PDA

View Full Version : Daytona 500



RedFanAlways1966
02-18-2007, 03:20 PM
Gentlemen start your engines!

Go pole-sitter David Gilliland. For personal reasons I have to root for a guy with a last name like that. Not a big NASCAR fan, but the M&M's car has me interested this season.

paintmered
02-18-2007, 03:24 PM
As for me, I watch because I enjoy the sight of seeing cars turn left all day.

creek14
02-18-2007, 03:27 PM
We have it on here at work. Shhhhhhhh.

Go Tony!

WVRed
02-18-2007, 03:31 PM
Go Toyota!

First season in Nascar. Seems like this is the one sport you dont get a break in.

NatiRedGals
02-18-2007, 05:32 PM
Go Mark Martin earn your first Daytona 500!!

NatiRedGals
02-18-2007, 07:34 PM
Wow I cleary have no respect for Nascar anymore... All they cared about their was the TV ratings because of the finish the caution should have been out and Martin is the winner... Wow thats bad...:bang: :angry: :thumbdown

GIK
02-18-2007, 07:48 PM
I disagree, only because the wreck was behind both of them and had absolutely no bearing on the outcome across the finish line.

NatiRedGals
02-18-2007, 07:51 PM
I disagree, only because the wreck was behind both of them and had absolutely no bearing on the outcome across the finish line.

Totally argee but then you dont call the Yellow Flag after the race is over... Thats even dumber...:mooner:

UKFlounder
02-18-2007, 07:53 PM
I disagree, only because the wreck was behind both of them and had absolutely no bearing on the outcome across the finish line.

Agreed - no way were they thinking of ratings in the few seconds between the wreck & the finish.

The wreck had no impact on the Harvick-Martin finish - throwing the flag & giving the race to Martin would have been awful.

At least they let those 2 battle for the win instead of giving it to one by throwing a flag.

UKFlounder
02-18-2007, 07:56 PM
Totally argee but then you dont call the Yellow Flag after the race is over... Thats even dumber...:mooner:

True

HalMorrisRules
02-18-2007, 08:30 PM
Agreed - no way were they thinking of ratings in the few seconds between the wreck & the finish.

The wreck had no impact on the Harvick-Martin finish - throwing the flag & giving the race to Martin would have been awful.

At least they let those 2 battle for the win instead of giving it to one by throwing a flag.

Ok sure, the wreck didnt impact the safety of Harvick and Martin but what of all of the cars that were still behind the wreck? Werent they worthy of the yellow flag? Were they expected to race to the line for position through the wreckage? The yellow flag doesnt just impact Harvick and Martin. Their safety isnt the only people NASCAR should be considering.

The line NASCAR feeds us all of the time is that they dont want people racing back to the line. Harvick and Martin werent the only ones racing to the line. The yellow should have been thrown immediately.

redsfan1966
02-18-2007, 08:39 PM
I am a huge nascar and Mark Martin fan--but I totally agree with the way nascar handled the race finish--the two racing for the flag were in front of the wreck--congrats to Kevin Harvick and Mark--also, congrats to all for such a great race--next to pitchers and catchers reporting; the Daytona 500 is the other thing that makes me smile thinking about the spring and summer to come..

Jefferson24
02-18-2007, 08:49 PM
Nascar was wrong. They made the rule about the yellow, they need to follow it. You can’t pick and choose when to throw the yellow if they are wrecking. They throw the yellow for debris but not a car sliding on its roof? If that wreck happened in turn 1 they would have thrown it, turn 3 or 4 should be no different.

The cars wreck, the yellow comes out, scoring loops are looked at to determine finishing order. That's they the way they have been doing it for years. You don't throw all that out the window.

HalMorrisRules
02-18-2007, 08:56 PM
So the one thing we have learned from this past week is this...the only people who can break NASCAR's rules is..well...NASCAR.

RedFanAlways1966
02-18-2007, 09:00 PM
Do you think we would have seen that last lap crash if not for the rule that brings out the red flag and creates the bunched up 2-lap madness?

Personally I was happy to see Harvick and Martin get a chance to race it out to the checkered flag, but I see the logic in the above posts.

Jefferson24
02-18-2007, 09:01 PM
So the one thing we have learned from this past week is this...the only people who can break NASCAR's rules is..well...NASCAR.

You got that right!

Don't forget Nascar created the "yellow stops the racing rule" for SAFETY concerns. I have lost a lot of respect for Nacsar for ignoring their own rule. I think they should be docked points and be fined heavily.

Jefferson24
02-18-2007, 09:40 PM
NASCAR just updated the finishing order. Harvick still wins and Martin is still 2nd but things farther back changed a little. Apparently the yellow was thrown at the time Harvick and Martin crossed the finish line. Apparently racing conditions were perfectly safe up until that point.

Hollcat
02-18-2007, 09:43 PM
I hadn't really thought about the cars behind the wreck racing throught it. At first I agreed with letting harvick and martin race to the line but in hindsight I agree that the flag should have come out as soon as they start wrecking due to the cars behind the wreck.
On a side note, wasn't that an incredible run the Harvick got in the final half lap. amazing how all of the sudden that car can run down the lead in such a short span.

George Foster
02-18-2007, 11:05 PM
So the one thing we have learned from this past week is this...the only people who can break NASCAR's rules is..well...NASCAR.

Exactly....is it a rule or not? Martin was still in the lead for a good 2 seconds after the wreck..the yellow should of been declared. Martin was in the lead after 200 laps, and 201 laps.

RedsBaron
02-19-2007, 06:43 AM
Exactly....is it a rule or not? Martin was still in the lead for a good 2 seconds after the wreck..the yellow should of been declared. Martin was in the lead after 200 laps, and 201 laps.

That's NASCAR.:rolleyes:

Jaycint
02-19-2007, 09:42 AM
Chevy's finishing 1-4, gotta love it...:D

Danny Serafini
02-19-2007, 09:52 AM
Do you think we would have seen that last lap crash if not for the rule that brings out the red flag and creates the bunched up 2-lap madness?

Here's the main problem. I like stock car racing, but I absolutely hate NASCAR and the way they run the sport. They were asking for an accident with this. It's bad enough they still run these stupid restrictor plates and forces the cars into huge packs that have no choice but to bounce off of each other and cause huge wrecks (but hey, wrecks are ratings so who cares if we hurt a few drivers). Then adding a couple of laps to contrive a green flag finish just adds to the mess (psst, it's the Daytona 500, not the Daytona 505).

But that's just the NASCAR way of doing things. From a marketing standpoint they're geniuses, and they've done a great job building themselves to the point they're at. But from a pure sporting point of view NASCAR is crap, it's laughable. Giving a lapped car his lap back simply because a yellow came out? What the heck is that? That's nothing but putting more cars on the lead lap to make a better show for TV. It's like giving the losing team an extra out because a pitch went in the dirt, it's the same kind of randomness. Locking the top 35 in points into the field before qualifying every week - more garbage. Racing is about having the fastest race and the slowest going home. Since when is being 35th in points an accomplishment? You're not a front-runner, you're field filler, you shouldn't be rewarded for that. And don't even get me started on this asinine "chase" that's removed all validity from their championship. NASCAR has totally sold out, it's all about phony, contrived close battles instead of real sport.

So now it's probably clear how I feel about NASCAR's decision making process. :laugh: So it'll probably sound weird when I say they got the finish right. It's not automatic that when an accident starts the rules call for an immediate yellow. When or whether to throw a yellow is a judgment call, there's no rule that says when X amount of contact has occurred the yellow comes out now. It's not unusual for a car to be knocked into a spin and no yellow come out at all if it can get righted and going quickly enough.

Besides, exactly what good would a yellow have done? It wouldn't have warned any drivers, because every single driver was in that pack. If the field was strung out and cars 15 seconds back would've been running full out into that mess then a yellow would've been necessary. But every car still in the running was in that pack, so everyone was already aware and taking the appropriate action if possible. Throwing a yellow would not have saved a single car from that accident. And it's not like the field had to race to the line through it outside of the first couple of cars since the accident carried itself past the line. The cars crossed in the natural order the accident sorted them out in. In this particular case a yellow would not have done a single thing in terms of safety, so it wasn't necessary.

My biggest complaint about the officiating was not giving Jamie McMurray a penalty for running over Mike Wallace's tire changer. How does that not get a penalty? And someone needs to have a long talk with Dave Blaney. The move he pulled was jaw-droppingly stupid.

MaineRed
02-19-2007, 12:23 PM
NASCAR, not Nascar did throw the flag and when they did, Harvick was leading. The reason nobody seems to know this is because it wouldn't have changed the outcome like everyone wants to believe.

Harvick won.

It may not be the Daytona 505 but nobody wants to see the race won under yellow. All the drivers are aware of this rule and 100% of them would rather race for the win.

Danny Serafini
02-19-2007, 01:21 PM
It may not be the Daytona 505 but nobody wants to see the race won under yellow. All the drivers are aware of this rule and 100% of them would rather race for the win.

Something tells me Mark Martin would take a yellow flag win today.

MaineRed
02-19-2007, 02:31 PM
So because Mark Martin, the guy who was in first when the caution came out with six laps to go and then went on to finish second after the green, white, checker, would TODAY take the trophy if the rules were the way you'd like them to be, they should be changed?

Just curious, by the same token, in football when pass interference is made in the endzone as time expires do you consider it a joke when they give the team another un-timed down?

I mean, aren't football games supposed to be 60 minutes and not 60 minutes, plus?

MaineRed
02-19-2007, 02:41 PM
Do you think we would have seen that last lap crash if not for the rule that brings out the red flag and creates the bunched up 2-lap madness?

If not for that rule the last 5 or 6 laps are run under caution and Mark Martin wins the race going 70 MPH.

Who wants to see that?

And even if they didn't bring out the red flag and instead ran a few caution laps and then restarted, all the cars are still going to be bunched up. That is how restarts work, red flag or not.

Come on people, this was Daytona. Nobody anywhere near the front of that pack had ever won this race. And that crash was totally predicatable. The only surprise was that they made it to almost the last turn before setting it off.

I'm curious to people's idea's on how you keep the cars from being bunched up on restarts?

RedFanAlways1966
02-19-2007, 02:50 PM
If not for that rule the last 5 or 6 laps are run under caution and Mark Martin wins the race going 70 MPH.

Who wants to see that?

I understand your point and of course this is why NASCAR has this rule... unlike in the past.

To be the devil's advocate: this means laps run under caution at any other time during the race are different laps than the last 2 laps. The Daytona 500 has 200 laps. Laps 199 & 200 should count as much as laps 49 and 57. Lap 78 should count as much as lap 200. If NASCAR red flags it before the final two laps they should red flag it anytime there is a wreck... out of fairness. All laps should be equal in importance. It takes 3-1/2 hours of good racing to win, not 1-1/2 minutes of good racing.

Dom Heffner
02-19-2007, 03:07 PM
Somewhere Arthur Smith is tuning his instrument. :)

Danny Serafini
02-19-2007, 03:13 PM
So because Mark Martin, the guy who was in first when the caution came out with six laps to go and then went on to finish second after the green, white, checker, would TODAY take the trophy if the rules were the way you'd like them to be, they should be changed?

I think you misunderstood what I said. I just meant Martin would be quite happy sitting at home today with his Daytona 500 trophy and not be worrying about the finish being under yellow if that's how it ended. I don't think it would upset him much if he won without a green flag finish.


Just curious, by the same token, in football when pass interference is made in the endzone as time expires do you consider it a joke when they give the team another un-timed down?

I mean, aren't football games supposed to be 60 minutes and not 60 minutes, plus?

They're not comparable situations. Martin didn't commit any kind of infraction that denied his opponents a fair shot at victory. If anything he had his fairly earned victory taken away by a stupid rule to contrive close finishes.

I do want to point out that neither of these guys is "my" driver, I don't want you to think I'm just a bitter Martin fan complaining. Harvick's win is 100% legit under the current rules, I have no problem with that. It's just that the current rules are junk.

RedFanAlways1966
02-19-2007, 03:17 PM
Didn't #3 win his Daytona 500 race under yellow?

MaineRed
02-19-2007, 04:20 PM
Earnhardt won the same way Mark Martin would have won if that crash had happened on lap 199 instead of lap 200. Had that wreck happened shortly after the first restart, the pace car would have come out and drove them home.

But Earnhardt won under different rules. When he was on lap 198 and the caution came out, the field was not frozen. Earnhardt had to win the race back to the line, and he did. I see a lot of folks (not just here) saying NASCAR should of handed the RACE to Martin at the time of the wreck instead of actually having them race.

The reason they did away with that rule was because of safety. Not asking drivers to weave through crash scenes so as to not lose points seemed like a good place to start.

So now they freeze the field and attempt the green, white, checker, one time. If they didn't do this, what is to keep Mark Martin's teammate or anyone's teammate who is in 43rd from driving his car straight into the wall, creating a caution so Mark or whomever can walk home with the win?

You need to remember that teams are out there and when one team member has no shot to do better than 40th, but his car is still running, how would NASCAR keep him from blowing a tire or just getting loose and hitting the wall?

The way they do it now prevents this as a teammate out in front of the field is better than a teammate starting first during a late race restart. There is no benefit to wrecking to help a teammate who is in the lead this way and we as fans get to see at leat an attempt to finish the race, racing.

Yes it is supposed to be 200 laps but it is one of those rules made to benefit, us. Without that rule you don't see two cars, side by side going 180 fighting for the Daytona 500 on Sunday.

One of the best finishes ever and people are upset they didn't get the most boring ever.

By the way, I was cheering for Mark Martin even though I have no use for him. It always bugged me that he hung around the Busch series until he set all kinds of records. He was a top NASCAR driver and he was going for Busch Series titles. Lame. Harvick did the same thing last year but he isn't pushing 50. Harvick is still learning. Martin knew all he could ever know and then spent Saturday's picking on kids. But based on who was in the top ten when they started for the final time, I was hoping for Martin.

MaineRed
02-19-2007, 04:28 PM
If NASCAR red flags it before the final two laps they should red flag it anytime there is a wreck... out of fairness.

Fairness to who? The PC police?

Do you know what the drivers would say to this idea? None of them want to shut down their cars every time a yellow comes out so I'm not sure who's fight you are fighting or whom you are trying to benefit and I'm sure most of them are fine with the rules as they are.

A yellow flag on lap 10 is not the same as a yellow on lap 197 as a yellow on lap 10 is not going to force the race to finish under under green. Do you not see that?

Not to mention NASCAR races are long enough. Stopping the cars every time there is a yellow is crazy as it would add another hour to the races. You'd still need to run some caution laps to warm the cars and tires back up and most of the time that is all the caution laps you run anyways.

Red Leader
02-19-2007, 05:04 PM
I watched the movie Cars with my youngest instead.

That Lightning McQueen sure was good. And the ending. Never would have predicted that...good stuff.

RedFanAlways1966
02-19-2007, 07:43 PM
I'm not on any driver's side. Just stating what seems fair... like a good 3-1/2 hour drive (Martin) is more rightful to win than a good 1-1/2 minute drive (Harvick). I am not in favor of a red flag for any wreck short of conditions that will not allow the cars to get around the track... just stating how the rules change depending on what part of the race things happen. In all "sports" each inning/quarter/period/round is the same... from 1st to last. There are no sudden rule changes for the very end. There are small exceptions like the two-minute warning in the NFL. But in no sport are the rules changed for the sake of giving fans more fun and giving drivers who might be 10 seconds behind a chance to win on the last lap.

I am not sure, but how far back was Harvick when the crash on lap 196 happened? If there is not a crash there, would Harvick had stood a snowball's chance in heck of winning? I agree with the stance that teamates who are out of it could crash to give their teammate the win under yellow. However, is that the reason for that rule or is it done to give fans more excitement? If it is the latter, then it is really not fair to the drivers who have busted their butts all day and are in the top-10 towards the end.

There used to be rule changes in college football All-Star games in which a team could score and still receive the ensuing kickoff because they are behind. All-Star games are kind of boring and the outcome is not as important, so the rules makers thought this would keep it more interesting. That is fine for a college football All-Star game, but it just does not seem fair for a regulation game or race. Fair to the fans... perhaps. Fair to the drivers who are anywhere to a 1/4 to almost a lap behind... yes. Fair to the guys who are in the top-5... not really.

RedsBaron
02-20-2007, 06:44 AM
Officials from the Indy Racing League and Champ Car World Series have both been quoted as saying NASCAR should have thrown a caution flag much sooner than it did. One official noted that in October 2005 at Talladega Dale Jarrett led at the time of an accident behind him and was awarded the victory even though Tony Stewart crossed the finish line first. IRL president Brain Barnhart said more than 8 seconds elapsed between the initial contact between cars driven by Kyle Busch and Matt Kenseth and when Kevin Harvick crossed the finish line.
I realize the average motor sports fan in this country cares very little for either the IRL or Champ Car or any other form of open wheel racing, but NASCAR's inconsistent enforcement of its rules is one of the reasons I have at best only been a luke-warm fan of the series.
Frankly, I believe that in NASCAR, a sport in which the France family has much greater power than any single person or group has in any other form of racing, "the show" always comes first, and driver safety is not as important as in other racing series.

MaineRed
02-20-2007, 07:25 AM
I am not sure, but how far back was Harvick when the crash on lap 196 happened? If there is not a crash there, would Harvick had stood a snowball's chance in heck of winning?

Not sure but he went from 29th to first over the final 22 laps so crash or not, he was a coming. He had a good car.

Kevin Harvick's average running position for the race was 10.3. Mark Martin came in at 11.9. On average, for the 200 laps, Harvick was better. Not to mention Harvick started 8 spots behind Mark Martin.

RBA, you make it sound like Harvick stunk, had not shot but the red flag magically boosted him to the win. You think he only drove for a minute and a half? You honestly believe you can just do nothing for three hours and then turn it on at the end and win? And you think this red flag somewhow gave him the power to do so? 29th to first in 22 laps, only two of those were run after the red. Harvick had every shot to win and if you were looking for Mark Martin to win, you are crazy if you think he holds off that pack, with only two fresh tires running under green the entire way. Someone would have gotten around him. If not Harvick, someone else.

Martin has tried that two tire crap to gain position before and it always has burned him. This would have been and in fact was, no different. You saw Martin lose control of his car in the final 15 seconds or so. THAT cost him the 500, having only two fresh tires, not NASCAR. Without that minor slip he probably makes up that two or three feet and wins.

Plain and simple, you don't win the Daytona 500 with one minute of good driving. Guys who ran good for only one minute were nowhere to be found in this race. Tony Stewart had the best car and he finished 43rd.

Not sure who saw it but Harvick won the same way Jeff Gordon did in the second Twin 150, by blowing by a bunch of cars, with someone pushing on the final lap. The only difference was the red flag. You can do this kind of thing at Daytona. A push from the right car can go a long way.

In all "sports" each inning/quarter/period/round is the same... from 1st to last. There are no sudden rule changes for the very end.

In the NFL the clock begins to stop when players go out of bounds. At regular times they re-start the clock, not late in games.

How about the replay rule? It is up to the coaches for 56 minutes of the game but for the final two minutes of each half a judge up in the booth has to determine if a replay is warranted.

In the NBA in the final two minutes you get to the line after the second foul even if the team that commited the foul had no team fouls to that point. This isn't a rule James Naismith came up with.

In hockey they have done away with ties and now have a shootout instead of playing for the win.

Sports is chock full of special rules designed for the closing minutes.

"the show" always comes first, and driver safety is not as important as in other racing series.

Safetey is probably the biggest word in the NASCAR vocab and I think this is the most ridiculous thing said in this thread. It is a cheap shot and an unfair one. There was no safey compromised in this race, especially at the finish.

What is your point, the last laps should have been run under caution so nobody will get hurt? Why not just cancel the entire season for safety sake?

You want to go watch an IRL car run around the track all by itself for two hours, go for it, NASCAR is the most exciting form of major racing in this country and we can't even see who is in second.

Safety? NASCAR leads the way. With the new HANS device those drivers are safer than the fans sitting in the stands. Guys flip, slide and catch on fire and then help themselves out of the car.

By the way, Mike Helton is now the president of NASCAR, not a France.

RedsBaron
02-20-2007, 08:01 AM
[b]

Safetey is probably the biggest word in the NASCAR vocab and I think this is the most ridiculous thing said in this thread. It is a cheap shot and an unfair one. There was no safey compromised in this race, especially at the finish.

What is your point, the last laps should have been run under caution so nobody will get hurt? Why not just cancel the entire season for safety sake?

You want to go watch an IRL car run around the track all by itself for two hours, go for it, NASCAR is the most exciting form of major racing in this country and we can't even see who is in second.

Safety? NASCAR leads the way. With the new HANS device those drivers are safer than the fans sitting in the stands. Guys flip, slide and catch on fire and then help themselves out of the car.

By the way, Mike Helton is now the president of NASCAR, not a France.

Sorry if your love of NASCAR makes you believe that it should be immune from criticism.
Mike Helton is president of NASCAR, but the France family still controls the series.
"NASCAR leads the way" in safety? Really? What is the basis of that assertion? NASCAR didn't "lead the way" in adopting the HANS device or in adopting SAFER barriers; NASCAR merely followed the lead of other series, and even then it took the death of its best and most popular driver to prompt it to action. Even after the deaths of drivers such as Adam Petty NASCAR did little until Dale Earnhardt met his death 6 years ago.

MaineRed
02-20-2007, 10:32 AM
I think you are being unfair. NASCAR went ten years up to Earnhardt's death wtihout a racing fatality and they haven't had one since. Obviously safety is being considered, to a large degree. It is a cheap shot to say it isn't. Earnhardt is the only racer to die in a NASCAR race since 1991.

NASCAR had two guys pass in 2000, Adam Petty and Kenny Irwin, both in practice, both at Loudon. This marked the first time in six years that drivers had been lost in their car after two practice deaths occured in 94, both during practice at Daytona.

Did NASCAR make major changes after the death of Petty and Irwin? I guess not. I'm not sure I follow though. I believe on one of those occassions a stuck throttle was blamed. NASCAR was supposed to do something in the six months between those two crashes, both at practice in New Hampshire to make racing (which hadn't seen a death in ten years) safer before the 2001 Daytona race that would be Earnhardt's last? You make it sound like guys were dropping like flies and NASCAR waited and waited. It was six months between these incidents.

NASCAR had 3 deaths in a six month time frame and one of them was Dale Earnhardt. Perhaps that woke them up more than the deaths of Irwin and Petty. Ever heard of human nature? It woke us all up more than Petty and Irwin.

NASCAR is safe, and besides, the outcome of this race hardly had anything to do with compromising the safety of the drivers. I guess I don't get the whole conspiracy stuff that the suits don't care about safety when one fluke crash that sent Earnhardt straight into the wall is the only on track racing incident in 16 years that has taken a life.

Maybe NASCAR doesn't lead the way but they do just fine. IRL is perhaps safer but they have two deaths in the last four years hanging over their heads.

Danny Serafini
02-20-2007, 10:37 AM
I was going to bow out of this thread, since my stance on the rules is known and at this point it's just debating personal preference, so I figured I'd let it go. But as someone who's spent two decades in the sport I could not let this statement stand unchallenged:


Safetey is probably the biggest word in the NASCAR vocab and I think this is the most ridiculous thing said in this thread.

....

Safety? NASCAR leads the way. With the new HANS device those drivers are safer than the fans sitting in the stands. Guys flip, slide and catch on fire and then help themselves out of the car.

Here's reality - NASCAR is an absolute joke when it comes to safety. I can't type my true feelings since I'd violate the board's rules on profanity over and over, so that will have to do. This is an organization that still lets drivers race without gloves for crying out loud! What is this, 1946?

Don't try and sell me the HANS device as part of NASCAR's commitment to safety. NASCAR was the last major sanctioning body to require it, they resisted having the drivers wear one for years. NASCAR had to be shamed into it because too many drivers were getting killed without it. And even then they tried to undercut it by allowing that horrible Hutchens device, which was such a badly flawed design it caused more injuries than it prevented, simply because someone in a NASCAR team came up with it.

Of course NASCAR also wouldn't address the other main problem then, the fact that the front ends of the cars were too stiff and transferring all of the force from the impact into the driver. Everyone knew it, yet NASCAR kept slapping on band-aids instead of actually addressing the problem.

NASCAR has long taken an antagonistic stance toward the safety manufacturers because they're afraid if they require a safety device and it fails that they'll get sued. Nevermind the fact that no other sanctioning body worldwide has those fears and will put safety first, NASCAR would rather watch their pockets.

The way they hung Bill Simpson out to dry after Dale Earnhardt's death was shameful. That dog and pony show they called an investigation was pathetic and an insult to everyone's intelligence. They took someone who's dedicated his life to making the sport safer, to saving the very stars that helped make NASCAR, and threw him under the bus. Mike Helton is a terrible person and shouldn't be allowed near a racetrack after that one.

And then there's the whole restrictor plate fiasco. It's pretty obvious that it's an unsafe situation when you go into the race fully expecting a 20 car accident at some point. But does NASCAR do anything to alleviate it? Of course not, because those big accidents get on the highlight films and drive up ratings. It's not as if they haven't had time to come up with a solution. They've been using restrictor plates for almost 20 years now. They couldn't come up with a better option in 20 years? Of course they could, they just don't want to. They'd rather put drivers at greater risk so they can make an extra buck.

Sorry about going off on the long rambling rant, but this is one of those topics that really gets me wound up. There are a number of things about the way NASCAR handles its business that are a bit unsavory, and safety is right up there. Just don't ask me to go into the IRL's safety record, they make NASCAR look like princes when it comes to safety.

MaineRed
02-20-2007, 10:54 AM
NASCAR had to be shamed into it because too many drivers were getting killed without it.

Like I said, Dale Earnhardt's death was the first in 10 years and the only one in the last 16 where someone died during a top series NASCAR race. Again, you're making it sound like someone was dying in a crash every month.

As for restictor plates, Darrell Waltrip suggested that cars would do 240 on their qualiftying lap without them. I guess I don't understand what the problem is with close racing? I don't want to see two or three cars run away and hide like they do at the Indy 500. That is so boring. I know the drivers don't like the restrictor plates but that is because they want to go 240.

Letting them go 240 would be a lot easier of not for those SAFETY concerns that NASCAR doesn't care about.

Danny Serafini
02-20-2007, 11:13 AM
Like I said, Dale Earnhardt's death was the first in 10 years and the only one in the last 16 where someone died during a top series NASCAR race. Again, you're making it sound like someone was dying in a crash every month.

Being killed during practice leaves a driver just as dead as dying in a race. Tell you what, I'll let you tell Kyle Petty that since his son died during practice that it doesn't really count.


As for restictor plates, Darrell Waltrip suggested that cars would do 240 on their qualiftying lap without them. I guess I don't understand what the problem is with close racing? I don't want to see two or three cars run away and hide like they do at the Indy 500. That is so boring. I know the drivers don't like the restrictor plates but that is because they want to go 240.

Letting them go 240 would be a lot easier of not for those SAFETY concerns that NASCAR doesn't care about.

Having the cars run 240 isn't a viable option either. At this point they should put a smaller engine in the cars at Daytona and Talladega. I know the argument against it was the added expense, but the teams have to put together completely separate engine programs for the plate races as it is so it wouldn't really change anything from that standpoint. A smaller engine that kept speeds in the same range but provided the drivers much more throttle response wouldn't force the drivers into massive packs where if one driver slips a dozen more get wiped out. It wouldn't eliminate close racing, but it would allow drivers to get out of trouble instead of forcing them to hold their foot down and hope because if they crack the throttle they'll fall out of the pack and get left behind instantly. It also would allow drivers to pass on their own instead of leaving them at the mercy of the drivers behind them. It would be safer to let them run at 210 with a more responsive engine than to run 185 with the plates and (in my opinion) produce better racing.

MaineRed
02-20-2007, 11:33 AM
Being killed during practice leaves a driver just as dead as dying in a race. Tell you what, I'll let you tell Kyle Petty that since his son died during practice that it doesn't really count.

Of course it counts to those who knew him, like his family but it still doesn't mean it happened during a race. My point is simple, if NASCAR didn't care about safety, or whatever it is that you are saying, there would be more deaths than one in the last 16 years and I'd gladly make this point to Kyle Petty if you want to produce him.

Afterwards I'll let you explain to Mike Helton that he shouldn't be allowed inside the track.

A smaller engine that kept speeds in the same range but provided the drivers much more throttle response wouldn't force the drivers into massive packs

These massive packs are usually a result of caution flags. There is no way around this. You have late race cautions, you are going to have bunched up drivers who want to win. Smaller engines that go faster are not going to solve this.

Since this is a baseball board, I'm curious as to what rule changes you would expect baseball to make if a couple of coaches were killed during batting practice after being drilled in the head while tossing BP?

Would you expect Selig to order nets placed in front of the pitchers during actual games so as to not compromise safety?

MaineRed
02-20-2007, 11:37 AM
210 with a more responsive engine than to run 185 with the plates

How is this safer? Going 25 MPH higher is safer?

Maybe you reduce the risk of wrecks but what happens when wrecks do occur and the top speed has been increased by 25 MPH?

You can't tell me that would be, SAFER?

flyer85
02-20-2007, 11:47 AM
NASCAR - rasslin' on wheels

It is the combination of the WWF and soap operas.

MaineRed
02-20-2007, 11:49 AM
It is nothing like that, but whatever.

flyer85
02-20-2007, 11:58 AM
I follow the sport. I really enjoy the "feud of the week". As enterntainment it has moved way beyond just racing.

Danny Serafini
02-20-2007, 01:30 PM
Of course it counts to those who knew him, like his family but it still doesn't mean it happened during a race. My point is simple, if NASCAR didn't care about safety, or whatever it is that you are saying, there would be more deaths than one in the last 16 years and I'd gladly make this point to Kyle Petty if you want to produce him.

Wow. I'm almost speechless. I can't believe you're actually trying to make such a stupid argument as to say because multiple drivers die in practice but only one was in a race that it makes the safety problems less severe. Do you understand just how ridiculous you sound? Seriously. Do you not realize that an accident during a practice session is just as dangerous as during a race? That the hit is no different? It's OK to allow drivers on the track with substandard safety equipment and with a fixable flaw in the cars because most of the tragedies happen on Saturday instead of Sunday? The problem is not the race, it's the car and the safety equipment, and that accounted for more than one death.


These massive packs are usually a result of caution flags. There is no way around this. You have late race cautions, you are going to have bunched up drivers who want to win. Smaller engines that go faster are not going to solve this.

Sure the cars are bunched right after a yellow. The problem with restrictor plates is that the cars are still bunched 25 laps later because no one can drive away. The cars don't stay bunched like that at any other tracks. Obviously the problem is the plate. Remove the plate, remove the problem. And I'm not saying the cars have to go 210. Put a smaller, more responsive engine that goes 185, same speeds as today, and you wouldn't have the massive glob of cars. The drivers would actually be able to race, instead of just get stuck in a pack and need five guys lined up behind him to try and make a pass.


Since this is a baseball board, I'm curious as to what rule changes you would expect baseball to make if a couple of coaches were killed during batting practice after being drilled in the head while tossing BP?

Would you expect Selig to order nets placed in front of the pitchers during actual games so as to not compromise safety?

This isn't even worth a response. Now you're just being absurd for the sake of being absurd. You're taking an outlandish theoretical that's never come anywhere near happening and trying to make some sort of bizarre parallel with an actual situation.


How is this safer? Going 25 MPH higher is safer?

Maybe you reduce the risk of wrecks but what happens when wrecks do occur and the top speed has been increased by 25 MPH?

You can't tell me that would be, SAFER?

Sure I can. Breaking the cars out of those packs would greatly reduce the chances of a major accident, and therefore reduce the chance of injury for the drivers. I don't know how long you've been watching, but if you were watching in the mid-'80s you saw exactly what I'm talking about. The cars were getting up to 210 then, and the massive accidents that are commonplace today were rare then. And drivers weren't getting hurt at an abnormal rate in crashes back then. You're safer to get in an accident at 210 in a car that's designed to absorb a hit at 210 than you are to hit at 185 in a car that isn't designed to absorb a hit at 185.

MaineRed
02-20-2007, 02:04 PM
You might have less accidents but you still are going to have accidents and when those accidents occur they are going to be uglier because of the increased speed.

You're safer to get in an accident at 210 in a car that's designed to absorb a hit at 210 than you are to hit at 185 in a car that isn't designed to absorb a hit at 185.

If they can't design a car that in your opinion is not up to snuff going 185, what is going to magically make them safer going 210?

I really don't get all this discussion about massive accidents. The Daytona was pretty clean and the cars were not all bunched up like you are talking about. When Tony Stewart and Kurt Busch wrecked there was hardly anyone else around as they had pulled away, just the kind of racing that you claim is impossible at Daytona due to the restrictor plates.

Regardless of the track you have these bunch up after cautions and your typical NASCAR race has a lot of cautions. This keeps the field tight, restrictor plates or not. If you like two or three cars zooming a quarter of a mile out in front of everyone else on every restart, this is probably not your kind of racing. I can bore myself to sleep watching the Indy 500 for that.

the massive glob of cars. The drivers would actually be able to race, instead of just get stuck in a pack and need five guys lined up behind him to try and make a pass.

When you have 43 guys bunched up and they all want to get to the front what do you expect to happen? Seems you want some guys to just disapear into thin air so others can get by. I just don't get what you are trying to say. If your car is faster than the guy in front of you, you can get by him. Period.

Tony Stewart fell to the rear of the field and then weaved his way up through traffic without the aid of five guys lined up. Dale Junior fell to 34th and then got as high as 5th without the aid of a big long line of cars. When Kevin Harvick came from nowhere to pass Mark Martin he did so with the aid of one car, Matt Kenseth, not the five you say is required to make a pass.

Danny Serafini
02-20-2007, 05:01 PM
If they can't design a car that in your opinion is not up to snuff going 185, what is going to magically make them safer going 210?

It does seem counterintuitive to think a car built in 1985 would be better suited for an accident than one built in 2000. The difference is that the chassis itself has been made stiffer and stiffer over the years. It's logical to do that, the stiffer you can make it the less the cars will flex, they'll hold their setup more consistently, the car grips better and it's faster. The problem is that the cars became so stiff that they lost the give that's necessary in an accident. You have to have the car absorb some of the impact, that's why some parts are made to crumple the way they do. Every bit of force the car absorbs is that much less that gets transfered to the driver. With the cars becoming so stiff they weren't crumpling enough and absorbing enough energy, so it got sent through to the driver. It was a problem that could've been fixed with a rules change, but NASCAR refused to acknowledge it. They wanted to take the focus away from the cars, which they believed they could be held liable for.

Now, I will give NASCAR some credit for the next part. By trying to shift the blame away from their cars, they decided to move it to the tracks and the concrete walls. That's how the SAFER barrier started coming about, as the moved the crumple zone from the car to the wall. And that has turned into a good thing, so I'll give them credit for the work they did there. But it still would've been cheaper and quicker to fix the cars, and they still could've worked on walls in the meantime as a future fix.

It's not like this problem had never come up before either. In the '80s the NASCAR Modified Division had a terrible stretch where something like 8 drivers were killed in a 2 or 3 year span. Eventually they figured out that they were building the chassis too stiff. There were accidents where the car needed nothing but minor repair and could've been back in action that day, but the driver was dead. It turned out the cars were such tanks that they absorbed hardly any energy at all. I'm not going to get on the car builders' case, because at the time they just didn't know. They learned from it and made the cars better. But in the late '90s and early '00s when injuries and deaths were popping up because of the same problem, NASCAR did know and turned its head. That my issue.


I really don't get all this discussion about massive accidents. The Daytona was pretty clean and the cars were not all bunched up like you are talking about.

It started pretty clean, but it turned into a slopfest towards the end. Before that last wreck there was the one with McMurray that was a perfect example of the problems of plate racing. Would that wreck have been anywhere near as large if the cars weren't forced to run in a giant pack? Of course not. And they were lucky they didn't get one in that mess that eventually ended in Blaney pulling that crazy move that took out Schrader. The main point is, how often do you see a restrictor plate race that doesn't have a 15 car accident? Now how often do you see a non plate race that does have a 15 car accident?


When Tony Stewart and Kurt Busch wrecked there was hardly anyone else around as they had pulled away, just the kind of racing that you claim is impossible at Daytona due to the restrictor plates.

Maybe not impossible, but unlikely. What usually happens when a car tries to pull away? It gets a couple of car lengths out, and then the pack swallows it back up.


When you have 43 guys bunched up and they all want to get to the front what do you expect to happen? Seems you want some guys to just disapear into thin air so others can get by. I just don't get what you are trying to say. If your car is faster than the guy in front of you, you can get by him. Period.

Tony Stewart fell to the rear of the field and then weaved his way up through traffic without the aid of five guys lined up. Dale Junior fell to 34th and then got as high as 5th without the aid of a big long line of cars. When Kevin Harvick came from nowhere to pass Mark Martin he did so with the aid of one car, Matt Kenseth, not the five you say is required to make a pass.

They absolutely had the aid of a string of other cars coming up through the pack. If they would've pulled out to pass and no one went with them they would've fell straight to the back like a stone. You simply don't see a car pull out and pass without another car pushing behind. Guys like Earnhardt are able to move up partly because they are faster, but partly because people will work with them more. If someone back in 30th saw Earnhardt working with one lane of traffic and Tony Raines working the other he's going to draft Earnhardt because it gives him a better chance to get up front. If everyone made a conscious effort not to draft with Earnhardt he'd run 30th all day, because it doesn't matter how fast you are if no one works with you. You can not just pull out and pass a car by yourself.

Sean_CaseyRules
02-20-2007, 09:02 PM
Go Toyota!

First season in Nascar. Seems like this is the one sport you dont get a break in.

Michael Waltrip is my favorite driver!