUDs in the cars,
I can't see that stopping a team from putting one in the helmet.
I'll bet that NASCAR controls the kind of radios (and therefore the data
streams) that can be sent from the pits to the cars--and definitely
vice-versa!

They are trying to keep NASCAR from going down the F1 trail ...

Marty
John McCoy
2006-07-30 02:10:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin X. Moleski, SJ
I'll bet that NASCAR controls the kind of radios (and therefore the
data streams) that can be sent from the pits to the cars--and
definitely vice-versa!
Currently the teams are restricted to analog FM voice radios. No
data, no digital, no encryption.

However, I thought we were discussing the HUD in the context of
safety signalling, which presumably would come from NASCAR. They
can use any kind of signalling they want.

If anyone watched the ARCA race from Gateway, you'll have noted
the cars carry 3 antennas - one for TV, one for the team's voice
radio, and one for the yellow caution light on the dash.

BTW, speaking of up-n-coming drivers, the guy that won that race,
Cale Gale, looked very impressive. He's 22 now, and I bet we
see him in Cup in a couple of years.

John
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
2006-07-30 02:32:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McCoy
Post by Martin X. Moleski, SJ
I'll bet that NASCAR controls the kind of radios (and therefore the
data streams) that can be sent from the pits to the cars--and
definitely vice-versa!
Currently the teams are restricted to analog FM voice radios. No
data, no digital, no encryption.
I win my mental bet with myself! :o)
Post by John McCoy
However, I thought we were discussing the HUD in the context of
safety signalling, which presumably would come from NASCAR. They
can use any kind of signalling they want.
That's where this began. I was wishing for technology to help with
two problems: rapid and accurate positioning for a different kind
restart after cautions and an accurate display of speed on pit
road.

Someone suggested that teams might use a digital visor before
NASCAR came up with a system--and your information about
what can be transmitted shows that it can't be done.

Marty

John McCoy
2006-07-30 02:01:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by NasCzar
But since you brought up a very good suggestion, one variation might
be the visor HUD. Even if NASCAR doesn't want to put windshield HUDs
in the cars, I can't see that stopping a team from putting one in the
helmet.
That idea would probably work a lot better, anyway. Unlike
fighter pilots, drivers don't spend all their time looking
straight ahead - in the corner a driver will be looking out
the corner of the windshield (or at Martinsville, out the
side window), in order to be looking down the track where
he's going, not where the car is pointing.

John
Chuck Steak
2006-07-27 23:17:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by NasCzar
But, using Bristol as an example of what's wrong with a particular rule is
using an exception to prove the rule.
Okay... Loudon.
Worse than Bristol.
Restart on the outside there, and you automatically
go backwards.... losing usually a half dozen spots.

It used to be that the tracks would allow 2 wide racing.
Today, with things the way they are, that is really tough
on the majority of tracks.
Which is why you hear two words used more today
than in any other point in NASCAR history...
track position. It's everything.
Starting the fastest, lead lap cars on the outside of the lappers,
no matter how you look at it is just wrong.
They did nothing to deserve that except do a better job
than the guys on the inside....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan

I got a new Matco tool box for my wife.
Best trade I ever made...
John McCoy
2006-07-27 23:47:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chuck Steak
It used to be that the tracks would allow 2 wide racing.
Today, with things the way they are, that is really tough
on the majority of tracks.
You hit the nail on the head there. What we need are tracks where
a fast car can run around a guy on the outside. Heck, time was
when they told the slow guys to get down to the inside, out of
the way (which is the real reason the lead lap starts on the
outside, that used to be the prefered line).

Fortunately, as the asphalt ages and drivers work on their
setups, we're being to see an outside line at most tracks.
Not Bristol or Loudon, but at least places like Joliet are
starting to show a high line.

Now all we need is to cure aero-push, and all will be well :-)

John
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
2006-07-29 15:50:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McCoy
Now all we need is to cure aero-push, and all will be well :-)
I've got one word for you, John: Car of Tomorrow. :-P

At least, I'm hoping that's the right word. ;o)

Marty
NasCzar
2006-07-28 17:32:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chuck Steak
Okay... Loudon.
Worse than Bristol.
Restart on the outside there, and you automatically
go backwards.... losing usually a half dozen spots.
It used to be that the tracks would allow 2 wide racing.
It's not the tracks alone that cause one-groove racing, it's the relative
grip of the tires and the track surface.
For a given turn, with a known coefficient of friction and radius, you can
calculate the tire's coefficient of friction needed to give the same
sideways grip on the inside and outside lines. Even if the surface grip is
different on the inside and outside lines, you can still calculate a grip
level for the tire that will make them equal.

Apparently, today's tires are too "soft". However, the hardness required to
equalize the grooves at a flat track like Loudon might be too much. Even
so, I think Goodyear should make a harder tire for most tracks. It puts
more of the ability to drive around the outside into the drivers' hands. Of
course, the drivers will hate it. They just want to go fast. They will
choose a faster tire over a slower tire that lets them pass on the outside
every time.

Other options are to increase the relative grip of the outside line (such as
at Martinsville, where they decreased the grip on the inside by cutting
grooves in the concrete) or progressive banking. The problem with either of
those solutions is that what works well for for a 3600 lb. stock car with
2500 lbs. of downforce won't work at all well for an IRL car at 1650? lbs
with 5000 lbs. of downforce. If you want to run multiple types of cars at
your track (and what track owner wouldn't?) these options won't work.

One final option is that if you can't decrease the grip of the tires,
decrease the grip of the track. In other words, dirt tracks! If the ARCA
cars can do it, so can Cup cars. Wouldn't that be fun?
--
The NasCzar

The only part of my car I can't fix is the nut behind the wheel!
John McCoy
2006-07-29 01:53:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by NasCzar
For a given turn, with a known coefficient of friction and radius, you
can calculate the tire's coefficient of friction needed to give the
same sideways grip on the inside and outside lines. Even if the
surface grip is different on the inside and outside lines, you can
still calculate a grip level for the tire that will make them equal.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but what you wrote
doesn't get the point across, because what you wrote doesn't
make any sense. The traction that the tire can provide is
solely a function of the tire and the downward force exerted
on it, the traction required is solely a function of the corner
radius and the speed(*). The two don't have any connection, and
you can't do anything to the tire to affect different radii.

John

(* that's not strictly true, because things like sidewall
stiffness and banking angle also come into it, but there's
still no common parameter that affects both traction available
and traction required)
NasCzar
2006-07-29 08:17:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McCoy
The traction that the tire can provide is
solely a function of the tire and the downward force exerted
on it, the traction required is solely a function of the corner
radius and the speed(*). The two don't have any connection, and
you can't do anything to the tire to affect different radii.
Well, there is one connection, the aerodynamic downforce on the car, which
is a function of speed.
However, even though theoretically the downforce increases as the square of
velocity, the real world coefficient of downforce is too small to achieve
the increased centripetal force required (which also increases as the square
of velocity, but with a coefficient of 1.)

Even so, your main point is correct, since the downforce on the car has no
relationship to tire hardness either. So while the tire affects the
absolute cornering speed, it has no bearing on relative cornering speeds.
If I'd bothered to write down the force balance, I would have immediately
seen that the traction term cancels out.

It's a damn good thing I'm a chemical engineer which might make tires and
not an automotive engineer that designs them, huh? In any case, I won't be
submitting my resume to Goodyear anytime soon.
--
The NasCzar

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. So is a lot. - A. Einstein
John McCoy
2006-07-29 19:50:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by NasCzar
Post by John McCoy
The traction that the tire can provide is
solely a function of the tire and the downward force exerted
on it, the traction required is solely a function of the corner
radius and the speed(*). The two don't have any connection, and
you can't do anything to the tire to affect different radii.
Well, there is one connection, the aerodynamic downforce on the car,
which is a function of speed.
Yeah, I left that out on purpose, partly to see if anyone would
catch it (and I'm suitably impressed you did :-) and partly
because as you say it's not going to make much difference for
non-winged cars (I'm not sure it even would for them). Altho
where the aero does make a difference is if you're the only
guy running the high line, and thus not in turbulent air.
Post by NasCzar
Even so, your main point is correct, since the downforce on the car
has no relationship to tire hardness either. So while the tire
affects the absolute cornering speed, it has no bearing on relative
cornering speeds. If I'd bothered to write down the force balance, I
would have immediately seen that the traction term cancels out.
OK - I was thinking you were seeing something I couldn't see,
and I couldn't figure out it out from your post, which was
frustrating :-)

One thing I think the harder tire does do, is it makes the car
more sensitive to changes in setup. I think that's part of
why some guys can run outside at places like Joliet and Fontana,
because they've got a setup that favors the outside, and now
it makes a big enough difference to be effective.

John
John McCoy
2006-07-25 01:15:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by NasCzar
If you could change (or create) just one NASCAR rule, what would it
be, and why?
Oh heck, the rule I'm ticked off about changes every day, just
about - it'd be impossible to pick just one. For instance, today
I think NASCAR's gear rule is assinine (which it is), because
we've just left Pocono and that was a much better race when
shifting was allowed.

Last week I was annoyed at the stupid "freeze the field" rule,
which has screwed up the finishes of several races (notably the
modified race at Loudon) in an effort to fix a problem which
never existed.

So what I'd really like is to change the rules back to round
about 1986, when cars were still based on stock, crews had some
freedom to try and find an advantage, and drivers could race
for the win & settle their differences afterwards.

John
Chuck Steak
2006-07-26 19:48:59 UTC
Permalink
If the caution comes out, that means you are to hold your position.
No more passing.
You resume racing/passing when the race goes back green.

Then make it work that way for the entire yellow period.
Why should you be able to pass somone in the pits, but
not on the track?
Why should you lose spots, or be forced out of your pit because
someone is blocking your pit stall?
NASCAR keeps preaching about wanting to put the race back
into the drivers' hands.... well... then do it.
Walk the walk.
Don't let the guy that has dominated the whole race, lose because
an air wrench failed, or a jack blew out a seal..
Or some other guy spins him out exiting his stall.
Be clear. What I'm saying here, is that if you want to put the
race back into the drivers hands, like they keep saying,
then somehow you need to take
some of it OUT of the pitstops.

Conversely, up the speed limit on pit road for green flag stops.
It's rare that everyone comes in at the same time.
It's painful watching a guy with a tire going down lose 2-3 laps
changing it.... It's so painful watching one car come down pit road
at 35-45mph...




---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan

I got a new Matco tool box for my wife.
Best trade I ever made...
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...