RacingComputers said:NASCAB got their "FEEL GOOD STORY" Sat night at Daytona
Wrecks, Cars flipping and a NEW WINNER that does not have a ride for next year.
OH THE DRAMA of it all
Seeing as over half the field had been wrecked, and there were quite a few cars in the top 10 who were looking for their first win...
In reply to Coniglio Rampante :
People forget about all those races in the "good old days" when maybe three cars had a shot at winning and two of them dropped out by halfway. In most series (not you F1) this is probably the most competitive time in history. I practically stopped watching NASCAR for years and have only missed a handful of races the past few years.
In reply to Cyclone03 :
The betting everywhere is insane. The last couple baseball games we went to you could do it right at the stadium. But Pete Rose is still a bad guy for being ahead of the times. Letting him keep the win wasn't a huge surprise, I only recall seeing one driver stripped of a win
In reply to Wally (Forum Supporter) :
F1 is always the first series to get mentioned when talk turns to not competitive.
I have watched regularly since the Senna days and went to all 3 races in Phoenix as well as 2 at Indy and 1 at COTA.
When was the last time a car didn't qualify within 108%? That was a thing in the 90's.
Now we see the entire field within 2 seconds ! I think Austria was almost within a second. That's pretty competitive ,the fact the aero screws up racing and passing is another thing.
The drivers skill set as well as the budgets to repair damaged cars may very well dictate the racing action more than the cars themself.(nobody ever mentions that).
The cost cap rules are just dumb and no real in season testing as well hurts the actual racing.
Ive long felt that the prize money to the teams should be alicated in reverse of the standings with the LAST place team getting a larger development budget that the first place team IF THE GOAL IS ACTUAL PARITY. If that team want to spend it of car development or party's it's up to them.
Wally (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to Coniglio Rampante :
People forget about all those races in the "good old days" when maybe three cars had a shot at winning and two of them dropped out by halfway.
That's the dirty little secret about Richard Petty's 200 wins. A lot of them came when NASCAR sanctioned something like 60 races a year, and many of them were against privateer drivers who couldn't compete with Petty's operation. Not to take anything away from the King, but part of his greatness was forcing everyone else to raise their game from a team and preparation standpoint.
Very valid point
In reply to Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) :
He was In better cars than pretty much everyone else for most of those wins too, when you look at guys like Dick Trickle he seems almost lazy at 200 wins
In reply to Cyclone03 :
The entire field qualifies closely, but when one driver wins almost every race and there are few if any on track lead changes it's more a parade than a competition. The caps and lack of testing sound good on paper but never seem to work as intended, the haves always find a way.
You'll need to log in to post.
