[Donno]

Its about time a few drivers changed seats.... the COT cars are all 'the same', so he who has the drivers should win, assuming a level mechanical playing field.

Will there be a driver feeding frenzy over the closing months...? Can do no harm.

Would you drive a Toyota over a Dodge....? Can Ford really stick it to Chevy...? Will the fans stick around to see...?

NASCAR is facing a loose/loose situation..... accept what they have imposed, and continue to overegulate (Daytona and the Crew chief bans show this isnt the right route), or encourage true competition between drivers and upset the cosy relationships with the big money earning teams and sponsors...?

A NASCAR win...??? Listen to the drivers, and the fans..... a level playing field is fine, as long as the bar isnt set to low. There should always be big winners and big losers... why play with human nature...? Let's face it, ts no longer 'Johnny in his Camaro from the corner garage on a saturday afternoon'... if you want to build a team, work for it, sponsors, business plans and all.... this is what it takes to win!!

This is a 'first accross the line' sport afterall.....

[harvick29]

[quote=Donno;172466]Its about time a few drivers changed seats.... the COT cars are all 'the same', so he who has the drivers should win, assuming a level mechanical playing field.

sorry but who ever has the cars will win.of course there are drivers that are slightly better than other drivers.but there will always be a bigger gap performance wise in the cars them self.no matter how equal they try to make the cars the better teams will always be on top.who didnt think that HMS wasnt going to have a jump on the COT.more money more resources better technology.no wonder they got off to such a great start.you put jeff gordon or tony stewart in the 21 car for the woods brothers.they wont contend for championships.maybe they would run slightly better because of their driving skills but come on anyone really think these cats are that much better if better at all than bill elliott come on ya right.there will never be a equal mechanical field.but there will always be a much more equal field of drivers.matter of fact i think there is a bigger gap team to team performance wise with the COT then there is with the old cars,atleast for now.

[Donno]

Level playing field for cars.... or drivers. Does money really talk...? True.... but its a team sport.... do you honestly think a great driver cant make a car run...? look what Mark Martin achieved in a Chevy, look how well the 45 Petty car has run with a change in driver....? Its a combination.... put the pieces of the puzzle on the table... and watch what happens.... with the right pieces in play.

Toyota will be masters of the mix and match initiative. Their very nature is to choose conservatively, based on reputation, in the first instance.

The US had their chance, watch out for some serious 'pouching' ifor the Toyota camp in the closed season.

The good attracts the greater good, and ultimately the best of man and machine.

Dale Jr... is this a case of machine attracting man, or vice verser...?

This will be the risk/benefit equation Dale will have lost many hours sleep over!

[DOF_power]

>



^ People here are confusing spec series with equal cars and equal opportunities.

Not the same.

Just at look at Champ Car and/or GP2 where there are still differences between the big teams and the rest, albeit not as big as say in F1 and/or endurance/sport-car racing.

Those with better setups, tweaks (minor but very important/decisive), engines will still have first shot by quite a margin.

[Racer Duck]

no matter how stringent the NASCAR rules for the COT are, there are places where "adjustments" are built in. Because these adjustments are analog there is an infinite number of variations and combinations.

it's not the better equipment that will prevail (though better equipment does provide additional "preformance" points), nor the better driver, nor the better team, but the combination of all 3. what will work for one team will not work for another, just as what will work for one driver will not work for another. the right combination is more important than how much the owner spent or the driver's credentials or how fast the team can do a 4 tire and fuel stop, thought each of those contribute to the whole.

now throw in weather and you've sufficiently disturbed the mix of men and machines that now luck plays an important part in the outcome.

if finding "the handle" were as easy as some think, most of the races we see would be dead heats!

[Bob Tanner]

First of all, there is no such thing as "Equal Race Cars." IROC tried this and even thought they came close, there was always one or two "just a little better."

I finally accepted the fact that the "Stock" in NASCAR is gone. Finished, No more. Fini. Suchergebnisse. NASCAR has created a true "race car." The only resemblance to "Stock" is the fact that they call them Chevies, Fords, Dodges, and Toyotas.

They are of a common template but there is a ton of latitude for chassis adjustment, steering adjustment, tire pressures, etc., etc. for them to have individuality. With the exception of the front of the hood, part of the rear deck and the headlite decals, they look the same but under the skin they can very very different.

This takes us to a undeniable truth in racing; The team with the most money will ultimately always win the most races and the most money.

And since when did this concept of NASCAR being a "Team sport" become fact? Yeah, it takes a group of people to make one driver successful but to make it a "Team sport?" I think not! It's a team sport in the same manner that the chick who is the receptionist at the NY Yankees office is a member of the team. She plays a part but believe me, NO ONE goes to the Yankees office to watch her do her nails between phone calls! They go to the Bronx to watch the Yankees play ball. Fans appreciate the crew members and their ability to change four tires and fuel in 13 seconds, but believe me, fans attend the races to see the cars and drivers.

Yeah, yeah, I know. "The team members play an important part. They DESERVE the recognition!" Horse feathers! If they want to be stars, then quit being supporting actors and become drivers.

Soap Box mode <OFF>

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

First of all, there is no such thing as "Equal Race Cars." IROC tried this and even thought they came close, there was always one or two "just a little better."

I finally accepted the fact that the "Stock" in NASCAR is gone. Finished, No more. Fini. Suchergebnisse. NASCAR has created a true "race car." The only resemblance to "Stock" is the fact that they call them Chevies, Fords, Dodges, and Toyotas.

They are of a common template but there is a ton of latitude for chassis adjustment, steering adjustment, tire pressures, etc., etc. for them to have individuality. With the exception of the front of the hood, part of the rear deck and the headlite decals, they look the same but under the skin they can very very different.

This takes us to a undeniable truth in racing; The team with the most money will ultimately always win the most races and the most money.

And since when did this concept of NASCAR being a "Team sport" become fact? Yeah, it takes a group of people to make one driver successful but to make it a "Team sport?" I think not! It's a team sport in the same manner that the chick who is the receptionist at the NY Yankees office is a member of the team. She plays a part but believe me, NO ONE goes to the Yankees office to watch her do her nails between phone calls! They go to the Bronx to watch the Yankees play ball. Fans appreciate the crew members and their ability to change four tires and fuel in 13 seconds, but believe me, fans attend the races to see the cars and drivers.

Yeah, yeah, I know. "The team members play an important part. They DESERVE the recognition!" Horse feathers! If they want to be stars, then quit being supporting actors and become drivers.

Soap Box mode <OFF>

I do and I don't agree.

the team with the most money will win the most of the money most of the time. but they aren't guaranteed the win nor the money. they have to earn it just like every other team. but, by virtue of having the most money, they can hire the services of the best in their field, assuming the best are for hire.

Wendell Scott proved it's dang near impossible for an underfunded team to do well in NASCAR, yet his accomplishments are legendary. On the other hand, even with all the deep pockets and "connections", HMS still doesn't win most of the races nor most of the championships, though one could argue they win more than their "share". For instance, they've won 10 of the 24 races thus far this year and 4 of the last 10 chamionships .. not quite half, but definitely more than their share.

but nothing was said about team members wanting recognition nor stardom. you must have read something between the lines... still team members are as important as the steering wheel .. today's drivers can't win without a steering wheel. and the fastest, best handling race car ever made is dead last without a competent driver. my point is: whether it's a team or a coalition, every part is important, no matter what their contractual value, as long as they perform to their capability and when they all perform to their capability they will be at or near the front when the checkered flag falls.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

I do and I don't agree.

the team with the most money will win the most of the money most of the time. but they aren't guaranteed the win nor the money. they have to earn it just like every other team. but, by virtue of having the most money, they can hire the services of the best in their field, assuming the best are for hire..

I agree. That's why I, on purpose, ended the sentence with "...most of the time." Every once in awhile a blind pig can find an acorn. I guess it goes back to my favourite Damon Runyon quote, "The race isn't always to the fastest, nor the fight to the strongest...but that's the way to bet."

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

Wendell Scott proved it's dang near impossible for an underfunded team to do well in NASCAR, yet his accomplishments are legendary. On the other hand, even with all the deep pockets and "connections", HMS still doesn't win most of the races nor most of the championships, though one could argue they win more than their "share". For instance, they've won 10 of the 24 races thus far this year and 4 of the last 10 chamionships .. not quite half, but definitely more than their share..

I have always had a partiality for single car and under-funded teams. Talk about your up hill battles! That is why I say...

absolutely nothing I have seen, nor had anyone tell me, changes my mind that Big Bill France had the right idea with his Kiekhaeffer Rule, in that NO TEAM OWNER COULD HAVE MORE THAN TWO TEAM. Period! Megateam, and the competition most of us relish, are not compatible.

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

but nothing was said about team members wanting recognition nor stardom. you must have read something between the lines... still team members are as important as the steering wheel .. today's drivers can't win without a steering wheel. and the fastest, best handling race car ever made is dead last without a competent driver. my point is: whether it's a team or a coalition, every part is important, no matter what their contractual value, as long as they perform to their capability and when they all perform to their capability they will be at or near the front when the checkered flag falls.

This is simply a carry-over to some discussions I have had IRT "Team Concept." I've debated against; they deserve the attention, they have earned their stardom and even one "psychology major drop out" argued that their remaining in the background destroyed their self esteem. I understand your position fully but... alas, I guess that's why they make red cars and blue cars; for different tastes. I still rate it as an individual sport with significant assistance, worthy of merit, given.

[Racer Duck]

With NA$CAR's control over almost every aspect of the equipment and the actions the team can perform on it, I agree that the results are controlled more than ever by the driver. Gone are the days when an Ernie Elliott or a Leonard Wood or a Smokey Yunick or a Banjo Matthews had major influence in the outcome of a race.

It seems to me that in the old days the driver was about 40% of the equation, the equipment (and who built it) another 40% and luck the other 50%. Today, I think the driver has moved up to about 75% with the equipment hanging about 20% and the other 45% is luck.

Now, if that seems strange to you, just remember: I am using NA$CAR math.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

With NA$CAR's control over almost every aspect of the equipment and the actions the team can perform on it, I agree that the results are controlled more than ever by the driver. Gone are the days when an Ernie Elliott or a Leonard Wood or a Smokey Yunick or a Banjo Matthews had major influence in the outcome of a race.

It seems to me that in the old days the driver was about 40% of the equation, the equipment (and who built it) another 40% and luck the other 50%. Today, I think the driver has moved up to about 75% with the equipment hanging about 20% and the other 45% is luck.

Now, if that seems strange to you, just remember: I am using NA$CAR math.

How far have we dropped? From Smokey, Banjo, and Junior Johnson to a sport where the engineer with the best CAD program determines the champ?

Like your NA$CAR math. All except the "Luck." I don't believe in "luck." To my twisted way of thinking, "Luck" is simply the ability to either
(a) keep yourself out of positions where bad things can befall you, or
(b) putting yourself in a position to take advantage of bad things which happen to others.

I been given all kinds of arguments against my way of thinking but, in my personal experience, I've seen the above hold true more times than not.

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

How far have we dropped? From Smokey, Banjo, and Junior Johnson to a sport where the engineer with the best CAD program determines the champ?

Like your NA$CAR math. All except the "Luck." I don't believe in "luck." To my twisted way of thinking, "Luck" is simply the ability to either
(a) keep yourself out of positions where bad things can befall you, or
(b) putting yourself in a position to take advantage of bad things which happen to others.

I been given all kinds of arguments against my way of thinking but, in my personal experience, I've seen the above hold true more times than not.

it's why Dale Jarrett runs either in the front (a) or in the back (b).

[LSC9901]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

With NA$CAR's control over almost every aspect of the equipment and the actions the team can perform on it, I agree that the results are controlled more than ever by the driver. Gone are the days when an Ernie Elliott or a Leonard Wood or a Smokey Yunick or a Banjo Matthews had major influence in the outcome of a race.

It seems to me that in the old days the driver was about 40% of the equation, the equipment (and who built it) another 40% and luck the other 50%. Today, I think the driver has moved up to about 75% with the equipment hanging about 20% and the other 45% is luck.

Now, if that seems strange to you, just remember: I am using NA$CAR math.

Ducky ... I added up those numbers and the answer is:


France'$ NA$CAR

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by LSC9901

Ducky ... I added up those numbers and the answer is:


France'$ NA$CAR

it adds up to 1 (Brian - that's not "brain" misspelled either!)

[thunderfoot]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

it adds up to 1 (Brian - that's not "brain" misspelled either!)

Theres no I in team and no brain in Brian