[SteelPhoenyx]

Heyyyyyyy... what's wrong with California?

[LSC9901]

Originally Posted by SteelPhoenyx

Heyyyyyyy... what's wrong with California?

There are tracks in the US that would love a race date and neither track in CA can sell out. Any more questions ???

[tkj24]

If given a choice I would rather buy a ticket at Darlington then recieve a free ticket at California.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by SteelPhoenyx

Heyyyyyyy... what's wrong with California?

Put the fact that you live in California aside and look at thing objectively.

They have never had a uniformly "good" race at Fontana.
They have yet to have a sellout.
NASCAR took one of the most revered and respected races (the Southern 500 at Darlington - a race date that went all the way back to 1950!) and placed it at the Fontana Folly.
Darlington is a unique track with a history that almost parallels the history of NASCAR itself - California is just another 2-mile cookie-cutter Michigan wantabe.

I guess that there are some who agree with your apparent acceptance of the California track. However, if I had to bet, I'd bet that the vast majority of them are centered in two locations; (1) in the Pacific Time Zone and (2) In NA$CAR headquarters in Daytona Beach (and I bet that there are several in Daytona who keep their feelings about California quiet, out of fear of losing their lofty positions).

And THAT is what's wrong with California Speedway.

[SteelPhoenyx]

Ok, I can see where you are coming from. I may not share the same opinion, but I can respect yours.

I guess if I were a pre-ME, and lived east of the Rockies... I'd be a bit ticked that they moved the Labor Day race to California too.

Chalk it up to the fact that I'm still technically a rookie at NASCAR (but don't aske to see the stripes on my bumper!)... but so far there's really only one track I don't care for very much... and that's Pocono. I've enjoyed the Fontana races I've seen... but it didn't hurt that Kenseth won there in February.

I haven't been there, yet... but next year is a goal. I was also unaware that they don't sell out. Is that unique among all tracks? Infineon doesn't sell out? That's a surprise. It was pretty packed. Infineon's a pretty cool track too. But then, I like road course racing.

Like it or not, they are trying to make NASCAR appeal to a much broader scope of viewer... and that must be behind their decision to move races west. That may or may not be a good thing.

[DOF_power]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

another "Renaissances Man," I see. Yeah, running an American stock car on the old NÜrburgring would separate the men from the boys.

Nothing to do with american supposed stock car racing.
I have of fantasy of putting just about everything on the old Ring.
From F1 (aim for the tallest tree Kimi ), WRC, Dakar, DTM, WTCC, Champcars to Nascars.
Oh, how about on the same time.

I agree completely with (a), (b) and (c). The races are too long, in most cases and too frequent. I'd say two races in February and November, and three races each month the rest of the season would be just about right.
(d) I agree with, with qualifications. I think I'd enjoy a couple more road courses IF THEY WERE DESIGNED FOR stock cars. As it set now, most road courses, with stock car involved, are merely follow the leader with possible passes in selected spots on the track. Yeah, I know. Montreal and this last Glen race were exciting but those are, history will prove, anomalies.
Dirt...I'd love to see Cup on dirt again but let's face it. IT ain't about racing anymore, it's about business and Perception. There is no dirt track, to my knowledge, set up to accommodate the "VIP Box" people NA$CAR wants to draw. Plus, a dirt track would bring back "The Old Days" (a.k.a. "real racing,") and that thought sends Brian France screaming from the room. Gawd! If NA$CAR would do something like that, the next thing we'd want would be the Labour Day race back in Darlington. Instead we now have an open weekend (I refuse to even acknowledge that they're racing next week at that piece-of-trash, California.

Well I don't like/hate parade/follow the leader courses either, so I agree about good proper tracks for excitement. But I don't know about this custom NASCAR track stuff. A fine, properly designed track should be good for everything (well just about).
The problems you mention about NASCAR, how funny, as you could just replace NASCAR with F1 and you'd still be right in many cases.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by DOF_power

The problems you mention about NASCAR, how funny, as you could just replace NASCAR with F1 and you'd still be right in many cases.

This is a point I've tried to make many times (in fact, if you scan some of my older posts, you'd see me refer to NASCAR as "Formula Nascar," a couple of times.

NOT a slam at F1; it's merely a different form of racing and has a fan base which, in many cases, watches the racing for slightly different reasons. I noticed this when I attended my first F1 race at the old track in Jerez. (BTW, what do they run at Jerez now? Moto GP still?)

I have noticed that, in too many cases, the quality and the intenseness of the ON TRACK competition is inversely proportional to the amount the series has grown. For example, NASCAR's CTS is smaller than Cup and its races are almost always more exciting than the Cup ones.

It would almost seem that the more the sponsors are involved, the bigger the reward, and the more the sanctioning organizations try to micro-manage the racing, the worse the competition becomes.

[Quality88]

Originally Posted by SteelPhoenyx

Heyyyyyyy... what's wrong with California?

Be glad I saw what my peers have posted otherwise I would have been on top of my soapbox on this issue.

[SpaceCadet]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

Gee. I'm "not a real race fan?" That comes as quite a surprise. Maybe I'm a "NASCAR fan," and not a "NA$CAR fan?" Maybe the reason I went to the local race track last night, rather than watch the NA$CAR prima donnas was that I'm actually a big figure skating fan and I just have my sports mixed up?

Come on now, you know there's lots of drivers who can throw a mean triple toe loop! What have you got against figure skating, other than cruel and unusual levels of boredom and really bad quality musical recordings?

Now, seriously, I'd give my left arm and possibly other body parts to see an official Cup Series dirt race (yea, ok, when it snows in July - what am I thinking, this is upstate NY - it has snowed in July!), and a road coarse just for them, also. I realize that to hold my breath waiting for these events to take place would cause my early demise. One can dream. I'm just sittin' here killing time until I leave for the local track. So I, like you, must fit into the "not a real race fan" category.

[SpaceCadet]

Originally Posted by SteelPhoenyx

Chalk it up to the fact that I'm still technically a rookie at NASCAR (but don't aske to see the stripes on my bumper!)... but so far there's really only one track I don't care for very much... and that's Pocono. I've enjoyed the Fontana races I've seen... but it didn't hurt that Kenseth won there in February.

What, you don't like the 5 hour snooze fests at Pocono? I'll take Californina over that track any day, and I'm so dumb I actually go to Pocono every year because it's close! Duh. If I could actually see anything at the Glen, I'd go there because I like road courses. But the stipes on my bumper have been dragging on the pavement for a few years now, and it's tough for the post middle age-not quite totally ancient fans like me to get where I want to be all time. I hope your stripes are still firmly affixed to your chrome/fiberglass/plastic.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by SpaceCadet

I'm just sittin' here killing time until I leave for the local track. So I, like you, must fit into the "not a real race fan" category.

<sigh> It's a cross some of us have to bare.

Seriously, I grew up around small, local tracks and probably people in my age group also grew up with a love affair with their automobile. Speaking only for myself but for the guys I ran around with a car wasn't just a form of transportation; it was an integral part of their very identity!

Remember, this was a time when, if given a set of 1/4-to-7/8 set of open-end wrenches, a like set of box wrenches (optional), a screw driver, a points screw driver and a pair of vise grips and you could just about anything needed to keep a car running well.

Many of our lives kind of revolved around what we read and saw each month in Hot Rod, Rod & Custom, and Car Craft magazines.

A lot of people, much younger than I, today just don't have the mechanical experience we had as kids. Plus, they don't have the money it takes to make automobiles more than a pedestrian interest. ($500 could get you a good used car and gas was under 35 cents/gal)

Sometimes I know I come across a bit harsh but really I don't blame younger folks for a lack of automotive knowledge. They just haven't had the chance our generation had, and that's a shame.

I have theory that IF our gov't wanted to put a crimp in juvenile delinquency today, one thing that they could do would be top mandate making auto engines without computer chips, etc., where your average kid could work and maintain his own car. I don't know about anyone else but I absolutely know that the time I spent keeping my own car running, when I was a teenager, was time not spent getting into stupid mischief.

Damn! I surely ramble, don't I? Sorry.

[SteelPhoenyx]

Bob, you must be about the same age as my dad... because he spent a lot of his teenage years building and racing hot rods too. Then again, you could even be my age, where we had muscle cars and they were still relatively easy to maintain. Granted my first car, a '67 Mustang, was almost old enough to be deemed a classic when I got it, but I could still do the basic maintenance on it myself. I loved that car...

No, no, you must be of my father's generation... that' when Hot Rod. Rod & Custom, and Car Craft magazines were geared mostly towards real hot rods, and not the high dollar checkbook cars that you see at a Goodguys show. Granted there are some 'do it yourself' articles, but that's not the meat of the magazines anymore. Except for Car Craft, they still are.

My husband's father ate, slept, lived automobiles. He owned a garage/gas station when my husband and his brother were kids, and they'd work there after school. When it was slow, my husband would go to the pile of old carburetors, grab one, tear it apart and rebuild it... just for fun. Nowadays my husband is a master tech at an Infiniti dealership, but he still loves to work on the old cars. We were just over at his brother's last weekend helping him pull the motor out of his 57 Fairlane.

Ok, so I am rambling and where am I going with this?

I guess on the flip side I am fascinated by the technology that goes into the new cars today. Yes it makes it difficult for Average Joe to work on his own car, and difficult for kids to learn how to work on their own cars unless they go to something like Wyotech, but being the computer geek that I am, its still interesting.

I still don't know where I'm going with this... oh wait! Here we go...

While I didn't get the opportunity to appreciate stock car racing in its infancy, I still can appreciate it where it was, and I often do feel a twinge of loss, having missed out on something great. However, being the Rookie that I am... I can also appreciate the technology that goes into racing today. Its a mixed blessing/curse.

I should have had my morning coffee before I typed all this out.

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

<sigh> It's a cross some of us have to bare.

...

Sometimes I know I come across a bit harsh but really I don't blame younger folks for a lack of automotive knowledge. They just haven't had the chance our generation had, and that's a shame.

I prefer my crosses covered...

Actually, it's a change of focus that's caused the younger folks to move away from "workin' on the rod". In our day, the cars weren't very reliable and we "helped" our dads fix the family car. Then when we were finally fortunate enough to actually own one, we lavished it with love and the finest motor oil we could afford. It didn't matter to us if it was a junker, as long as it moved .. we moved up to less junky rides with time. And with the introduction of the '55 Chevy, the era of the "cool car" had arrived. Within months every other make were trying to take cash in on the car craze.

Then with the 55 MPH national speed limit and rising gas prices, the luster began peeling off the car craze. Economy and families became more important in the master scheme of things as the "car guys and gals" settled down.

Originally Posted by SteelPhoenyx

...

I guess on the flip side I am fascinated by the technology that goes into the new cars today. Yes it makes it difficult for Average Joe to work on his own car, and difficult for kids to learn how to work on their own cars unless they go to something like Wyotech, but being the computer geek that I am, its still interesting.

...

I should have had my morning coffee before I typed all this out.

I continue to be fascinated by the technology in today's cars .. and cell phones .. and refrigerators! I admit to being a geek. I was one before the word "geek" was. but I love race cars because of their simplicity. the only computer in a race car is one that tends to the spark for the spark plugs. and the only reason it's there is because the previous system was prone to failure.

there's no doubt technology has been responsible for better race car (and thereby, passenger car) designs. but the basic parts, while technologically superior to previous designs, are still elegantly simple and straightforward in what they do.

Never undertake any form of communication without your morning coffee.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

Actually, it's a change of focus that's caused the younger folks to move away from "workin' on the rod". In our day, the cars weren't very reliable and we "helped" our dads fix the family car. Then when we were finally fortunate enough to actually own one, we lavished it with love and the finest motor oil we could afford. It didn't matter to us if it was a junker, as long as it moved .. we moved up to less junky rides with time. And with the introduction of the '55 Chevy, the era of the "cool car" had arrived. Within months every other make were trying to take cash in on the car craze.

Then with the 55 MPH national speed limit and rising gas prices, the luster began peeling off the car craze. Economy and families became more important in the master scheme of things as the "car guys and gals" settled down.

Yep. I can relate. Every so often I'll hear someone say, "They just don't build them like they used to! The cars were better when I was a kid!"

Personally I like my Dodge truck and my Jeep, which goes 3000 miles between oil changes, 30-40K between tune ups, bodies that never rust, and tires that don't wear out on 10K miles!

I believe the trend for kids to not be involved with their cars stems from multiple things:
(1)Higher gas prices - I remember doing a lot of cruising at 29 cent/gallon. This was the death knell of the muscle car.
(2)Technology - It became increasingly difficult to work on your own car. Pollution controls and computer chips just elevated it from past time to actual work!
(3)Affluence - Combined with technology, a higher standard of living, doting parents made the kids think getting their hands greasy was beneath them.
(4)J.C.Whitney/Warshawski went under, as we knew them. (kinda dating myself with this one)

You reference to the '55 Chevie is a good one. Personally I liked the '54 Ford glass-roof Star Liner with the [then] new 292 c.i. OHV V8. But you're right. Ford didn't have Dinah Shore singing, 'See the USA, In your Chevrolet..." That's what did it!

Memory Lane now closed.

[DOF_power]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

This is a point I've tried to make many times (in fact, if you scan some of my older posts, you'd see me refer to NASCAR as "Formula Nascar," a couple of times.

NOT a slam at F1; it's merely a different form of racing and has a fan base which, in many cases, watches the racing for slightly different reasons. I noticed this when I attended my first F1 race at the old track in Jerez. (BTW, what do they run at Jerez now? Moto GP still?)

I have noticed that, in too many cases, the quality and the intenseness of the ON TRACK competition is inversely proportional to the amount the series has grown. For example, NASCAR's CTS is smaller than Cup and its races are almost always more exciting than the Cup ones.

It would almost seem that the more the sponsors are involved, the bigger the reward, and the more the sanctioning organizations try to micro-manage the racing, the worse the competition becomes.

I agree with much of what you say (GP2 races are often better than F1).
Jerez still there.


Now I would divide your Formula NASCAR into 2 categories:

- political and financial interests witch engulf and corupt.
These are rather universal, but more present into F1 and NASCAR due to their size/appeal.


- try too much to be something you're not
Examples:
Trying to make endurance/sportcar racing more like F1 (both in the early 70s and 90s) was a disaster.
The Group C and WCM were killed in the early 1990 as result of this stupid decision. As endurance fans hated the spring format of F1.
And manufacturers found themselves with the technological curve, development pace and financial requirements/burdens of F1 (as their cars were mere 2 seater F1s with a roof).
(Some endurance fans saw us sprint/F1 fans as a bunch of murderers, responsable for the almost deadly blow their beloved sport received)
Formula-5000 (in Europe/Britain) also died when they allowed F1 single-seaters in the competition.
Or let's not forget the ITC (international touring competition).
Touring is the european equivalent of american stock car racing. But the ITCs were anything but touring car. They were F1/single-seaters disquised as touring cars. Again the burdens again proved too much.
And now unfortunately F1 is being made into an endurance series. They just don't learn.