[Bryan88]

Originally Posted by PenelopePitStop

Interesting.

I actually thought the race was boring. Too much single-file racing for me. Especially for Dega.

Even with all the lead changes? The leaders did do quite a bit of single file at points during the race, but it was four wide behind them. It was also fun to see a group of cars get together and run the high side right past the leaders.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by PenelopePitStop

Interesting.

I actually thought the race was boring. Too much single-file racing for me. Especially for Dega.

Penny, thou art a kinder spirit (kind of).

I didn't watch the race because I don't especially like Talladega racing. From what I heard it sounded like a "compelling" race, but then public executions might also be "compelling" but they aren't something I would want to watch, either.

To me, plate racing isn't racing. Any time a driver has to be pushed around the track to be competitive.. Any time the cars are set up to where the basic plan of attack is to put it on the floor from the time you leave the pits until you pull back in... Sorry. To me that just isn't racing.

How would I change it? I think Benny Parsons had a good idea; put a chicane in the middle of the back stretch. Slow the cars down to where they don't need a plate, then let them race.

NA__AR loves it because the race, IMHO, appeals to the base nature of people who watch racing because "The big one" is always on the verge of happening and the wrecks are mostly spectacular. This draws in a lot of people.

I think Talladega is more of an "event," or a "happening" than it is a race. If people like it, that's OK. I'm sure there are some who don't like Richmond but it's a race I try never to miss.

[Lefty Noob]

In my humble, fairly ignorant opinion... the bulk of the race was pretty dull, but the finish was absolutely amazing.

[LSC9901]

Originally Posted by Lefty Noob

In my humble, fairly ignorant opinion... the bulk of the race was pretty dull, but the finish was absolutely amazing.

In respect to this race and previous Talladega races it was different from my perspective. I'll agree with Bob that it isn't really racing but the two car runs seemed more spectacular than in years gone by. Talladega is really one of those races where you can catch the last 20 laps and pretty much expect to see most of the action.

[clutch]

Originally Posted by LSC9901

In respect to this race and previous Talladega races it was different from my perspective. I'll agree with Bob that it isn't really racing but the two car runs seemed more spectacular than in years gone by. Talladega is really one of those races where you can catch the last 20 laps and pretty much expect to see most of the action.

well I LOVE restrictor plate races.......and this one sounded fantastic.......unfortunately I was at work

Not really racing??...give me a break. Its a bit different, but the cars are even more equal.....may the best racer (and his drafting partner ) win

[DOF_power]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

Penny, thou art a kinder spirit (kind of).

I didn't watch the race because I don't especially like Talladega racing. From what I heard it sounded like a "compelling" race, but then public executions might also be "compelling" but they aren't something I would want to watch, either.

To me, plate racing isn't racing. Any time a driver has to be pushed around the track to be competitive.. Any time the cars are set up to where the basic plan of attack is to put it on the floor from the time you leave the pits until you pull back in... Sorry. To me that just isn't racing.

How would I change it? I think Benny Parsons had a good idea; put a chicane in the middle of the back stretch. Slow the cars down to where they don't need a plate, then let them race.

NA__AR loves it because the race, IMHO, appeals to the base nature of people who watch racing because "The big one" is always on the verge of happening and the wrecks are mostly spectacular. This draws in a lot of people.

I think Talladega is more of an "event," or a "happening" than it is a race. If people like it, that's OK. I'm sure there are some who don't like Richmond but it's a race I try never to miss.

I respectfully disagree with you here Bob.
I'll take restrictor plates over chicanes every day.

Have you even seen the mutilation and desecration that has been done to european Grand-Prix tracks ?!

Hockenheim's modification/redesign for example, is simply murder, and those people should be put in prison.

Let me tell you Dega's recent show was a lot more racing that any parade from one chicane to another (where no drafting/pushing can help) could ever be.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by DOF_power

I respectfully disagree with you here Bob.
I'll take restrictor plates over chicanes every day.

Have you even seen the mutilation and desecration that has been done to european Grand-Prix tracks ?!

Hockenheim's modification/redesign for example, is simply murder, and those people should be put in prison.

Let me tell you Dega's recent show was a lot more racing that any parade from one chicane to another (where no drafting/pushing can help) could ever be.

I will agree that a chicane isn't a good alternative.

I just plain DO NOT like restrictor plate racing. When you take away power AND throttle response at the same time it just opens some doors that I, personally, don't like to see opened.

To take my personal feeling farther, I'd like to see EVERY track longer than a mile, except the road courses, go by the way side. Reason: (a) The speeds are too fast and I've found that the speed of a race and the quality of the racing itself are sometimes inversely proportional. (b) I think if a person pays an astronomical price to sit in a grandstand then he/she should be able to see the entire track WITHOUT benefit of binoculars. I have been to Daytona, Talladega, Pocono, Michigan and have sat in the main grandstand. The backstretch is too far away and the folks in the stands only have a general idea of what is going on. The big screen TV's help a whole lot but if I wanted to watch a race on TV I'd stay home where the beer is cheaper and the restrooms are cleaner.

But all this goes against the grain of what every other red-blooded NA__AR fans believes to be holy so I remain an island.

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

I will agree that a chicane isn't a good alternative.

I just plain DO NOT like restrictor plate racing. When you take away power AND throttle response at the same time it just opens some doors that I, personally, don't like to see opened.

To take my personal feeling farther, I'd like to see EVERY track longer than a mile, except the road courses, go by the way side. Reason: (a) The speeds are too fast and I've found that the speed of a race and the quality of the racing itself are sometimes inversely proportional. (b) I think if a person pays an astronomical price to sit in a grandstand then he/she should be able to see the entire track WITHOUT benefit of binoculars. I have been to Daytona, Talladega, Pocono, Michigan and have sat in the main grandstand. The backstretch is too far away and the folks in the stands only have a general idea of what is going on. The big screen TV's help a whole lot but if I wanted to watch a race on TV I'd stay home where the beer is cheaper and the restrooms are cleaner.

But all this goes against the grain of what every other red-blooded NA__AR fans believes to be holy so I remain an island.

well, actually there's a small group of us "islands"...

[LSC9901]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

well, actually there's a small group of us "islands"...

Too bad more don't get voted "ON TO" the island. Actual racing versus personalities is far more enjoyable.

[DOF_power]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

I will agree that a chicane isn't a good alternative.

I just plain DO NOT like restrictor plate racing. When you take away power AND throttle response at the same time it just opens some doors that I, personally, don't like to see opened.

Well I'd also want to see the running gear taken away and let them shift.
There are other series that use restrictor plates.

Why is it that in NASCAR it takes away throttle response ?!
I thought the running gear + downforce takes way pedal movement.

To take my personal feeling farther, I'd like to see EVERY track longer than a mile, except the road courses, go by the way side. Reason: (a) The speeds are too fast and I've found that the speed of a race and the quality of the racing itself are sometimes inversely proportional. (b) I think if a person pays an astronomical price to sit in a grandstand then he/she should be able to see the entire track WITHOUT benefit of binoculars. I have been to Daytona, Talladega, Pocono, Michigan and have sat in the main grandstand. The backstretch is too far away and the folks in the stands only have a general idea of what is going on. The big screen TV's help a whole lot but if I wanted to watch a race on TV I'd stay home where the beer is cheaper and the restrooms are cleaner.

But all this goes against the grain of what every other red-blooded NA__AR fans believes to be holy so I remain an island.

What about tradition ?!

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by DOF_power

Well I'd also want to see the running gear taken away and let them shift.
There are other series that use restrictor plates.

Why is it that in NASCAR it takes away throttle response ?!
I thought the running gear + downforce takes way pedal movement.
What about tradition ?!

IRT throttle response... On the Stuper Speedways they run flat out. The size of the plates make throttle response from flat out to let off back to flat out maddeningly slow (about a lap in distance). It's similar to some commercial vehicles over here. They "cut them back" to a predetermined speed. If you overtake a slower vehicle and pull out to pass, it takes forever.

Tradition? The Southern 500 at Darlington was a tradition. Speedways of over a mile ARE NOT, repeat: N-O-T, a tradition with NA__AR. They are an anomaly designed by Bill France Sr., Bruton Smith and various others to make a spectacle and an event out of auto racing. The first ten years of NASCAR the races centered around 1/2-mile and one-mile tracks. To me (and I'm sure ONLY me) THAT is the NASCAR tradition.

Tradition? Probably the last time any one affiliated with NA__AR concerned themselves with "tradition" was when they attended the play Fiddler on the Roof, and heard Tevye the milkman sing the song of the same name.

But, as always, this is just my personal point of view and I could be very, very wrong... (and an anachronism, to boot)

[DOF_power]

So then why not change the engines ?!

Superspeedways were incorporated because Big Bill wanted
respect/credibility/popularity by beating the fastest track around at the time the IMS. The american belief was/is that the big race is an (super) fast oval race (the faster the better). Dirt oval never brought that many people and I don't know how ratings would be.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by DOF_power

So then why not change the engines ?!

Superspeedways were incorporated because Big Bill wanted
respect/credibility/popularity by beating the fastest track around at the time the IMS. The american belief was/is that the big race is an (super) fast oval race (the faster the better). Dirt oval never brought that many people and I don't know how ratings would be.

Good question. Why not change the engines?

You are correct about why Big Bill build Daytona. As you know, his plans were to run Indianapolis cars on the track. That all came to a halt when Marshall Teague was killed in one. But that's another story.

The "American Belief" you describe above is correct. However, I maintain that it is a very misguided belief. Faster does not always equate to better.
The 1952 Indianapolis 500 was a Hell of a race but Freddy Agabashian sat on the pole at only 136 MPH and the next day Chet Miller (I believe) sat a track record with a 139 MPH lap! I remember some great racing at Bristol between David Pearson, Cale Yarborough and Bobby Issac when they qualified at a little over 85 MPH!

Sorry. I might be totally alone but I DO NOT buy into the theory that faster is better. If I want fast I'll go to a drag race or to Bonneville. If I want racing I'll go to an enclosed track.

You are correct. Dirt never brought the fans. Mainly because the dirt tracks don't have the capacity access or the facilities. Last year Smoke proved that, if the names are there and if it's promoted to high heaven, people WILL throng to a rural dirt track to see a good race.

But pay me no attention. I freely admit that I am a walking, talking anachronism; a guy who is physically in the 21st Century but still has one foot planted back in the 70's. Pray for me, please.

[DOF_power]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

Good question. Why not change the engines?

You are correct about why Big Bill build Daytona. As you know, his plans were to run Indianapolis cars on the track. That all came to a halt when Marshall Teague was killed in one. But that's another story.

The "American Belief" you describe above is correct. However, I maintain that it is a very misguided belief. Faster does not always equate to better.
The 1952 Indianapolis 500 was a Hell of a race but Freddy Agabashian sat on the pole at only 136 MPH and the next day Chet Miller (I believe) sat a track record with a 139 MPH lap! I remember some great racing at Bristol between David Pearson, Cale Yarborough and Bobby Issac when they qualified at a little over 85 MPH!

Sorry. I might be totally alone but I DO NOT buy into the theory that faster is better. If I want fast I'll go to a drag race or to Bonneville. If I want racing I'll go to an enclosed track.

You are correct. Dirt never brought the fans. Mainly because the dirt tracks don't have the capacity access or the facilities. Last year Smoke proved that, if the names are there and if it's promoted to high heaven, people WILL throng to a rural dirt track to see a good race.

But pay me no attention. I freely admit that I am a walking, talking anachronism; a guy who is physically in the 21st Century but still has one foot planted back in the 70's. Pray for me, please.

Ofcourse I agree that faster doesn't necessarily equal better. But speed is one of the factors that counts twards bringing people and twards the drivers and series "medal of honor" .
There's also racing outside (enclosed small) racetracks BTW (like rally, endurance on tracks like the old 'Ring).