[PettyBlue]

I remember when NASCAR could not fill the field or used poor cars called field fillers.My how times have changed.Here is a good read on it from 2002. NASCAR.com - 43-car field a product of slow change - May 8, 2002

[clutch]

times have changed alright.......does anyone know if anyone using a past champ provisional has won a race?

[PettyBlue]

clutch,I do not recall that happening with a past champ.Bobby Allison won as a field filler driving a different class car than the Grand National cars at the time but they let him race anyway.

[PettyBlue]

Bobby won with a mustang as you can read here, Bobby Allison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by PettyBlue

Bobby won with a mustang as you can read here, Bobby Allison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yep. I take it as a major black mark against NASCAR's astute record keeping. They didn't give the wins to Bobby, and there is another example of them denying a win to a Grand American driver , but the name escapes me. However, they did give Tiny Lund credit for winning in a Grand American Camaro at North Wilks?

For those of you who aren't familiar with "The Old NASCAR' that so many of us "antiques" constantly compare this "new NASCAR' to, the old one had its share of inequities, too.

[LSC9901]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

Yep. I take it as a major black mark against NASCAR's astute record keeping. They didn't give the wins to Bobby, and there is another example of them denying a win to a Grand American driver , but the name escapes me. However, they did give Tiny Lund credit for winning in a Grand American Camaro at North Wilks?

For those of you who aren't familiar with "The Old NASCAR' that so many of us "antiques" constantly compare this "new NASCAR' to, the old one had its share of inequities, too.

That just cannot be Bob. Life in the good ole' days was so very perfect in every way ..... wasn't it ???

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by LSC9901

That just cannot be Bob. Life in the good ole' days was so very perfect in every way ..... wasn't it ???

If they were, in fact, the "Good Ole Days," why didn't I have more fun? <g>

[Mike24]

Who cares how many cars start the race? If 58 cars want to race, then let them race. If 40 cars want to race, then let them race. Dosen't make any difference to me, as long as I see good racing.

[LSC9901]

Originally Posted by Mike24

Who cares how many cars start the race? If 58 cars want to race, then let them race. If 40 cars want to race, then let them race. Dosen't make any difference to me, as long as I see good racing.

I believe there should be an upper limit, but if only 25 teams want to race on any given sunday then so be it !!!

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by Mike24

Who cares how many cars start the race? If 58 cars want to race, then let them race. If 40 cars want to race, then let them race. Dosen't make any difference to me, as long as I see good racing.

Yep, makes sense to me. Martinsville with a starting field of 58? Nothing more exciting than a bumper-to-bumper traffic jam on the Santa Ana Freeway. <g>

[Mike24]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

Yep, makes sense to me. Martinsville with a starting field of 58? Nothing more exciting than a bumper-to-bumper traffic jam on the Santa Ana Freeway. <g>

Yes, I was being sarcastic with the 58 cars comment.

I think there should be a limit on how many drivers start the race in that situation, which we already have. But as LSC said, if only 28 cars want to race, then only 28 cars want to race. NASCAR shouldn't try to add drivers that don't want to race on that given weekend. But NASCAR won't have that problem anymore the way it is going.

[clutch]

Originally Posted by Mike24

Yes, I was being sarcastic with the 58 cars comment.

I think there should be a limit on how many drivers start the race in that situation, which we already have. But as LSC said, if only 28 cars want to race, then only 28 cars want to race. NASCAR shouldn't try to add drivers that don't want to race on that given weekend. But NASCAR won't have that problem anymore the way it is going.

why not have 58 start , 15 would be wrecked before 30 laps had gone

[LSC9901]

Originally Posted by clutch

why not have 58 start , 15 would be wrecked before 30 laps had gone

I speak only for myself but 58 cars at Bristol wouldn't even be interesting to watch. I do admit that there is a certain amount of excitement when an accident occurs but I find Bristol, under optimum conditions, nothing more than a wreck fest. Can you imagine 58 cars in "the big one" at Talledga ??? Sometimes 43 cars seem like to many.

[Souporscotty]

Originally Posted by LSC9901

I speak only for myself but 58 cars at Bristol wouldn't even be interesting to watch. I do admit that there is a certain amount of excitement when an accident occurs but I find Bristol, under optimum conditions, nothing more than a wreck fest. Can you imagine 58 cars in "the big one" at Talledga ??? Sometimes 43 cars seem like to many.

I've always thought that the short tracks should be limited to no more than 33 cars.

[clutch]

Originally Posted by Souporscotty

I've always thought that the short tracks should be limited to no more than 33 cars.

Bet you werent thinkin that the time you got a volkswagon in the back of a Hummer