|| *Comments on the 2012 STP 400:* View the most recent comment <#230> | Post a comment <#post> 1. DaleSrFanForever posted: 04.21.2012 - 2:17 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Dinger!!!!!! 2. OldSchoolNascarDude1 posted: 04.21.2012 - 2:25 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) The qualifying procedure seemed to favor most of the early drivers this morning. Once the track heated up, a lot of cars struggled to find grip. 3. LordLowe posted: 04.21.2012 - 3:15 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Okay DSFF It is time to talk about the predictions you made about Drivers and Happenings in NASCAR from 2001 to the present day 4. Daniel posted: 04.21.2012 - 4:29 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) In using the fastest 43: #79 Tim Andrews Out using the fastes 43: #32 Reed Sorenson 5. cjs3872 posted: 04.21.2012 - 5:39 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Well, the pole position puts A.J. Allmendnger in the Shootout next year at Daytona, since pole sitters get in. Ironically, had Allmendinger been racing for the same team he did last year and won the pole, I believe he would NOT be eligible for the Shootout, since Richard Petty does not participate in the pole program, since it's sponsored by a beer company. That is, if the eligibility rules are what I think they are. 6. 10andJoe posted: 04.21.2012 - 6:05 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Shame Tim Andrews didn't get in - I was pulling for him. DNQ or not, that team ran surprisingly well for a low-budget op in their first time out. 7. DaleSrFanForever posted: 04.21.2012 - 6:40 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Predictions 2001-present that were right: 2001: Gordon wins at Las Vegas? That sounds like trouble for the competition. Texas 2001: Steve Park is the real deal. Martinsville 2001: Bobby Hamilton will win a short track race for APR (I was half right) 2001: Awesome Bill is gonna be back in victory lane soon (took a little longer than I thought that year, but he made it) Summer 2001: Robbie Loomis is an elite crew chief after all! End of 2001: Atwood was a bust. Now he's going to Jim Smith? He's done. Early 2002: The story of this year will be Sterling Marlin (I was right, but not how I wanted to be right) Memorial Day 2002: He blew this one, but Jimmie Johnson has some Charlotte wins in his future. One week later: A win at Dover? As a rookie? This Jimmie guy can officially drive. Sears Point 2002: It will sting many years from now when I think about how Nadeau should've won this one (still does). Late 2002: If Kenseth could ever become consistent, he could contend for championships. Homestead 2002: The first of multiple Cups for Smoke. June 2003: I don't think they can catch Kenseth in the points. Richmond 2003: For years I am gonna wish they had let Harvick get to Rudd, cause the Rooster was gonna kick his ass all over the Commonwealth (still do). Dover 2003: The lucky dog? The fans will never warm up to that. Pre-2004: Everyone is really overrating Newman and the season he just had. Pre-2004: The Chase for the Championship? So the first 26 races esentially are useless? I'm starting to think Brian France isn't very smart. Pre-2004: June will win the Daytona 500. April 2004: Gordon's back (damnit). October 24, 2004: This day will be remembered by date like April 1, 1993, July 13, 1993, and February 18, 2001. Homestead 2004: Kurt Busch Cup champ? That will never sound right. Pocono 2005: Carl is indeed the real deal. Summer 2005: Smoke is gonna smoke 'em the rest of the way. Texas 2005: Biff will think about this one for a long time. Cali 2006: Kenseth is gonna have a great year. Memorial Day 2006: Kahne is gonna win a lot of races this year on intermediates. Late 2006: If JJ finally breaks through and wins the Cup, that may break the dam for those guys (although I never thought they'd win 5 in a row) Pre-2007: So the season hasn't even started and June is already making it clear he is out the door at DEI. This year will suck for him. 2007: This COT looks like shit and races worse than shit. It is going to turn a lot of fans off. Mother's Day 2007: Gordon is back (damnit). August 2007: Why reconfigure the most popular track in NASCAR? Homestead 2007: I think JJ will tie Cale's mark at this time next year. Texas 2008: Carl is gonna win a lot of races this year. Summer 2008: No way Kyle keeps this up. Homestead 2008: Let's go ahead and engrave Jimmie's name on the 2009 Cup as well. Pre-2009: I have a bad feeling about this Logano kid. Too much hype. Dega 2009: The first of many for Brad (I think I wrote thos exact words on that race's page). Richmond 2009: I bet Vickers gags in the cha$e. Pre-2010: Truex will regret going to MWR. Summer 2010: Denny is gonna be tough. Phoenix 2010: It's over. Denny might still have the lead, but he is done. Pre-2011: This will be one ugly year for Denny. 8. DaleSrFanForever posted: 04.21.2012 - 7:20 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) And now, the wrong ones: Every single year for Harvick as far as whether he'll have a good year or not. 2001: Kurt Busch will be the poster boy for people pushed up way too soon. 2001: Robby Gordon will finally mature under Richard's wing. 2001: No end in sight for Jeff's title runs. 8 is only a matter of time. 2002: So you are putting an unknown, unproven, unsuccessful driver in the sister car for Jeff? Not smart. Mid 2002: They ain't gonna catch Sterling. Sears Point 2002: the ol' Rooster has more wins left in him. Indy 2002: Good job Smoke, you just killed any shot you had at the Winston Cup. Kansas 2002: Mark's finally gonna win the Winston Cup. Pre-2003: Biff will win the ROY easily. Rockingham 2003: DJ will be back this year, that is the first of at least 3 wins for him. Atlanta 2003: Bobby will break Dale's ATL win record. Homestead 2003: Heartbreaker, but no way Bill retires from full time racing with cars like that. Rockingham 2004: Kasey only did that well cause he was in Bill's car with his setup. The ROY is Vicker's to lose. Pre-2005: Dale Jr will do great with Rondeau, an engineer with technical expertise as his crew chief. Early 2005: Carl is a genuinely good guy. Pre World 600 2005: I think levigating CMS is a great idea (you can imagine how I felt 5 and 1/2 hours later) Homestead 2005: Back breaker for JJ and the 48 team. They will never recover from this. Also Tony has turned the corner permanently. Now that he is a team player and not a prick all the time, the sky is the limit for him and that #20 team. Pre-2006: Jamie Mac + Roush = big time success Daytona 2006: There goes Matt's only chance at ever winning the 500. Richmond 2006: Back on track, now Dale Jr can go back to winning lots of races. Pre-2007: Casey Mears will win a lot of races at HMS. Dover 2007: Martin Truex just took his first step into the elite. Many more of these coming. Summer 2007: Smoke is gonna smoke 'em again til the end like he did in 2005. Daytona 2008: Back on track for the Rocket Man at Penske. Also, June has a lot of wins in his future at HMS. I look for him and Truex to battle up front a lot which will make a juicy story. Summer 2008: So your gonna take over half of that pile of garbage called Haas Racing and driver for them/you? Congrats Tony, you just killed your career. Bristol 2008: That battle between Carl and Kyle is a microcasm of how the championship will be played out. Dega 2008: Damn you NASCAR. That was Regan's only chance at ever winning a Cup race. Cali 2009: Matt + Blickensderfer = unstoppable. Add the fact that Robbie is still there as competition director in case they need anything, this is Matt's year. Texas 2009: Gordon is back and pissed off after a winless '08. He wins at least 3 races this year. Late 2009: Brad at Penske? Can you say "stopgap"? Pre-2010: Jamie Mac + the cadaver of Ganassi Racing + the sinking skip that is DEI = no wins. Memorial Day 2010: Kurt and Penske have finally meshed and have a great future together. Sears Point 2010: Yeesh Brad, what the hell was that? You're never gonna have a Top 10 finish there. Late 2010: Brad, you ruined your career by going to Penske. Pre-2011: Burton is gonna have a great year. Kansas 2011: Good to see Brad win. But he'll never make the cha$e this year. Mid 2011: Carl is definitely gonna leave Roush for JGR, and there is no way Bowyer leaves RCR. August 2011: Broken ankle for Brad? There goes any hope he had for the cha$e. Late 2011: It is simply Carl's year. Nothing can go wrong for him. 9. Baker posted: 04.21.2012 - 10:48 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) All the way back talk in the last race day thread go me thinking I want to see what cjs3872 and DSFF Top 25 greatest drivers of all time look like. So, you two would you be so kind to give your opinions on the Top 25 greatest all time? Anyone else who has an opinion is more than welcome to chime in as well. 10. cjs3872 posted: 04.22.2012 - 12:47 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) Baker, ask and you shall receive. Here's my list of the top 25 drivers in Cup series history: 1. Richard Petty (200 wins, 7-time Daytona 500 winner, 7-time champion) 2. Bobby Allison (85 wins, 3- time Daytona 500 winner, 3-time Coca-Cola 600 winner, and 4-time Southern 500 winner, 1983 NASCAR champion) 3. Jeff Gordon (85 wins, 4 titles, 3-time Daytona 500 winner, 3-time Coca-Cola 600 winner, only 4-time Brickyard 400 winner, only 6-time Southern 500 winner) 4. Dale Earnhardt, Sr. (76 wins, 7-time NASCAR champion, 3-time Coca-Cola 600 winner, 3-time Southern 500 winner, 1998 Daytona 500 winner) 5. Cale Yarborough (83 wins, 3-time consecutive champion from 1976-'78, 4-time Daytona 500 winner, 5-time Southern 500 winner) 6. Darrell Waltrip (84 wins, 3-time NASCAR champion, only man to date with more than 3 Coca-Cola 600 wins with 5, 1989 Daytona 500 winner) 7. David Pearson (105 wins, 3-time NASCAR champion, 3-time Coca-Cola 600 winner, 3-time Southern 500 winner, won sport's Triple Crown in 1976) 8. Junior Johnson (50 wins, including the 1960 Daytona 500) 9. Buck Baker (46 wins, 3-time Southern 500 winner, first driver to win consecutive championships in 1956-'57) 10. Herb Thomas (48 wins, 3-time Southern 500 winner, first driver to win multiple NASCAR championships in 1951, '53) 11. Fireball Roberts (33 wins, including 1962 Daytona 500, 2-time Southern 500 winner) 12. Jimmie Johnson (55 wins, 5 consecutive titles, 2006 Daytona 500 and Brickyard 400 winner, only man to win thee consecutive Coca-Cola 600s) 13. Lee Petty (54 wins, first to reach 50 wins, first 3-time NASCAR champion, won the first Daytona 500 in 1959) 14. Rusty Wallace (55 wins, 1989 NASCAR champion, 1990 Coca-Cola 600 winner) 15. Mark Martin (40 wins, 5-time championship runner-up, 2-time Southern 500 winner, 2002 Coca-Cola 600 winner, won NASCAR's fastest race at Talladega in 1997) 16. Bill Elliott (44 wins, 1988 NASCAR champion, 2-time Daytona 500 winner, 3-time Southern 500 winner, 2002 Brickyard 400 winner, won the Winston Million in 1985, the first year of the program) 17. Tony Stewart (46 wins, 3-time NASCAR champion, 2-time Brickyard 400 winner, 3-time Firecracker 400 winner) 18. Tim Flock (39 wins, including a then-record 18 in 1955, 2-time NASCAR champion, only man to win Daytona Beach Course race in consecutvie years) 19. Ned Jarrett (50 wins, including the 1965 Southern 500 by 14 laps, 2-time NASCAR champion) 20. Bobby Isaac (37 wins, 1970 NASCAR champion, first 4-time Daytona qualifying race winner, 1971 Firecracker 400 winner, ninth on NASCAR's all-time laps led list with 13,229 laps led) 21. Fred Lorenzen (26 wins, including 1965 Daytona 500, first 2-time Coca-Cola 600 winner, winning in 1963 and '65, and was the first to earn more than $100,000 in a season in 1963) 22. Dale Jarrett (32 wins, 1999 NASCAR champion, 3-time Daytona 500 winner, 2-time Brickyard 400 winner, 1996 Coca-Cola 600 winner) 23. Buddy Baker (19 wins, first 3-time Coca-Cola 600 winner, also first to win that race in consecutive years, 1970 Southern 500 winner, 1980 Daytona 500 winner, setting the record that still stands at 177.602 MPH) 24. Benny Parsons (21 wins, 1973 NASCAR champion, 1975 Daytona 500 winner, 1980 Coca-Cola 600 winner) 25. Matt Kenseth (22 wins, 2003 NASCAR champion, 2-time Daytona 500 winner, only rookie ever to win the Coca-Cola 600 in 2000) That's my list of the 25 greatest NASCAR Sprint Cup drivers of all-time and some of the reasons why. 11. cjs3872 posted: 04.22.2012 - 2:35 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) By the way, for those that don't like the idea of Kansas being repaved after this race, on Saturday morning, they found that a pothole was developing on or around one of the seams, proving that the track does, indeed, need to be repaved. If track and NASCAR officials had not discovered this, we may have been looking at a shortened race, or even worse, due to the pothole. Remember that, unlike Daytona and Charlotte, which have had races slowed or stopped for track repair in the last seven years, Kansas does not have lights, so there would have been a definite limit on long they could have waited for daylight reasons. 12. JG24FanForever posted: 04.22.2012 - 7:53 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) cjs3872 David Pearson won 45 races and took 58 poles in just 206 starts in the modern age,he also won the Firecracker, spring Talladega, and spring Darlington 3 years straight(1972-74)and he beat King Petty everywhere they went, how can you put Petty at the Top and Pearson in 7th? 1. Richard Petty 2. Jeff Gordon 3. David Pearson 4. Dale Earnhardt 5. Jimmie Johnson 6. Curtis Turner 7. Junior Johnson 8. Tony Stewart 9. Darrell Waltrip 10. Cale Yarborough I know it absolutely makes no sense to have Turner in the Top 6 but I include the Convertible record and I don't base everything totally on just stats. Glen Wood:"Curtis Turner could do more with a car than anybody I ever saw" Bill France:"Curtis Turner was Nascar's greatest driver" Tim Flock:"Curtis Turner was the best driver ever in Nascar" 13. JG24FanForever posted: 04.22.2012 - 7:58 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) revised 1. Richard Petty 2. Jeff Gordon 3. David Pearson 4. Dale Earnhardt 5. Jimmie Johnson 6. Curtis Turner 7. Bobby Allison 8. Junior Johnson 9. Tony Stewart 10 Darrell Waltrip sorry I forgot about Bobby 14. Baker posted: 04.22.2012 - 11:44 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) Surprised Pearson is so low. Tony Stewart below Mark and Bill? Even Wallace is pushing it. 15. DaleSrFanForever posted: 04.22.2012 - 12:36 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) I'd have to think long and hard for a Top 25. I'd have to really look at a lot of drivers and consider their circumstances. For example, Junior Johnson never won a championship, but he never really tried as a driver. For him it was win or blow up. Bobby only won one, but he played ride roulette his entire career (although his back to back fades in '81 and '82 definitely count against him). Johnson and Gordon have 5 and 4 championships respectively, but they have driven for the dominant organization of the past 20 years with little organizational turnover. HMS has 60 wins without them. During their combined tenure there (2002-present) HMS has won with mid level drivers like Vickers, Casey Mears, and post-2004 comatose Dale Jr. By contrast, Earnhardt won 7 championships, 1 with a team that only EXISTED for 3 and 1/2 years, and 6 for a team who has not been a model organization without him. And I have Petty ahead of Pearson because he ran all the races and went out to maximize his potential wheras Pearson, a better pure driver, was content after winning 3. That means something to me. I am also severely penalizing Smoke because his attitude caused him to leave a LOT on the table with the exxception of 2005 and his owner/driver years. And then there is the question of whether or not to include people like Alan Kulwicki and Davey Allison. Davey won 19 races in 6 and 1/2 seasons before his tragic death in NASCAR's most loaded era. He won at least 2 races in all of his full seasons on a variety of tracks. And Alan won the Winston Freaking Cup as an independant. 20 years later we are STILL having trouble putting that in to perspective. I'll try at some point to do a Top 25, but I'll probably revise it a bunch. Hell, I can't even decide who is #5 after my Top 4 of Earnhardt, Petty, Pearson, and Bobby. Probably Cale, but I'm not sure. 16. cjs3872 posted: 04.22.2012 - 12:43 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) JG24FanForever, one thing that hurts Pearson in my view is the lack of competition he faced in many of his wins, even in the early-to-mid 1970s. Take 1973 for example. At Darlington in the spring, he won by 13 laps over a limping Benny Parsons in a race that only 12 cars finished, simply because his was the only car capable of winning that actually finished. A few weeks later, in the Winston 500 at Talladega, his was the only key car not involved in the lap 9 melee on the backstretch, so he basically won that race by default. I never felt that Pearson could handle stiff competition, which is one reason why his success rate fell dramatically when the competition got keener in the late 70s. But Pearson belongs in my "super seven", but for those reasos, he belongs at the bottom of the "super seven", because all of his comtemporaries were able to handle the increased competition level, and he wasn't. And Pearson dominated the opposite races at the track to their biggest events. You mentioned how Pearson dominated the Firecraker 400 (he's that race's only five-time winner) and spring Darlington race, back when they had two. But in the premeire races at those tracks, Pearson did not come through. Had he, he would be higher. As for Steawrt being behind Elliott and Martin. He's behind Elliott simply because he doesn't have enough big wins. His only two major race victories have come in the Brickyard 400. No wins in the 600 (Elliott and Cale Yarborough never won that race, either), no wins at Darlington (Elliott won there five times, including three Southern 500s), and no wins in the Daytona 500. Putting Stewart behind Martin was a tough call, because Stewart has the championships that Martin doesn't have, but even Martin has some big wins (five crown jewel wins) that Stewart doesn't, and I do put big wins high up on my list of important things. It is for that reason why I have Wallace is rated as low as he is, because he never came through in the big races, either, while both Buck Baker and Herb Thomas won the Southern 500 three times, and Fireball Roberts was the first dominant driver in the big races, though he only won one Daytona 500 and two Southern 500s, races that Wallace never won. If major championship victories is a key crteria in determining the top golfers and tennis players in history, which it is, I make the same conclusion about NASCAR drivers. To be truly considered among the all-time greats, a driver must have excelled on the sport's biggest stages, and Thomas, Baker, Roberts, Elliott, and Martin have excelled to at least some degree, while Stewart and Wallace fail that test, hence they're lower on the list than their overall record says they should be otherwise. The same is true regarding Kyle Busch and Carl Edwards among today's drivers. Unless something changes, they'll never be considered among the greats no matter how many races or championships they might win, because they have consistently failed the test when the sport's brightest lights were shining. 17. Eric posted: 04.22.2012 - 12:45 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Baker, cjs3872 has mentioned in the past he put a lot of stock into majors since he thinks it shows how well a driver does under pressure. Tony Stewart has less majors than Mark and Bill. 18. JG24FanForever posted: 04.22.2012 - 1:10 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) cjs3872 I understand your point on Pearson, but you can't deny Pearson one on one with Petty, for example Fonda New York 1966 or 1974 Firecracker 19. Eric posted: 04.22.2012 - 1:17 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Stewart not being ahead of Rusty goes to one thing. Rusty has more cup wins. If you ask me, Stewart is the more well rounded driver of the two. Rusty was one the greatest short track drivers NASCAR ever had. Rusty was great at tracks that are 1 mile or less. Rusty was also was great at Road courses, Pocono, and was was very good at Michigan. The problem with Rusty was one and a half mile tracks was not were he got a lot of his wins from compare to other drivers from his era. Stewart isn't as good as Rusty at Short Tracks or at Pocono. Stewart is even better than Rusty at Road Courses. Stewart is in another league than Rusty at Plate racing, mile and a half tracks, and is more of a clutch driver. I mention Stewart being more of a clutch driver is the fact Rusty had multiple races at Indy as an example to win the race and he didn't as an example. He had 3 runner up finishes at the Brickyard 400. The other thing was Rusty only won 1 championship. His problem was he had Earnhardt, but at the same his weak tracks really cost him championships. Rusty lost points on Dale in 1993 because of plate racing. Stewart could have matched Earnhardt better than Rusty did in Dale's prime despite not being as good at short tracks as Rusty Wallace. 20. OldSchoolNascarDude1 posted: 04.22.2012 - 1:29 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) This may end up being a good day for MWR. They have been knocking on the door all season. 21. 18fan posted: 04.22.2012 - 1:35 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) They have already mentioned Kurt Busch as a former Kansas winner twice and Kurt has never won a Cup race at Kansas. 22. DaleSrFanForever posted: 04.22.2012 - 1:48 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) How many times is June gonna keep screwing up making pit stops? Unbelievable no focus, no heart. 23. 1995 Subaru WRX STi posted: 04.22.2012 - 1:49 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "2007: This COT looks like shit and races worse than shit. It is going to turn a lot of fans off." Oh and the POSCOY didn't race worth a shit? Oh come on DSFF, i can't believe your agreeing with what Baby Busch said about it (like you should listen to him). Its been around sicne 2007, EVERY CC knows how to work with it and EVER driver knows how to drive it. Only reason they are changing it is because a bunch of un-never-happy idiots want the "race on Sunday, Sell on Monday" thing to return. Sorry that died in the 1970's, lets leave it there. Since i missed the BMS debate, i'll just say this: Since the "fans" want a state fair demo derby, then the "fans" should pay for every wrecked racecar that happens at ANY track. I think that is fair, since the "fans" obviously think they are smarter then the people who run this thing, yet in reality the "fans" would proably do a worse job then the people who currently run it. They should put collecting jars at every gate that takes tickets and have every "fan" drop in 100$, 100X160,000 (or what attendence shows at any track) that should pay for some wrecked race cars. ;-) 24. Cooper posted: 04.22.2012 - 2:00 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Great racing. Of course Darrell and Michael continue to trash the track, even though theirs' 4/5 wide racing, multiple grooves and entertainment. what an embarrassment these two knuckleheads are. If I have to hear either one say "Just wait till they have progressive banking" one more time, I will withdraw money from my bank account, fly to Ownesboro Kentucky or wherever they live, put them in a headlock and put them to sleep. KEEP KANSAS THE WAY IT IS. STOP REPAVING TRACKS FOR NO APPARENT REASON. SCREW YOU FOX. Fun race so far IMHO. 25. DaleSrFanForever posted: 04.22.2012 - 2:05 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) I agree. Pave the potholes, let the pavement age. Progressive banking won't help. If you are going to sppend that much money, pull in the turns and backstretch and make a short track typs track. 26. Spen posted: 04.22.2012 - 2:08 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) I called it last night. I said "I don't know what, but something's going to happen to Allmendinger. Maybe he'll have a flat tire, maybe he'll run out of gas, maybe the engine will blow, but whatever the reason, he won't get a top ten today." 27. Mr X posted: 04.22.2012 - 2:12 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Lots of blasphemy today from the Waltrip brothers, my ears are bleeding. DW- "Daytona and Las Vegas have the best racing since the repave." I beg to differ. MW- "We've got a single groove track here in Kansas, the repave will improve the racing." We know it won't. Decent race so far, its just Kansas, and MW bragging about how good his team is nauseating. I don't care who is next, I can't wait until FOX's portion of the NASCAR season ends. 28. Mr X posted: 04.22.2012 - 2:14 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) On a public road do they repave it the second a small pothole develops, not where I live, fix the damn hole, and hold off on a repave until pothole issues become more serious. 29. OldSchoolNascarDude1 posted: 04.22.2012 - 2:15 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) What is the deal with the fuel errors? Are teams that much quicker with taking tires that they aren't worried about filling the tank all the way up? These guys can't go 45 laps without running out. Four contenders have already done that in the first 100 laps of this race. 30. DaleSrFanForever posted: 04.22.2012 - 2:20 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) I also can't wait til FOX ends. I like these green flag stops. Its about the only thing to look forward to on these intermediates. Now I am just twiddling my thumbs til they pit again, hopefully under green. 31. Spen posted: 04.22.2012 - 2:24 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Before the race, I was thinking about Aric Almirola. He must be a sponsors worst nightmare. Too good of a car to get screen time while being lapped, not good enough to get screen time for running well, not accident-prone enough to get screen time for wrecking. However, it seems like he found a good way of getting camera time this race. By imitating Junior, and missing his pit stall. 32. DaleSrFanForever posted: 04.22.2012 - 2:26 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) My solution to making these 1.5 milers more bearable to watch: 7 gallon fuel cells. Since Goodyear don't have the balls to make a softer tire that actually falls off and NASCAR can't make a car that can race on these tracks for almost 15 years, more green flag stops are the answer. I am just killing time til they pit again. 33. Daniel posted: 04.22.2012 - 2:31 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) I was doing some housework and all of a sudden Allmendinger is in the 30's. What happened? 34. cjs3872 posted: 04.22.2012 - 2:32 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Eric, Stewart doesn't have the number of Cup wins that Rusty has because he's run more than 200 fewer races. Wallace ran 706, while with today's start, Stewart will have run 472 Cup races. And today's race is just proving my point about the cars not being able to run very far on a tank of gas, and how they don't have to worry about saving tires because they can't go much more than 70 miles on a tank of fuel, where the used to go about 100. That's an enormous difference at a mid-sized track, 20 laps or nearly half of a fuel run today. In fact, if they had to, they could run the left side tires for two entire fuel runs because of the limited fuel range. In fact, if you remember the race at Loudon last July, Ryan Newman won it, and only had his left side tires changed once during that entire race. And guys, the track has to be repaved. Back in the 1978 Daytona 500, most of the carnage the ruined the day for most of the top drivers was caused by the track coming apart, which reusulted in the track being repaved after the Firecracker 400 that year. And of course, there were the debacles at Martinsville (2004), Charlotte (2005), Daytona (2010), and a possible problem that was averted this weekend with the track tearing up. Any time there's a hint of the track coming apart, the track MUST be repaved. Otherwise, they would be running on a potentially unsafe track, and that's nothing but trouble. Even the crash with Swede Savage in the 1973 Indianapolis 500 was caused by running on a track made unsafe by oil. They can not, under any circumstances, run on an unsafe track. 35. 18fan posted: 04.22.2012 - 2:32 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Allmendinger ran out of gas and then dropped a cylinder. 36. DaleSrFanForever posted: 04.22.2012 - 2:34 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Is it time for green flag pit stops yet? 37. Schroeder51 posted: 04.22.2012 - 2:36 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Jacques (Debris) is back... 38. TeamPlayersBlue posted: 04.22.2012 - 2:37 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) The Frenchman returns... 39. DaleSrFanForever posted: 04.22.2012 - 2:37 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Why? Why? Why? F**k you NASCAR! 40. RCRandPenskeGuy posted: 04.22.2012 - 2:38 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Bullshit caution. 41. LordLowe posted: 04.22.2012 - 2:40 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Why Are these races so boring is it the cars the drivers or a combination of both 42. cjs3872 posted: 04.22.2012 - 2:41 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Well, one reason we didn't see the phantom caution last week was that the competition up front was close (relatively speaking), as nobody ever got out to too big of a lead. NASCAR uses the phantom cautions to tighten up the field when someone gets a big lead, which Truex had, though it had decreased from 10 to 7 seconds. 43. DaleSrFanForever posted: 04.22.2012 - 2:41 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) If you must throw these debris cautioons, throw it right AFTER green flag stops. Idiots. 44. Spen posted: 04.22.2012 - 2:45 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) My guess is, they didn't want to runn the risk of anyone else running out of gas. It makes NASCAR look bad for switching to fuel injection. 45. cjs3872 posted: 04.22.2012 - 2:46 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Actually, I think we nay have misjudged NASCAR on the reasoning for the caution. There might very well have been oil on the track from Bobby Labonte's car, as it blew up about the same time that pit stops were taking place, so his car may have been dropping oil on the track, making the caution flag necessary. 46. JG24FanForever posted: 04.22.2012 - 2:48 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) I like all those pieces of the track they keep showing to sell the repave point 47. NadeauFan91 posted: 04.22.2012 - 2:48 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) And there goes Clint...again... Dover 1990 anyone? 48. 18fan posted: 04.22.2012 - 2:50 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Bobby Labonte actually blew up under caution when he came onto pit road. 49. Rusty posted: 04.22.2012 - 3:00 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Kurt is having a really nice run today. 50. Cooper posted: 04.22.2012 - 3:05 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Decent race for the lead brewing right here... 51. DaleSrFanForever posted: 04.22.2012 - 3:09 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Spen, I think you are right about NASCAR not wanting to showcase the fuel injection issues. And JG24, you are absolutely right about the Kansas officials trying their damndest (unsuccessfully) to convince us the repave is not a huge mistake. They need a radical reconfigure. 52. Cooper posted: 04.22.2012 - 3:11 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Anybody else laugh at the 5 hour energy commercial, with Clint Bowyer? The filming/directing looks like it was done by a 12 year old with a camcorder. Plus Clint Bowyer in the hunting uniform is hilarious as he looks more like Elmer Fudd then a real hunter. The best in the cheesy cut to Michael Waltrip fake smiling/talking with Clint posing for a picture. It's definitely face palm worthy. 53. JG24FanForever posted: 04.22.2012 - 3:13 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) it looks like the Napa Know How genius is gonna win 54. DaleSrFanForever posted: 04.22.2012 - 3:13 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Brad can't make a pit stop lately. That is 3 of the last 4 races he has made a driver error in the pits. 55. Spen posted: 04.22.2012 - 3:15 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Nah, they'll figure out some way to frell it up. 56. Bronco posted: 04.22.2012 - 3:15 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) What is DSFF going to say now that Brad Keselowski missed pit road? I guess he has no focus, no heart either right? 57. Spen posted: 04.22.2012 - 3:15 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Reffering to Truex, that is. 58. Spen posted: 04.22.2012 - 3:16 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Hard to follow a conversation when everyone's posting at the same time. 59. Cooper posted: 04.22.2012 - 3:17 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) I think they just threw the caution for the #42... 60. Cooper posted: 04.22.2012 - 3:18 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) #2 stays out!!!! good call. 61. OldSchoolNascarDude1 posted: 04.22.2012 - 3:19 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Really? That wall-slap constitutes a caution? 62. JG24FanForever posted: 04.22.2012 - 3:19 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) lamest caution of the day 63. Spen posted: 04.22.2012 - 3:19 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Seriously, a caution for Montoya *brushing* the wall???? 64. Rusty posted: 04.22.2012 - 3:20 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) What is with NASCAR throwing cautions for cars slapping the wall now? 65. Cooper posted: 04.22.2012 - 3:21 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Brad says "We couldn't get the car turned down with the #18, was afraid of speeding, so I went around". Asking for where Sam Hornish is? Tells Paul Wolfe that "Sam shouldn't of pitted man!" Car is lacking speed but has a good balance. Brad is going to look for the top lane right after the restart. Gotta love NASCAR Hotpass. 66. Mr X posted: 04.22.2012 - 3:21 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) I am very concerned, due to that first initial pothole they found and clearly fixed, todays race is on a very unsafe track, this track cannot handle any more racing after today before a repave, cars are crashing and blowing tires left and right because of the track coming apart, OMG. <--Note the Sarcasm, in actuallity I think this track can easily handle 2-3 more years of racing without any major issues. Racing at Kansas isn't going to go from what it is today to a race similar to the 1978 Daytona 500 in that short of a time period. For the record, I've thought ever since it was announced that they would switch to efi that it would be a stupid move, all it has done is increase the cost of racing, at a time when NASCAR desperately needs to lower it. Technology adds nothing to racing, and regardless of what fuel is being burned, or how its injected, racing is an extremely high consuming business, all these teams, perform multiple oil and other fluid changes per weekend. Parts are consumed at an extreme rate in racing. Its still as green a business as an average coal powerplant. Air pollution is just one of many problems the world faces, and all of those stem from the fact that the world is simply overpopulated. 7 billion people is too many. Its sad but its the truth. Regardless of whether or not NASCAR has switched to efi and an electronic ignition, these cars still bore almost zero resemblence to their street counterparts, an Impala, Fusion, and Camry are front wheel drive cars, with no V8 engines offered, the Charger is the only street counter part with any resemblence to a serious high performance car, never mind a race car. Mechanically these cars still have more in common with a 1963 Impala, or a Ford F-250 then a Dodge Charger, Chevrolet Impala, Toyota Camry, or Ford Fusion. 67. Cooper posted: 04.22.2012 - 3:23 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) The caution for the #42= HAHAALOLOLOL. Was watching it live with the on board with Brad, and I knew they were going to throw the caution. Took NASCAR about 45 seconds to throw the caution after contact with the wall. 68. jabber1990 posted: 04.22.2012 - 3:25 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Kansas City is the HQ of sprint? not trying to be conspiratorial but could that be why Kansas got a second date? 69. Cooper posted: 04.22.2012 - 3:27 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) 67. jabber1990 posted: 04.22.12 - 3:25 pm Yep. 70. Cooper posted: 04.22.2012 - 3:28 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Brad is angry!. Says the car is tight....down the straightaway. Car won't turn. 71. LordLowe posted: 04.22.2012 - 3:42 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) I think In the last few years we have seen the Corporatization of NASCAR. 72. Cooper posted: 04.22.2012 - 3:46 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) 51 might be blowing up... 73. JG24FanForever posted: 04.22.2012 - 3:51 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Gordon's race is over 74. Jarrett88fan posted: 04.22.2012 - 3:55 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Gordon is finished, what will happen to Kasey now that he has cracked the top-10? 75. DaleSrFanForever posted: 04.22.2012 - 3:55 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Man I can't stand the Waltrips. 76. OldSchoolNascarDude1 posted: 04.22.2012 - 3:59 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Geez, I think my car has lost an engine just because I'm watching this race. 77. Mr X posted: 04.22.2012 - 4:00 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) I don't know what I want, I don't like Denny Hamlin, and as much as I would love for Truex Jr. to get his first win in 5 years, however then we have to listen to Michael Waltrip's interview as the winning car owner. 78. JG24FanForever posted: 04.22.2012 - 4:02 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) come on Napa Know How!! 79. Cooper posted: 04.22.2012 - 4:05 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Truex screwed it up.... He had em damn't 80. LordLowe posted: 04.22.2012 - 4:07 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) TRUEX YOU BLEW IT YOU IMBECILE 81. Cooper posted: 04.22.2012 - 4:07 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Truex would've had em. If he didn't dive it in with 3 to go.... Brad says "This was a championship like performance. Bad car and survived.". How did Denny Hamlin win, I thought the #56 was leading.lol" 82. LordLowe posted: 04.22.2012 - 4:08 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) TRUEX YOU ARE A DUMBASS YOU LET HAMLIN WIN YOU SCREWED UP BIG TIME 83. wow posted: 04.22.2012 - 4:09 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Freaking most unappreciative driver in the race wins. I meet rocks with a better personality then Hamlin. 84. Spen posted: 04.22.2012 - 4:10 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Congrats to Hamlin. Too bad the #11 had to get thier 200th win before the #43. If you had told me I'd say that 32 years ago, I'd have thought you were absolutely insane. 85. cjs3872 posted: 04.22.2012 - 4:12 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Well, Denny Hamlin made history today, as with his win, he has made the #11 car the winningest in the history of NASCAR's top series with it's 199th victory, edging it ahead of the #43, which has 198 wins, and won't be winning any more any time soon. That's something that was once thought to be an impossibility, but there's a new all-time leader in terms of most wins by a car number. 86. DaleSrFanForever posted: 04.22.2012 - 4:12 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) I hate it for Martin, SO happy Mikey's car didn't win. We'd never hear the end of it. Although it was a nice job by the 2 team getting 11th despite a 17th place car and a pit road screwup, if Brad thinks that is a championship effort, he is counting on 1991 repeating itself where you could finish 11th and gain points. He has got to quit screwing up pitting. Still hopeful they can get back to Summer 2011 form. 87. Schroeder51 posted: 04.22.2012 - 4:12 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Is Truex actually going to seriously contend for the championship? Somehow I'm getting that feeling... 88. cjs3872 posted: 04.22.2012 - 4:13 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Spen, the #11 is not at 200 yet. But the question now becomes, will Hamlin get the 200th win for car #11 before Hendrick Motorsports gets their 200th win? After all, car #11 now has 199 wins, the same as Hendrick Motorsports. 89. LordLowe posted: 04.22.2012 - 4:13 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) THAT RACE WAS SHIT HOPEFULLY RICHMOND WILL BE A HELL OF A LOT BETTER AND THE DRIVERS WILL PUT ON A MUCH BETTER SHOW THERE. 90. Destroyahirismix666 posted: 04.22.2012 - 4:15 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Good God! THAT was a great Kansas-style finish! Way to go to Truex for doing the unorthodox, I think I would have done the same thing! The race was just as entertaining as Texas last week, and that means it was very entertaining! Soooo, folks, you think that the #11 will earn win 200 before Team Hendrick? 91. Eric posted: 04.22.2012 - 4:22 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) cjs3872, I already knew Rusty ran more cup races than Stewart when I made my post between Stewart and Rusty. I didn't reply sooner because I was watching the race on Television with me not being close to a computer. 92. Spen posted: 04.22.2012 - 4:33 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Oops, got ahead of myself there. Looking at the next three weeks, Hamlin getting #200 is looking likelier than Hendrick's 200th. Either Richmond or Darlington could be potential wins for him. Hendrick's best hope is Talladega. And I wouldn't bet on that. Schroeder51: He's a lock for the chase this year, but I doubt he'll finish any higher than 7th. Still pretty darn good considering where this team was. 93. 1995 Subaru WRX STi posted: 04.22.2012 - 5:09 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) I give MTJr. credit for trying, atleast he did something. Car just wouldn't let him do what he wanted to do. Congrats to Hamlin. Good race. 94. NASCAR predictions OMG! posted: 04.22.2012 - 5:21 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) I stayed up all night to watch F1 and was greatly enertained. I fell a sleep for this race. doesn't look like I missed much. This track and all the cookie cutters are terrible. This si why i lvoe F1. Better tracks, they travel the world, more glitz, glamour and glory. It is obvious to me why i can't pay attention to a non-plate race in this day and age. Please NASCAR. Do the right thing. BRING BACK SUZUKA!!!!!!!!! 95. 10andJoe posted: 04.22.2012 - 5:24 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) #32 sponsor: TMone #51 sponsor: Phoenix Racing (plain red-and-white car without any decals) 96. cjs3872 posted: 04.22.2012 - 5:24 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) By the way, it seems that my preditcion about Jeff Gordon being the "sacrificial lamb" at Hendrick Motorsports in 2012 may be coming true, as he had another engine problem late in today's race, knocking him out of the top ten. It's obvious to me that something's not right there. He's qualifying mid-field or worse practically every week, and now he's getting these engine problems. Hendrick, like Childress, has proven he can't run four successful teams, but unlike Childress, he doesn't see that. Everyone has been talking about the laps Gordon has led this year, but that's another case of letting the facts get in the way of the truth. Except for Martinsville, he's not led a race in racing conditions yet this year. It's obvious to me that Hendrick Motorsports wants no part of Gordon getting HMS' 200th win, and hasn't since they got win #199 at Kansas last fall. Actually, something seems to be very wrong at the 5/24 shop, because that race at Martinsville is the only one that either one of those cars has led this year under racing conditions. Might there be something going on between the #5 and #24 teams that nobody knows about? If it is, it's another reason why Hendrick should never have ket Kasey Kahne bring Kenny Francis along with him to Hendrick Motorsports. Maybe Francis does not know how to work with other team cars equal to the on he works on, because the #5 and #24 cars should up where the other two Hendrick cars are, and except for Martinsville (and Texas with the #24), they've been two or three steps behind all year, at least to me. 97. 10andJoe posted: 04.22.2012 - 5:26 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) >not trying to be conspiratorial but could that be why Kansas got a second date? Officially, it's because they built the casino. Which, really, is even worse... 98. JG24FanForever posted: 04.22.2012 - 5:29 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) cjs3872 Why would they go out of their way to shaft Gordon? I don't see any logical reason 99. 18fan posted: 04.22.2012 - 5:31 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Kahne was fast today but lost a lot of time because he ran out of gas on the backstretch on one run. He was battling Harvick for 2nd when Harvick was fast before Kevin also ran out of gas. 100. LordLowe posted: 04.22.2012 - 5:33 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) CJS I think Gordon should have a very serious meeting with Hendrick and tell him that either you give me some cars that can contend for the win. Or I am leaving this team and forming my own team. But Unfortunately I don't see that Happening because Gordon doesn't have the guts to do such a thing. 101. 1995 Subaru WRX STi posted: 04.22.2012 - 5:34 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) ^ F1 is better then NASCAR? Oh really..............is it because of the technology? Is it becasue the cars look butt ugly? It is because the FIA is the most corrupt bias governing body in all of motorsports? Is it because the cars have the flappy no talent shifting gear boxes? Is it because of team orders? Is it because the drivers have as much personality as a pile poop? F1 is rubbish now, back in the 1980's and early 1990's, that is when it was good. Now its shit with the DRS, KERS, flappy padel gearboxes and all the other artifically bullshit to make it exciting again. Give me V10s and V12s with Turbos, 1200hp and H-pattern gearboxes and very little downforce. Get rid of all the stupid technology and ugly ass steering wheels. 102. Eric posted: 04.22.2012 - 5:35 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) cjs3872, why didn't make comment to me based what I said on post 91? 103. 1995 Subaru WRX STi posted: 04.22.2012 - 5:35 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) 18fan that isn't directed at you. 104. TeamPlayersBlue posted: 04.22.2012 - 5:38 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "I stayed up all night to watch F1 and was greatly enertained. I fell a sleep for this race. doesn't look like I missed much. This track and all the cookie cutters are terrible. This si why i lvoe F1. Better tracks, they travel the world, more glitz, glamour and glory. It is obvious to me why i can't pay attention to a non-plate race in this day and age. Please NASCAR. Do the right thing. BRING BACK SUZUKA!!!!!!!!!" Well, thats not why I like it, but I will say F1 has produced a hell of a lot better racing than most of the races in Sprint Cup this year, one of the reasons IMHO has been tire wear. 105. NASCAR predictions OMG! posted: 04.22.2012 - 5:40 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) i don't give a rats ass about the cars or technology in F1 or NASCAR. NASCAR isn't corrupt? Come on you know better then that. team orders? NASCAR does the same thing. My criticism is directed at the BS cookie Cutter tracks that NASCAR tries to pass off as interesting but produces the most boring racing imaginable. F1 is a lot more exciting. 10 years ago NASCAR was so much better. But now... F1 has surpassed it in my eyes. Give me an internatioanl circuit of the best drivers instead of a series that won't even leave America and has the worst road courses imaginable. 106. JG24FanForever posted: 04.22.2012 - 5:57 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) #104 I love F1 almost as much as Cup but F1 has boring cookie cutter tracks as well such as the one's built by Hemann Tilke The Cup series best tracks are Darlington(my home track) Sonoma(the most technical Cup circuit) Watkins Glen Indianapolis Charlotte Daytona Talladega Martinsville Pocono Bristol Richmond Atlanta F1 has Monza Spa Francorchamps Singapore Suzuka Monaco Hockenheim Melbourne Malaysia(the best Tilke-drome) it doesn't matter, they're both the greatest. 107. Rusty posted: 04.22.2012 - 6:06 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Kurt was having a great run, he ran the whole race in the top 10 and even points in the top 5 with a Phoenix Racing car. But he lost a cylinder late and still managed a decent 17th place finish. 108. RCRandPenskeGuy posted: 04.22.2012 - 6:16 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Sheesh, when did Brad become a constant screw up in the pits? That has already happened too many times this season in only 8 races, and he needs to get it together because he would be higher in the standings if he weren't making these mistakes. If he can do that and no more bad luck plagues the Penske cars, he'll be fine. The speed in those cars is there. I hate that Truex couldn't make his divebomb stick and pass Hamlin, but I agree with several other people who said the one good thing from him not winning is not having to hear Mikey crow about it over and over and over. I think it will happen eventually this year though, as good as Truex has been running. Sam Hornish has a respectable return to the Cup Series in a 3rd Penske car, qualifying 10th, running well throughout the day and finishing in the top 20. 109. ii posted: 04.22.2012 - 6:21 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) If Truex didn't make that move with 3 laps to go, only on the last lap, then we may have been forced to listen to Mikey talk about how awesome his cars are for longer than NASCAR on FOX planned to be on air. 110. Anonymous posted: 04.22.2012 - 6:31 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Other than Atlanta (and maybe Charlatte becasue of the tradition that is the Coke 600), I wouldn't mind seeing every other 1.5 and 2 mile track eliminated from the schedule. Damn they suck! Thanks the good Lord that we have three good tracks coming up now. Enough of this "You know what makes this place great? - That casino off turn 2!!" crap. 111. hyperacti posted: 04.22.2012 - 6:58 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) I think Truex had a really good chance to catch Hamlin on the white flag lap if he hadn't made a last-ditch dive with 3 to go. The inside never had a chance against the outside, he needed to catch Hamlin up top and size him up until the end. At the very least, he probably could have pushed Hamlin off into the last corner faster than he wanted to go, like Harvick did to Johnson at Fontana last season. In my mind that move with 3 to go symbolized the difference between Truex and a frequent winner like Hamlin. That was not a good move, it was never going to work. He would have been much closer to Denny on the last lap at the rate he was catching him. He could have done a lot more from there. 112. Schroeder51 posted: 04.22.2012 - 7:03 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Well, judging by this race, I am still going to predict this to be Jeff Gordon's worst season in NASCAR. However, it won't be Dale Jr. '09 bad like I thought. However, I do believe for the first time in his career he will score less than 10 top 10s in a season (I'm going to predict he'll have 7-9) and he'll finish outside the top 15 in points for the first time in his career (I'm predicting somewhere between 16th and 20th). If the trend of his season so far continues, that what he's going to end up getting. 113. hyperacti posted: 04.22.2012 - 7:04 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Also I'm loving these practically cautionless races lately. They really give us a legitimate winner at the end of the day. The 3 cautions that did fly were all kind of BS. 1st: Clint Bowyer did spin, but he was long out of the way and could have just driven safely onto pit road. You could tell NASCAR used it as an excuse to throw the yellow. 2nd: Debris. Or, "debris." Sigh. You get one NASCAR, you get one. I'd rather have you throw none, but you can have one. 3rd: Juan Montoya spent all of 2 seconds scraping the wall. NASCAR used this as another excuse to throw the caution and "check for debris" as the announcers put it. Silly. Still though, at the end of 75 laps and green flag pit stops, we had a great race at the end. It just goes to show that you really don't have to try and manufacture a good finish with a late caution for us to have a good race. 114. Eric posted: 04.22.2012 - 7:29 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) cjs3872, You are putting too much stock into Jeff's engine problems today. I am saying that for 3 reasons. The first reason is Kurt Busch had engine problems near end of the race also and has a Hendrick engine. I didn't mention Mark because he uses a Toyota engine. The 2nd thing is there was an unusual amount of cars having engine issues for a 400 mile race with the teams using a lower gear they didn't use at Kansas before. I said an unusual amount of engine problem because of the fact 15,22,24,47,51,55 all had engine problems. If the race was another 100 mile, the amount of teams with engine problems would increase even more. The 3rd thing is the weather temperatures at the race track. A lower gear and temperatures in the 50's means more horsepower. Those two things mean it is likely that engine problems will happen if there is not a lot of cautions in the race. The best way to put it if the weather is in the 50's for a 600 mile Charlotte race with a gear that is used today that doesn't have a lot of cautions, you expect at least 10 cars having engine problems. 115. Destroyahirismix666 posted: 04.22.2012 - 7:30 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) I'm going to complain now. WHY THE HELL IS EVERYONE ELSE COMPLAINING ABOUT NASCAR!? I mean, seriously! You HAVE what you WANT! I remeber so well the complaints of late 2009 when everyone was bi-otching about 'phantom debris cautions' and 'races being fixed with debris cautions!' I remember in 2010 when everyone was complaining a bit more about races going beyond their scheduled distance! I remember in 2011 when everyone was doing some real complaining about Johnson Dominating! And here we are in 2012. Excluding Daytona Speedweeks, this season has fewer debris cautions, races going only their perscribed lengths *Save for Martinsville, but that was necessity*, and Team Hendrick hasn't won anything yet. Good LORD, everyone's now saying they're falling asleep. WHAT THE HELL DO YOU WANT!? I know what 50 percent of NASCAR fans want. A bunch of crashes, and nothing but short tracks, Darlington, and plate tracks fro lots of wrecks, beating, and banging. That 50 percent is often talked down, but I am targeting a smaller 40 percentile. This 40 percentile amount wants XYZ laps all run caution free, 2, 3, and 4 wide racing, lead changes every third lap, and some wild three-wide finish at the conclusion. oh, and no Talladega/Daytona/1.5 mile tracks. Oh yeah, and they want it all at least 26 races a year. Oh, and don't forget no Chase. Can I just say that the above statement is ridiculous? That is impossible! I mean, even the 2001 Talladega 500 went Caution Free and stuff and people complain about that because 'it was a restrictor plate race'. Even when we get side-by-side finishes or last lap duels like today people complain. I understand being a bit upset or disappointed about a boring race, but a boring race would be Las Vegas last year, and California two years before that. The stuff your seeing now is better then Nascar's Golden Years of 1982-1997! We have more drivers competing for wins then ever before, we had last year more winners then ever since 2002, we've had a tie in the points system, we've had 5 of 8 Chase seasons end in nail-biting points finishes *2007-2009 were snoozers*. You guys CAN'T SEE WE ARE GOING THROUGH A GOLDEN ERA!?!?!?!?!? We're having reccords for fastest races ever, unpredictability, and the like! And you all just sit back in your houses after the checkers fall and a driver wins, sick with nostalgia and complaining/whining about how Dale Crash-hart Sr. isn't around and that the France family's deceased members are rolling in their graves because the series isn't with only 3 guys with a chance at winning any given race AND because the series has nation-wide recognition! It's folks like YOU that will be the death of Nascar sooner then political correctness or massive superteams! Watch a race from the 1950's-1970's, then compare it to a race this year. Excluding Vegas, the more modern stuff is MUCH MORE EXCITING! And I'll bet you something else. Half of you won't even read this! They'll start hearing that I am saying that what we have today is good, and they'll label me as a JR. lover/Kyle Busch/Kevin Harvick lover that has no respect for the past. I have respect. But the product from the past is more amazing then you guys realize! That's all I have to say. 116. Eric posted: 04.22.2012 - 7:31 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) I forgot to mention that I am aware of the 20 car had to start back of the field for an engine change. 117. joey2448 posted: 04.22.2012 - 7:33 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) I know the banzai move Truex made with three laps to go ultimately cost him the win (likely), but I applaud him for doing it when he did. It was unexpected, and Hamlin surely didn't see that coming. If Truex hadn't wiggled off turn four, he wouldn't have lost all that ground on Hamlin, and the end would've likely been a photo finish. Interesting that when a track announces it's going to be repaved or taken off the schedule (Rockingham), the last race is always a thriller! Today, Daytona summer 2010, Rockingham, among others...it's almost like the track's way of saying, "You'll regret it!" haha 118. 1995 Subaru WRX STi posted: 04.22.2012 - 7:59 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "i don't give a rats ass about the cars or technology in F1 or NASCAR. NASCAR isn't corrupt? Come on you know better then that. team orders? NASCAR does the same thing. My criticism is directed at the BS cookie Cutter tracks that NASCAR tries to pass off as interesting but produces the most boring racing imaginable. F1 is a lot more exciting. 10 years ago NASCAR was so much better. But now... F1 has surpassed it in my eyes. Give me an internatioanl circuit of the best drivers instead of a series that won't even leave America and has the worst road courses imaginable." Technology has ruined F1. The more fancy BS crap they come up with, the more they make me not want to go back watching it (oh yeah, i USED to watch it). NASCAR does do shady things but to say the FIA doesn't is laughable, just plain laughable. NASCAR is a OVAL RACING series, i'm sorry that is a hard concept for you to understand. 119. cjs3872 posted: 04.22.2012 - 8:03 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) JG24FanForever, the reason I sat they're shafting Gordon (which is unintentional itself) is that, with the #48 team being the undisputed #1 at HMS, and with Hendrick continuing emphasis on getting Dale Earnhardt, Jr. back in victory lane (that was the main reason for the team swaps last year), and now the increased amount of effort in putting the #5 car back among the leaders this year, emphasis has to be taken away from somewhere, and the only logical place is the #24 team, and it's showing in performance. Also, as I've said, Hendrick really wants no part i gordon geting his 200th win. You can tell that from the sharp drop-off in the #24's performance since Jimmie Johnson got Hendrick's 199th win at Kansas late last year. However, the continued engine problems that Gordon seems to be having may be most troubling of all, as this is at least the third race in the last 15 in which he's had engine problems. The performance, for the most part, isn't there, either, though Gordon has showed flashes of his past brilliance at Martinsville, California, and Texas, the overall performance just isn't there. Now, as for all the teams having engine problems besides Gordon's, it must be mentioned that today's conditions were much different from what everyone expected. Instead of sunny conditions with the temperature around 70, It was cloudy with the temperature around 60, and it caught the teams off guard. That's why there were so many engine problems, though I would not count A.J. Allmendinger's engine problems among them. He had engine problems because his team inexplicably ran him out of fuel before the first pit stop, and that could very well have damaged the engine. And Eric, I know that in three years, Stewart will have more wins than Wallace, and I might even put him ahead of Wallace on my all-time list before then, but he won't catch Wallace in career starts for another seven years, if he drives in Cup that much longer. And the only caution NASCAR threw that they probably should not have thrown was the last one. when Bowyer spun, he briefly stopped on the track, so a caution was needed, and the second caution, while listed as for debris, was more likely for oil on the track from Bobby Labonte's car as the engine was about to go, which it did under caution. And did anyone notice that there were just 33 or 34 cars running in the second half of the race. When Labonte went out, he was the ninth driver to leave the race, though several of those were the start-and-parks. And Landon Cassill also spent a sizeable amount of time in the garage area, though he did finish the race. And again, until NASCAR finds a way to increase the amount of distance that cars can go on fuel, there are not going to be very many exciting races on tracks over 1 mile in length, because they can't go nearly as far on fuel as they can on tires. Today's 70-75 mile fuel runs again proved that. 120. TeamPlayersBlue posted: 04.22.2012 - 8:12 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Decent race, but too bad this track will likely be butchered by the time they return. I sure as hell hope the new track isn't another LVMS, but looking at specs/design plans it appears it could be close to that. 121. Red posted: 04.22.2012 - 8:14 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "WHY THE HELL IS EVERYONE ELSE COMPLAINING ABOUT NASCAR!?" I hear ya. I know I'm in the minority, but I've really enjoyed the 2012 season so far, and hell of a lot more than 2011, that's for sure. This year we've seen a return to real racing, with long green flag runs, and speed actually meaning something. Seven of the eight races in 2012 have been decided by speed, and the other (M'ville) would have been if not for a fluky turn of events at the end. With the exception of Newman, the drivers who have won this year have really earned their victories. That's the kind of racing I want to see. Compare that to 2011, where almost every race was a strategy-fest, in which fuel mileage, track position, and the timing of the cautions determined the outcome of the races. Yes we saw four first time winners in 2011, but none of those guys really DROVE their way to victory. Bayne and Ragan were pushed to victory by hideous tandem drafting, Smith won on a GWC tire strategy gamble, and Menard won on fuel mileage. It was a joke to watch. Maybe the raw excitment level hasn't been super high in 2012, but the scale has slid away from gimmickry and toward real racing, and I hope that trend continues. 122. TeamPlayersBlue posted: 04.22.2012 - 8:25 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Also, while many call Kansas a "cookie cutter" and despite the fact it often produces bland races, I find it a lot more exciting than the high/progressive banked aero-festivals of Charlotte, Texas, Las Vegas or Chicagoland. At Kansas, Fontana, or even the old Michigan (they've probably f***ed that up as well) the cars still spread out but you still see plenty of passing and some tight moments like Hamlin vs Truex throughout the green runs. Hopefully after years of running the aero-fest tracks end up like Atlanta and Homestead though. While a repave may have been needed, I have no idea why they decided to go with an LVMS-like configuration. 123. NASCAR Predictions OMG! posted: 04.22.2012 - 8:31 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Uh. i understand it's an oval series asswipe. I just think maybe they should change things up a bit and freshen up its stale product. Throw in a LOng becah street race or go to Japan for a season-ending exhibition again. Btw stop insulting me. I have a short fuse. 124. TheTruthâ?¢ posted: 04.22.2012 - 8:42 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "Watch a race from the 1950's-1970's, then compare it to a race this year." I think most people compare today's races to what we had 10-20 years ago, not 40-60 years ago. Not many people are pointing to 1965 as a style of racing NASCAR should try to emulate today, given that it's basically impossible given the technology and amount of high quality teams that we have. Not many people even remember or look back at that stuff, regardless. 125. Jen posted: 04.22.2012 - 9:00 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Boring, boring, boring - But then again, what else would you expect on a 1.5 mile track? I hope they use the road course in one of the two Kansas races in the future. That would be a wonderful breath of air. You know the racing on the track must not be very good when half the pre race is about all the stuff you can do around the track that has nothing to do with the racing itself. 126. DaleSrFanForever posted: 04.22.2012 - 9:02 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "And again, until NASCAR finds a way to increase the amount of distance that cars can go on fuel, there are not going to be very many exciting races on tracks over 1 mile in length, because they can't go nearly as far on fuel as they can on tires." I agree. The current fuel runs are in a sort of no man's land. Too short to really wear tires out, too long to have enough green flag pit stop sequences (the only saving grace in races like this) to really keep your attention. In this race I would get really excited for green flag stops, then just basically wait for the next sequence. Of course the biggest thing that needs to happen is that Goodyear needs to bring soft tires. But they won't because teams will push the edge, inevitably leading to tire blowouts, and Goodyear is too afraid that will make them look bad. Newsflash Goodyear: It's called RACING! It is all about riding on the edge and occasionally falling off it. Nobody will think less of you if people blow some tires that didn't have an agenda against Goodyear to start with. I think they are culprit #1 in the crappy racing we have seen on the bigger tracks. The only good racing on intermediates is on tracks like Atlanta that are so abrasive they will wear tires out no matter what Goodyear brings. We fans want cars to be slipping and sliding at the end of a run. Same deal with track repaves. Every track is so afraid of a 2010 Daytona 500 type deal. So what? These cars are heavy and create tons of horsepower through relatively little tires (the Days of Thunder speech). They are gonna tear tracks up. Patch up the holes and quit repaving the whole damn speedway. 127. NASCAR Predictions OMG! posted: 04.22.2012 - 9:09 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) NO matter what type of racing discipline worn tires make for better racing. I also apologize for losing my emotiond earlier. I like F1 in the 2010's and NASCAR previosuly. Hopefully my debator accepts my apology. 128. DaleSrFanForever posted: 04.22.2012 - 9:19 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "Oh and the POSCOY didn't race worth a shit? Oh come on DSFF, i can't believe your agreeing with what Baby Busch said about it (like you should listen to him)." I never said the POSCOY (like the term) was a model for NASCAR to follow. But they had the chance to start from scratch and build something truly awesome and fix the aero issues that had plagues NASCAR since 1995. And they whiffed badly. It looked awful and raced even worse than the POSCOY. Luckily the new 2013 models look outstanding so far (at least the Ford and Dodge models we have seen so far which is not surprising seeing as how they both knocked it out of the park with their new NWide models with their Mustangs and Challengers respectively). Now they need to focus all their enrgies at the R&D center making a rules package that is less aero dependant. "Only reason they are changing it is because a bunch of un-never-happy idiots want the "race on Sunday, Sell on Monday" thing to return. Sorry that died in the 1970's, lets leave it there." Elvis died in the 1970s but I still listen to his music. John Bonham died in 1980 but I still listen to Led Zeppelin. Same with Jimi Hendrix and Bon Scott era AC/DC and Dio's solo stuff and Rainbow stuff. Do I need to stop listening to them? Ozzy may as well have died about 15 years ago, should I stop listening to Black Sabbath and his kick ass work with Randy Rhodes (who died 30 years ago) and Zakk Wylde? Should I just listen to lame ass new artists like Kesha and Taylor Swift? Newer DOES NOT equal better. You know that lamer than hell KFC commercial where those guys from the 70s show up in that SWEET Charger? As much as that commercial blows chunks, I always drool looking at that old Charger. 129. DaleSrFanForever posted: 04.22.2012 - 9:27 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) One thing I forgot to mention: Happy anniversary to me! On this day 22 years ago, I went to my first ever race as Dad took me to North Wilkesboro. It was won by Darrell Waltrip Brett Bodine. NASCAR celebrated Earth Day that day by having a "scoring error" that let the bright green car win! Just kidding, the truth is nobody in NASCAR has ever really given a shit about Earth Day. All that stuff nowadays about "going green" and issuing "white papers"? PR fluff. Judging by the number of empty beer cans all around the outside of the track afterwards, Earth Day didn't mean a hill of beans. Actually I only remember that specific date because my cousin was born on that exact day. It is significant because her Mom (my Mom's sister) was born on Christmas Day, and her younger brother would be born a few years later on New Year's Day. They are the holiday family. 130. Eric posted: 04.22.2012 - 10:35 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) The problems with the one and half tracks come to 2 things besides tires and size of fuel cells. From 1997 to 2001 there were new tracks that were added to the cup schedule. The size of the tracks was caused by the theory that bigger tracks hold more people in the stands.All of them were 1.5 or 2 mile tracks. The problem comes down to those tracks were not designed for stock cars only. They were made for Indy Cars also. The problem with that is tracks like that are better for one series based on how the cars are designed. Indy Car usually puts on better races on those types of tracks. That is a big problem for NASCAR. The 2nd problem was those tracks for the most part had aerodynamic problems even before the Charlotte tire debacle like homestead did before the reconfiguration. There are one and half mile tracks that put on great races for NASCAR, but not all the tracks did. The tracks that didn't put on great races was caused aerodynamics. What is happening now with the tracks from an Aero standpoint always been for the tracks that cup racing started from 1997 or later even before the COT. I remembered people complaining about the bigger tracks even before the COT. What the real problem is those cars were over engineered for aero and you could argue that the engines could go down in horsepower. The truth is in 20 to 30 years, NASCAR will be forced to do something about Aerodynamics, because the next repaving for tracks like Michigan will be even faster than now. I know Michigan just had their track resurfaced, but the next time the speeds will be fast than 215 to 220 Miles per hour that was mentioned in testing earlier this month. 131. cjs3872 posted: 04.22.2012 - 10:36 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Red (#121), there were actually five first-time winners in NASCAR's highest series last year, not four as you mentioned, as you forogt to mention Marcos Ambrose. Also, in examining those four first-time winners you mentioned, in Bayne's win in the Daytona 500, he had the fastest car in the race, but also realized it was pointless to be in the lead. Ragan, who should have won the Daytona 500 last year, did win the Firecracker 400, and has had numerous other chances to win in plate races for several years. And while Smith did get out front in the Southern 500 last year by not stopping, the truth is that he still had to outrun Carl Edwards, who was the best driver on the circuit the first part of last year, and he did so head-to-head. And while Paul Menard won the Brickyard on fuel mileage, few remember that he actually had led that race earlier, so he did have a car fast enough to win, as he showed in the final five laps of the race. So I'm not sure I'd call that backing into a win, either. If any of those drivers backed into their wins, it was Bayne, simply because he never took the lead, but he was the only driver among those four that had the fastest cars in the particular races they won and never went for the lead only because he knew it was in his interest to run second and try for the lead on the last lap, but we know what happened prior to that. 132. irony posted: 04.22.2012 - 10:38 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) This wasn't a bad race at all and I never dread seeing Kansas come up on the calendar. That will probably change when they make it a Vegas clone. Kansas isn't unique but has multiple grooves, worn pavement, and just the right amount of track width and banking for it's shape. It's been a decent track since 2006. I'm liking the lack of fake cautions this season also. 133. Average Joe posted: 04.22.2012 - 10:49 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Dave Blaney start-and-park? Why? *shakes head* 134. Red posted: 04.22.2012 - 11:05 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) cjs, those are fair points, and I don't know how I forgot Ambrose. His win at Watkins Glen was definitely well earned. However, I disagree about Menard's win in particular. Yes he held the lead earlier in the race, but that was only because he stayed out on old tires when everyone else pitted. He never drove to the front and actually TOOK the lead. Then, of course, he stole the win on fuel mileage, even though he probably had a 15th place car. Regan Smith holding off Edwards is not as impressive as it may seem at first glance. Remember, new tires don't mean much at Darlington nowadays, so Regan's tire disadvantage didn't make a big difference. And of course with double-file restarts, he started alongside Edwards, and simply out-dragged him to turn one and then rode off into the sunset. If that caution didn't come out and shuffle the field he would've had ZERO chance of winning that race. The overall point I was trying to make is that most of the recent first time wins have felt hollow to me. Not only because they were won under somewhat fluky circumstances, but because none of them really signaled that the driver had ARRIVED. When Joey Logano had his miracle rain win at NHMS, did anyone think "Man, Joey is gonna starting ripping off wins like crazy now"? No. When David Ragan was shoved to victory in the Firecracker, did any sane fan really think David had "turned the corner"? No. I also never bought into Trevor Bayne just because he won a plate race, and a tandem drafting race at that. The only recent first win that I thought would be a harbinger of things to come was Reutimann's Chicago triumph in 2010. He won that race on speed by outdueling Jeff Gordon, and I thought he would become a perennial race winner. It obviously hasn't turned out that way, but at the time it gave me a better feeling than all these other first wins. 135. Mr X posted: 04.22.2012 - 11:13 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) My favourite band is Alice in Chains, but Layne Stanley died in 2002 of a drug overdose, and Mike Starr is also dead. Now we have also talked about music on this comments page. Red, I agree with everything you said in #121, although I have found the 2012 season to be lacking in some ways, all of the factors that made a lot of races from 2011 so bad are a bit less prevalent, I do think the tires this year are a little softer, but I also think we have a ways to go in that regard, and for the past several races now we've seen some pretty good racing, based more on speed then strategy. The are several new factors that have really hurt the racing in 2012, however. First of all, DW was bad enough by himself in the booth, replacing Jeff Hammond with Michael Waltrip on the fox team, who also is clearly biased in that he owns a three car team, and is in general IMO one of the 10 most annoying men involved with NASCAR racing today. Chris Myers opening his mouth is now a pleasant experience in comparison. NASCAR also made a terrible mistake in switching to fuel injection this year. I've hated the switch regardless, as I'm an old school gear head, however NASCAR over the last few years has seen the cost of racing increase dramatically, in 2008 start and park teams were virtually non-existant, and sponsors were relatively plentiful. In 2012 if it weren't for the start and park teams, NASCAR would only have a 35-40 car field. Frankly I'm also finding the growing pains with the new efi incredibly annoying to watch. I really don't think any of todays engine failures had much to do with a gear, mostly because the speeds run in the race today were typical for Kansas, and so were the RPM's, the tire give up was also normal for Kansas, how much can they really change the gear? Not enough for all the engine failures seen today, and I don't think that the weather was a big enough change to warrent those failures either. I believe it's the fuel injection. Watching a 7-10 cars every week taken from contention with a fuel pickup, fuel pressure, or engine problem created by running the engine to lean is kind of annoying, and again mechanically these cars still bore more resemblence to a 40-50 year old car, then any current model, outside of a 3/4 ton truck. I'm really missing the distributors, and the Holley carburetors. Frankly I think the efi is a lost cause. Combined with the fuel cells that are too small meaning fuel will run out before tires ever become a factor, the top 35 rule, the awful points system, numerous tracks, Kansas included being repaved, races at Pocono being shortened, and potential restrictor plates at Michigan make me want to cringe. IMO we should really very nervous about the 2012 season, way too many of the remaining races will be effected negatively in some way, at least from a competition standpoint. IMO 2011 was a rough NASCAR season, for all the reasons Red mentioned in post #121, however I least in my view there were a few diamonds in the rough. Phoenix in the spring, Martinsville, Atlanta was the best race in several years, and I think very highly of the 2010 season btw, as few if any races were boring. Homestead in 2011 was awesome, and I'm probably forgetting a few more. The races so far in 2012 aren't going to cut it if some of the remaining races play out like I think they will, and hope they don't. Daytona was on a Monday night and highlighted by JPM hitting the jet dryer, and NASCAR failed epically in trying to create the pack racing that everyone fell in love with for those 5 races from 2000-2001. Phoenix and Las Vegas were largely like the bad races from 2011. Bristol was pretty good, however pretty good isn't going to cut it, Fontana has potential as a drivers track where a fast car is what it takes to win, the type of race that they all should be, however the only caution to come out ended the race. Martinsville's first 497 laps were incredible before it all went to shit, Texas and Kansas were pretty good but again, pretty good ain't gonna cut it. Another problem I see is that based on the last four races, I am really beginning to think that NASCAR has created a car that is too easy to drive. The cars natural tendancy to push makes it too predictable in my mind, this is not to say that I want to see more wrecks cause I don't, but Kansas, Texas, Fontana, all three of these races saw speed records, although Fontana was rain shortened, and frankly a periodic caution is nice as a reset. Plus whatever cautions come won't likely be for Pierre Debris. Those three races have seen an uncanny amount of green flag racing which is good, but it results in the field getting spread out to a slightly dry level. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing something done to make these cars a little less stable. Another thing I've wondered about is the nose that NASCAR introduced last year, I know NASCAR usually does their best to do their homework on changes such as this, however in 2010 we saw far less of the clean air issue then in 2011, and I wonder if the nose job had something to do with it, I'm sure NASCAR made sure that the drag and downforce numbers were similar for a single car by itself, but I wonder if they respond differently in traffic. 136. 10andJoe posted: 04.22.2012 - 11:55 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) >Dave Blaney start-and-park? Why? *shakes head* I'm not sure he did. Blaney was in and out of the garage with issues several times - Fox showed TBR pushing the car behind the wall at one point. I think it was more the car was ill for awhile but they popped back out to pick up a few more spots regardless, then parked it rather than break something (further). 137. Red posted: 04.23.2012 - 12:19 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) Mr. X, do you have any idea why NASCAR ditched the old 22 gallon fuel cell? I understand why they experimented with 13.5 gallon cells for plate races in 2002-04, but there was no logical reason to shrink the cells for the regular events from 2005-present. I remember hearing speculation that NASCAR wanted to put more emphasis on the pit crews, but I'm not sure if that's why they made the change. If it is, that's a really stupid reason. If anything, we need less emphasis on pit stops and more emphasis on the guy behind the wheel, which the smaller fuel cells have somewhat taken away. Right now, the only tracks that produce legitimately good racing are short tracks, road courses, and tracks that eat tires. So like 1/3 of the schedule. With the new car designs for 2013, NASCAR has a golden opportunity to create better racing, so lets hope they don't screw it up. At the very least, with each manufacturer running a unique body, that should help separate the cars more than the spec-boxes we have right now. If I hear DW brag that "the entire field is running within one-tenth of each other!" one more time, I might just throw a brick through my television screen. And don't even get me started about the points system. Even setting aside the asinine chase, it's undoubtedly the most backward and counterproductive system of any major series in the world. That's why I don't really give a damn who wins the Cup championship, because the system does not accurately determine the best driver/team. 138. cjs3872 posted: 04.23.2012 - 12:45 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) But Red, Menard was able to stay up there, close enough to the leaders to make that strategy work. And let's not forget that, when the leaders turned up the wick, that he was able to hold off Jeff Gordon, which proved he had a carfast enough to win. And he DID take the lead from Jamie McMurray late. Sure McMurray was on a fuel strategy, as well, but Menard took the lead with three or four laps left, the atest lead change in Brickyard 400 history. And in the case of Regan Smith's Southern 500 win last year, sure he got the lead because his team kept him out (he was strong enough to be in sixth or seventh even before that), but he still had to outrun Carl Edwards, who's car was the strongest in the first third of the season and was able to beat him in a flat-out race. And also, let's not forget that Smith was also in that battle up front at the end of the race at Indy last year, finishing third. And by the way, Reutimann's win in Chicago in 2010 was his second win, not his first, though it was the first in which he had to battle to the end.And of course, we should have known that Ragan didn't turn the corner with his Firecraker 400 win, but considering that he should have won the Daytona 500 last year, and that car #6 had never won at Daytona, even when Cotton Owens ran the car from the late 50s through the middle of the 1973 season, it was nice to see him win. And Bayne had the fastest car in the Daytona 500 last year, so fast that he was actually afraid that if he got in front, that he's actually break away from those trying to push him, which actually did happen right at the finish. But Bayne proved himself worthy late last season with a great run at Charlotte, a Nationwide Series win at Texas, and the best mid-size track finish for the Wood Brothers since 2005, a ninth at Las Vegas earlier this year. And even with the 18-gallon fuel cell that was introduced in 2005, they were actually getting comprable fuel mileage to what they were getting with the 22-gallon cell. It's the change in the actual fuel being used that has caused the dramatic decrease in fuel mileage the last two or three years. In fact as recently as 2009, they were getting close to 100 miles on a tank of fuel at the unrestricted tracks, but now they're having a hard time squeezing more than 75 (70 was a stretch for a lot of teams at Kansas), and the size of the fuel cell hasn't changed in those three years, but the fuel itself has. 139. 18fan posted: 04.23.2012 - 12:45 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) The Latford system was way better than this current crap of a points system. And broadcasters don't seem to realize that what they call "good tires" don't fall off and make track position the only important factor and they believe that cars that all run the same speed means there is good racing, but they somehow fail to realize that when all cars run the same speed, it is next to impossible for any car to make a pass. 140. LordLowe posted: 04.23.2012 - 2:14 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) DSFF the tires aren't the only thing that is rock hard in NASCAR what I am talking about is the personalities of about 95% of the drivers in NASCAR and by rock hard personalities I mean they are all Bland, Boring and very forgettable 141. myothercarisanM535i posted: 04.23.2012 - 5:55 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) Just quickly jumping in here - I think CJS is completely spot on when talking about the shorter fuel runs having a negative impact on the quality of the racing. F1 has been very exciting this year, for that very reason. Over a 300km race, drivers are even able to get away with a single stop, although tire degradation means this is not a common strategy. But because the tires wear in the way they do, it has a really great impact on the way the cars race towards the end of a fuel run. As for the overall NASCAR v F1 v anything argument, thinking in such a black and white manner is an incredibly childish thing to do. Every series around the globe has strengths and weaknesses and NONE of can be said to be absolutely perfect. In my opinion, the three that currently sit at the top of the pile are NASCAR, Formula 1 and V8 Supercars, but all three can take notes to improve and learn from each other. What is good to see, is that on the whole, racing around the world seems to be taking considerable strides forwards. The new Indycar chassis looks to be a great success; V8 Supercars is riding a high and looking to a strong future with their COTF being introduced in 2013; The F1 season has been amazing so far, with exciting races and plenty of variety in performance from the teams; DTM, Super GT and Grand-Am are planning for the future in bringing their technical regulations in line with each other, opening up the potential for an international GT formula and, as others have said, the 2012 NASCAR season has a great deal of positive things to take in so far. I think it's been a good start to the season and whilst I still think NASCAR should be working hard to improve the series, they're one of the top championships worldwide. It's a good time to be a race fan. 142. 12345Dude posted: 04.23.2012 - 8:01 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) About this whole F1 vs. Nascar debate. I don't know much about F1, but there are a lot of major flaws about nascar. In F1 fans eyes I can see why they think nascar is second-tiere. 11/36 Races are awful races cause of the track. (Indianapolis 1, New Hampshire 2, Auto Club 1, Pocono 2, Kansas 2, Michigan 2, Chicago 1. 26 Races mean actually nothing. Only the last 10. If your going to have a playoff system the same tracks shouldn't be in it every year. Maybe the drivers are less interesting in F1, but all the nascar drivers are douchbags. Kyle Busch Kurt Busch Tony Stewart (pre-owner) Carl Edwards (tried to KILL someone) Juan Pablo Montoya Denny Hamlin (before 2010) Johnny Sauter Kevin Harvick Nascar throws fake cautions to make the races "more interesting" and to "bunch the field up". Someone who has never watched nascar might think that nascar sometimes "fixes" the races - because of these fake cautions. The races are WAY too long. Cars are allowed to enter the race run 5 laps and then park for free money. Wow that list is long. I mean I love nascar. But I bet that list is a lot longer then F1. 143. Destroyahirismix666 posted: 04.23.2012 - 8:22 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) Wow. Someone noticed what I had said. Still, I'm not sure about people comparing to races 10-20 years back. Almost every case of that is from 1960's and 1970's. Most people I see say that NASCAR's Golden era ended in 1987-88ish, and I've heard no one call anything beyond the 1998 season great. So I'm not sure I fully agree there, butttttt, if that is true, then yes, they have a point. 'From 1997 to 2001 there were new tracks that were added to the cup schedule. The size of the tracks was caused by the theory that bigger tracks hold more people in the stands.All of them were 1.5 or 2 mile tracks. The problem comes down to those tracks were not designed for stock cars only. They were made for Indy Cars also. The problem with that is tracks like that are better for one series based on how the cars are designed. Indy Car usually puts on better races on those types of tracks. That is a big problem for NASCAR.' Well, I'm not sure how many of those tracks are like that. I'm sure that Vegas and Chicago are, and we've seen how poorly NASCAR races at those two tracks are, along with how wonderful Indy-Car races are at those locations *Excluding 2011 Dan Wheldon. Rest in Peace*. So you do have a good point. But now that we look back, it seems backwards. Indy-Car never races anything oval anymore save for Iowa, Kentucky, and Indianapolis. Yes, they're doing California this year, but it probably WON'T stick around. But was Kansas designed for Indy-Car's in mind??? I'm not sure. If I remember correctly, the Indy-car races came before the cup races at that track, so that could of been what it was designed for. And I've seen quite a few people debating on what series is best. I'd say that NASCAR, IZOD Indy car, and F1 are the best right now, but all for different reasons, and the IZOD series might shoot themselves into the foot like they have been and remove themselves from that list. I know everyone's going to disagree because I didn't say Australian V8 Supercars, but I hardly ever get to watch those things, and when I do, I really have to stifle yawns. I don't know why, I just do. 144. Bronco posted: 04.23.2012 - 12:41 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Real heartbreak for Truex at the end, there was no question that he deserved to win. This was by far the best ever performance for a MWR car, it was incredible how he was able to simply walk away from the field on all the restarts. I'm glad at least Hamlin was the one that passed him rather than Johnson. Martin now has 5 straight top 10s and actually looks like a championship contender, not just a Chase contender. I never imagined this two year when he took over the NAPA ride. Hamlin now ties Carl Edwards with 19 wins and moves past Earnhardt Jr and Harvick on the all time wins list. Three out of six different winners this year won with new crew chiefs compared to last year. Carl Edwards leads his first lap of the season while Kasey Kahne still hasn't. And Jeff Gordon may just be the unluckiest driver right now. First time since March 2008 that Dale Earnhardt Jr has 4 straight top 10s. Still, its frustrating to see that he still doesn't have the raw speed that the 16, 56 and 48 seem to have, but the way he's going I think finishing in the top 5 in points this year is a very real possibility. 145. Scott B posted: 04.23.2012 - 12:56 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Going all the way back to post 12: Glen Wood:"Curtis Turner could do more with a car than anybody I ever saw" Bill France:"Curtis Turner was Nascar's greatest driver" Tim Flock:"Curtis Turner was the best driver ever in Nascar" Turner was a great driver, but he'll be hampered by two things. First, never winning a championship (by any sensible points system, he'd have run away with the title in 1950 when he had four wins). Second, racing was a hobby to him so he would run a very light schedule compared to most of the other drivers in the barnstorming days. He had only 262 starts including the convertible series, very low for his era. He will be in the HOF eventually, but maybe not as soon as he should be based on natural ability. 146. 10andJoe posted: 04.23.2012 - 4:08 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Richmond entry list is out. 46 cars are entered: - Sorenson in the #32 - Stephen Leicht in the #33 - The #52 is entered, driver TBA - Compton in the #74 - Scott Speed in the #95 147. Talk4Tar posted: 04.23.2012 - 4:14 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) What a heart break... one of my favorite drivers dominates the day, and then gets passed by one of my least favorite drivers... That Sunday was starting to feel a lot like a certain Monday in 2007... As for next week, glad to see Stephen Leicht has a ride. 148. Scott B posted: 04.23.2012 - 4:20 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) #52 entry is from Jimmy Means Racing. They haven't started a Cup race since 1994. 149. DaleSrFanForever posted: 04.23.2012 - 4:52 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Here is my Top 25: 1) Dale Earnhardt 2) Richard Petty 3) David Pearson 4) Bobby Allison 5) Lee Petty 6) Cale Yarboro Yarbrough Yarborough 7) Jimmie Johnson 8) Jeff Gordon 9) Darrell Waltrip 10) Junior Johnson 11) Herb Thomas 12) Fireball Roberts 13) Buck Baker 14) Curtis Turner 15) Ned Jarrett 16) Rusty Wallace 17) Benny Parsons 18) Bill Elliott 19) Joe Weatherly 20) Tony Stewart 21) Tim Flock 22) Bobby Isaac 23) Terry Labonte 24) Fred Lorenzen 25) Matt Kenseth I actually put quite a bit of thought into this. I'll give explanations once my brain quits hurting. 150. ii posted: 04.23.2012 - 4:58 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Did Dave Blaney start-and-park? He was out fairly early for the same reason as most S&Ps. 151. 1995 Subaru WRX STi posted: 04.23.2012 - 5:50 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "NO matter what type of racing discipline worn tires make for better racing. I also apologize for losing my emotiond earlier. I like F1 in the 2010's and NASCAR previosuly. Hopefully my debator accepts my apology." Apology taken. "I never said the POSCOY (like the term) was a model for NASCAR to follow. But they had the chance to start from scratch and build something truly awesome and fix the aero issues that had plagues NASCAR since 1995. And they whiffed badly. It looked awful and raced even worse than the POSCOY. Luckily the new 2013 models look outstanding so far (at least the Ford and Dodge models we have seen so far which is not surprising seeing as how they both knocked it out of the park with their new NWide models with their Mustangs and Challengers respectively). Now they need to focus all their enrgies at the R&D center making a rules package that is less aero dependant." Until it races then looks are only what we can go by. And looks can only go so far. "I remembered people complaining about the bigger tracks even before the COT. What the real problem is those cars were over engineered for aero and you could argue that the engines could go down in horsepower." As do i. The POSCOY was (pardon this term) over-overhauled. It was bent and shaped to the point that you could notice it on TV. That car WAS aero dependent and about as durable as a tooth pick. "NASCAR also made a terrible mistake in switching to fuel injection this year." Disagree to a point. NASCAR should have given teams the option to be Carbed or EFI (like CORR offered before it went away). EFI has been around for how many races? It isn't a "failure" yet. Its new, it has bugs in it, those bugs will be worked out. "Nascar throws fake cautions to make the races "more interesting" and to "bunch the field up". Someone who has never watched nascar might think that nascar sometimes "fixes" the races - because of these fake cautions." Yeah because "fans" think the races are boring. I'm starting to believe that "fans" don't give a damn about NASCAR itself, they just care about what entertains them. Post #141 I wish people were as postive as you are, too bad people just choose to focus on the bad and not the good. "The Latford system was way better than this current crap of a points system." We have what we have, take it or leave it. 152. Talon64 posted: 04.23.2012 - 6:16 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Denny Hamlin picks up his 19th career Sprint Cup Series victory, tying him with Davey Allison, Buddy Baker, Carl Edwards and Fonty Flock for 36th all time. His 15 wins since 2009 tie him with Jimmie Johnson for the most over that span. It's Hamlin's 2nd win and 3rd top 5 of 2012; he had just 1 win and 5 top 5's throughout all of 2011. It's his first win at Kansas and his 3rd top 5, although they're his only top 10's in 9 starts there (14.1 avg fin). But it's his 6th straight finish of 16th or better at Kansas (8.0 avg fin). It's Joe Gibbs Racing's 2nd win in 35 Kansas starts (Tony Stewart in 2006) and just their 6th top 5 (Hamlin and Stewart with 3 each). The #11 now has the most wins for any number in the Sprint Cup Series with 199, surpassing the #43 which had 198. Crew chief Darian Grubb and Tony Stewart, last year's Cup champs, have combined to win 4 of the first 8 races of 2012. Martin Truex Jr. picked up his 20th career top 5 in 233 Cup starts. But his 3 top 5's so far in 2012 equal his total from all of 2011. It's also his 5th career runner-up finish, 4 of them coming since his only career Cup win at Dover back in 2007. He extends his career-best top 10 streak to 5 races. His 173 laps led in the race are nearly more than he'd led in any one season since 2008 (184 in 2009, has led 278 so far in 2012). It's his first top 10 in 8 Kansas starts (23.2 avg fin). It leaves Indy and Kentucky as the only 2 tracks he doesn't have a top 10 at. Jimmie Johnson finishes in the top 3 in back-to-back races. Since finishing 42nd at Daytona, Johnson's scored more points than anyone over the last 7 races, 273 vs. points leader Greg Biffle's 270 (4 top 5's, 6 top 10's, 6.0 avg fin, 362 laps is at least T-1st over that span). Kansas becomes the 11th different track that Jimmie Johnson has 10+ top 10's at (2 wins, 5 top 5's in 12 starts). Next on his radar to add to the list are Talladega, Daytona and Darlington with 9 top 10's each. It's his 7th straight top 10 at Kansas, including 2 wins and 5 podium finishes. Matt Kenseth made his 444th career Cup start, and picked up his 3rd straight top 5 finish and 4th in the last 5. Surprisingly, it's just his 4th top 5 in 13 starts at Kansas but 3 of them have come in the last 6 races and he now has 4 straight top 10's there. Points leader Greg Biffle picked up his 5th top 5 of 2012, tied with Matt Kenseth for the series lead. This is Biffle's best ever start to a Cup season (3rd in points through 8 races in 2005). It's Biffle's 7th straight top 10 at Kansas, including 4 podiums and 5 top 5's (4.4 avg fin). Kevin Harvick picked up his 5th top finish and 2nd front row start of the season. Harvick has an 8.0 avg start in 2012, versus 18.4 the rest of his career (394 starts). Harvick has 6 top 10's in 13 Kansas starts (13.0 avg fin). Of them, 5 are 6th place finishes including the last 2 races. The only exception is a 3rd in 2010. Dale Earnhardt Jr. has 4 consecutive top 10 finishes, first time since March 2008 he's had 4 in a row. His career-best top 10 streak is 6 in a row, 2003-2004 and the first 6 Chase races of 2004. He picks up his 6th top 10 in 13 Kansas starts (16.5 avg fin), but just his 2nd over the last 6 races. After suffering through a 28.5 average finish in the first 6 races of 2012, Kasey Kahne now has back-to-back top 10 finishes which has moved him up from 31st to 26th in points, 21 point out of 20th. He also qualified in the top 10 for a 7th consecutive race. It's the first time he's had back-to-back top 10's at Kansas, his 4th top 10 in 10 starts there (1 top 5, 16.1 avg fin). Carl Edwards led his first lap of 2012 through early green flag pit stops. He picked up his 4th straight finish of 11th or better (1 top 5, 3 top 10's, 8.25 avg fin) in which he's gone from 15th to 9th in points. He still hasn't finished better than 5th, vs. 4 top 3's and leading the points at this point in 2011. It's his 6th straight top 10 finish at Kansas and 8th in 10 starts there (10.5 avg fin). Kyle Busch gets just his 3rd top 10 of 2012, but has gone from 16th to 13th in points over the last 2 races. It's just his 2nd top 10 in 10 Kansas starts (20.0 avg fin), his first since finishing 7th in 2006 with Hendrick Motorsports. Joey Logano has his first top 15 finish in 6 races but has gone 5 straight without a lead lap finish. Sam Hornish Jr. made just his second Cup start since 2011, driving a 3rd Penske entry. He qualified in the top 10 for just the 13th time in 110 career starts. AJ Allmendinger earned his 2nd career Sprint Cup Series pole, his first coming at Phoenix in 2010. 153. 12345Dude posted: 04.23.2012 - 6:18 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Really interested about what Stephen Leicht will do in the #33. I guess Joey Logano was right when he said it is easier to find a cup teams to race in, compared to a nationwide team. 154. cjs3872 posted: 04.23.2012 - 6:38 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Scott B, I don't think Curtis Turner's ever getting in the Hall of Fame. Along with what you mentioned, there was that little incident in 1961 when he tried to start a driver's union with the help of the Teamsters, which got him banned, and only the dreadful straits that NASCAR faced in the middle of 1965 got him back in NASCAR. And when his name is mentioned to the voters, that incident is almost certainly mentioned. As for the 1950 championship, I believe that Turner was one of a number of drivers (Lee Petty was another) who were not only suspended for running outlaw races, but also got all the points they had accumulated during the season taken away, which resulted in Bill Rexford winning the title, becoming NASCAR's youngest champion, a distinction he still holds. And unlike many people, I wouldn't be surprised if the race this weekend at Richmond continues this green flag racing pattern. The reason being everyone is racing conservatively due to the points system. Again, trying to get third place near the end of the race from fourth is not worth the risk. After all, if you crash trying to get one measly point, you could lose 20 or 30. It's just not worth it. NASCAR may have gotten lucky last year with the championship battle they got, but the new points system is a bust because, despite what those aligned with NASCAR say, the new points system does not reward performance, but rather conservative driving. Again, I don't mind 11th through the balance of the field being scored what they are, but better finishes need to be rewarded, and currently they're not. Getting second place from third is exactly the same difference in points is worth exactly the same as the difference between what the second car to fall out of a race gets in comparison to the first, and that's not right. It never has been and never will be. The idea may have been to simplify the points to the fans, whbich it has done, but excellence needs to be rewarded, and it will not be as long as the current points structure remains in tact. And by the way, why is anyone surprised that Denny Hamlin won the race on Sunday, and that Martin Truex, Jr. found a way to lose it. Michael Waltrip Racing is definately on it's way to being one of the elite teams in the sport, but they are lacking one thing, something that was never more evident in the way the race at Kansas ended up playing out. Their full-time drivers simply do not know how to win at the Cup level, and until they get one that does, they will always come up short. That's what that race at Kansas ultimately came down to. Hamlin knows how to win at the Cup level (19 wins is proof), and Truex simply does not, and that made all the difference. 155. Eric posted: 04.23.2012 - 6:56 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) cjs3872, Curtis Turner didn't get any points taken away in 1950. There were drivers that had there points taken away in 1950, but it wasn't Curtis. Lee Petty and Red Byron were the drivers that had their points taken away. Curtis Turner in 1950 struggled down the stretch. Source: http://www.nascar.com/2002/kyn/history/dbd/02/06/1950/ 156. Eric posted: 04.23.2012 - 7:45 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) cjs3872, Clint actually knows how to win on the cup level with him having 5 cup wins and is a step up in that department from Truex for knowing how to win. I know how Clint won at Richmond. Clint won at New Hampshire Motor Speedway twice with one of them without being caught cheating and also won at Talladega Superspeedway. The problem with Clint is at times he does questionable moves like at Martinsville and he did similar stuff at RCR in the Busch series/Nationwide series and the cup series. Clint at points of his career was called a poor man's Terry Labonte because he is a points racer. The catch is he can be aggressive on the track unlike Terry and that has put him in trouble on the track for causing wrecks. The first example of Clint doing that was when he was rookie in the Busch Series at Nashville. Clint caused a wreck that gave Michael Waltrip his last Busch Series win as a driver. 157. ii posted: 04.23.2012 - 8:01 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) I agree, cjs3872, the new points system is definitely a dud. It was a good try, however, to make it easier to understand while trying to emphasize winning the race. Here's my idea at a good points system: 1st: 100 pts. 2nd-5th: dropoff of 10 pts. (5th gets 50 pts.) 6th-11th: dropoff of 5 pts. (11th gets 20 pts.) 12th-13th: dropoff of 2 pts. (13th gets 16 pts.) 14th-28th: dropoff of 1 pt. (28th gets 1 pt.) 35th-43rd: -1 pt. each Pole winner gets 2 pts. No Chase bonus, everyone starts at 3000 pts. and 50 pts. between each driver Ten drivers in Chase, after every 2 races driver last in Chase standings eliminated Daytona 500, Southern 500, Coke 600, Brickyard 400: Points doubled Chase competitors: Positions 1-5 in championship points, driver with most wins*, driver with most top-10s*, last year's championship winner*, All-Star race winner* *Driver must be in top-20 in points. If driver is not in top-20 in points, or he is already in the top 5 in points, the 6th place driver in points will be put into Chase, and the next 4 in points may be in Chase if necessary. I like this method because start-and-parking would have to be eliminated, and DNF's will also be tough to make up. Also, winning and gaining positions in general would be a lot more crucial, and you don't necessarily have to be in the top 10 in points to make the Chase. The large races give out more points, which is also a key factor. This method would also bring in fans because the racing would be more intense, which creates wrecks. The early NASCAR fan watches for the crashes, then they get a little more insight, and sooner or later that person is a die-hard fan. One thing I don't agree with, cjs3872, is whether or not Curtis Turner should be in the Hall of Fame. He will definitely be in within the next, say, 6-8 years, and he will be the fan vote at least twice in between. Starting the Teamsters will probably help him more than it will hurt him. It showed how much the fans wanted him back, since he was such a great driver. Another driver who I think will get in eventually is Dave Marcis. True, he only got 5 wins, but he defined the NASCAR pioneer. He actually had a huge fan base because he was so nice to people. I expect to see him in the HOF in 10 years. 158. Eric posted: 04.23.2012 - 8:27 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) cjs3872, I know Clint doesn't have a lot of wins or win a lot in a season, but he does know to win races. Clint is not what I call a Championship material driver. He is a 2nd tier cup driver. I compare it to Ricky Rudd despite Ricky having 18 more wins. Ricky Rudd is a driver that didn't win a lot in a season, but it doesn't meant Ricky doesn't know how win. Terry Labonte is another driver that known how to win despite being a points racer. Terry Labonte is a driver that some people compare Clint to Matter of fact despite not having the 2 championships and 17 less wins. Mark isn't a bad MWR driver and known to win races despite being conservative and lose championships. Mark is better at MWR than he was at Hendrick for his late 2 seasons there. The only reason Mark didn't get a top 10 at Kansas was his engine. 159. ii posted: 04.23.2012 - 9:09 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Oh, I forgot to add this... Leader at halfway gets 5 bonus points, lap lead 3 points, most laps lead 5 additional points 160. NASCAR Predictions OMG! posted: 04.23.2012 - 9:10 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Now that conflicts are a thing of the past let me say this: NASCAR as a whole has great passing and great finishes more so then any other form of motorsport. NASCAR fans are the most passionate in any sport. I love NASCAR fans. I must say I agree with post 141 (even if he did call me childish) that this year has been great in all forms of motorsport. Even Motorbikes have been interesting this year. i watched some of their action in Seattle over the weekend. 161. 10andJoe posted: 04.23.2012 - 9:32 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) >Did Dave Blaney start-and-park? He was out fairly early for the same reason as most S&Ps. As I mentioned before, I believe he had a genuine issue - FOX showed the TBR team pushing the 36 behind the wall at one point from their pit stall - but he came back out later to pick up what spots he could. 162. cjs3872 posted: 04.23.2012 - 9:52 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Okay Eric (#155), thanks for correcting my error regarding Turner. But as for your saying that Clint Bowyer knows how to win at the Cup level. I somewhat disagree with that. Consider that in his first Cup win at Loudon, his car was so dominant that there's almost no way he wasn't going to win. That being said, look at his other Cup wins. His win at Richmond was gift-wrapped due to a series of misfortunes, not the least of which was the Earnhardt, Jr.-Kyle Busch wreck that resulted in Bowyer inheriting the lead. His second win at Loudon, the one in which his car was deemed to be illegal by one sixth of an inch, was another he inherited, this time when Tony Stewart ran out of fuel, and the other two came at Talladega, and one of those was in a race that ended under caution, and he almost threw the other one away by making his move on Jeff Burton too quick. And I said in that post regarding the Michael Waltrip Racing drvers not knowing how to win on the Cup level that his full-time drivers were the one that didn't know how to win on the Cup level. Mark Martin is NOT a full-time driver this year, so that leaves him out of the discussion. Age will probably be what keeps him out of victory lane. After all, had Mark Martin been driving the #56 car, I believe he would have won, and not Hamlin. And it's a lot dfferent winning on the Cup level than it is in the lower levels of the sport, and Truex and Bowyer, to a lesser extent, simply do not know how to win races on the Cup level. That's why MWR consistently comes up short when it comes to winning races, while they're always up front. Just look at how long it took drivers like Martin, Jeff Gordon, and other top-flight drivers to win. They had the talent, the team, but not the know-how. Once they got that, they started winning races. Jackie Stewart said it in the broadcast of the 1976 Daytona 500. He said that there were not that many drivers that knew how to win races. That's just as true today as it was then. The move that Clint Bowyer made at Martinsville was an example of a guy not knowing how to win. I believe his point was that drivers that know how to win can make a move to win a race that a driver that doesn't know how to win can not make. It wasn't that they hadn't won. It was that they didn't know how to win. In fact, there are some drivers out there today that have won big races that do not know how to win, though I won't mention names. Just look at the overall record of those drivers, and you may see who I'm talking about, and the same goes for knowing how to win championships. 163. JP88 posted: 04.23.2012 - 11:49 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Yeah I agree with the fact that since Truex hasn't been in a position for the win in a long time, he probably panicked and made his bonzai move...honestly I think if he ran the same way he did until 1 to go, he would of been closer to Hamlin, enough for that bonzai to maybe work. 164. Spen posted: 04.23.2012 - 11:59 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Scott B.: "by any sensible points system, he'd have run away with the title in 1950 when he had four wins" I've gotta' disagree on that one. 7 top tens in 16 races is by no means championship callibar. And when you end the season with finsihes of 60th, 24th, 22nd, 17th and 29th, you can expect to lose. (Not to mention skiping race #16) Eric: In addition to Petty and Byron, Herb Thomas, Buck Baker, Tim Flock, Bill Blair and Glenn Dunnaway were all penalized for running non-NASCAR sanctioned races in 1950. DSFF: I think you might be overrating Lee a bit. He was quite possibly the most consistent driver in history, but a large chunk of his wins came in races that most of his contempories didn't bother to show up for (races in New York and the like), or pure attrition races. And his lousy stats at Darlington have to count against him as well. On my list, he'd be ahead of Buck, but not Herb Thomas. And no way no how could I put him ahead of Cale. (Except as an owner, that is.) 165. Spen posted: 04.24.2012 - 12:03 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) I highly doubt Truex's car would have held any better on the last lap than it did with three to go. He probably thought that Hamlin would expect the move on the last lap, and therefore be able to properly block it, so he attempted it early to try to catch him off guard. Obviously it didn't and couldn't work, but there was no possible way for him to win no matter what he tried. 166. DaleSrFanForever posted: 04.24.2012 - 12:23 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) Well I certainly wasn't there to see Lee's career, but I looked at his stats and his situation. He ran Petty Enterprises strictly as a business since he had to pay all the bills. This meant he had to take a more cautious style. Despite these limitations, he still won 54 races and 3 championships in just 12 seasons. This includes a staggering 11 consecutive Top 5 points finishes. Also, he finished well over 3/4 of his races. In the earliest days of NASCAR when the cars were their most fragile, that shows me a lot. To finish a lot of races while accumulating quite a few wins says a lot to me. Plus you have to remember he was definitely one of the pioneers. In other words, he really didn"t know what each week would bring. Yet he still had success. I'm quite impressed. 167. Baker posted: 04.24.2012 - 10:53 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) From everything I read and gather abouth both Lee Petty and Richard Petty is that they dominated the sport simply because they had the most money. They reciever the most sponsership money by a large margin and use that to simply out class the rest of the field by having better cars, better everything and the ability to afford to run every race. I've never been able to figure out why that has never counted against Richard Petty? Sure he is great, but a lot of his closest competition couldn't fairly compete because of a lack of funds. It seems as though a lot of those guys were actually more talented wheel-men than Petty and just lacked money. 168. Scott B posted: 04.24.2012 - 11:46 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) On the 1950 season, I guess it depends on how much you value consistancy versus winning. Curtis Turner was certainly a checkers or wreckers guys, even for the era when there were a lot of mechanical failures. Turner entered 16 of 19 races and won 4 of them (25%). The four guys who finished ahead of him in points had only one win each, and a couple of those drivers padded thier stats by cherry picking races where there would be few competitive entries. If you look at laps led, it shows how dominating Turner really was: Bill Rexford, points champ, 98 laps led. Fireball Roberts, 2nd, 60 laps led. Lee Petty, 3rd, 43 laps led. Lloyd Moore, 4th, 57 laps led. Curtis Turner, 5th, 1110 laps led. If I was around back then, I'd have been buying a ticket to see Pops run, not Rexford or Moore. In spite of their love/hate relationship, Bill Sr. never lost sight of the fact that Turner was box office gold. 169. cjs3872 posted: 04.24.2012 - 3:23 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Baker, I disagree as far as the Pettys go. First, Lee Petty could not, or would not run his cars as hard as he could because he was trying to make enough money to get to the next race. If it meant finishing fourth rather than go for the win, so be it. When Lee Petty finally got the support his rivals had been getting, his superiority showed, as he became the first to wn 50 races, the first to win three championships, as well as win the first Daytona 500 in 1959. It was also Lee Petty that first figured out that handling, and not horsepower was what won races, so he concentrated on the handling of his car, something he passed down to his son Richard. And when Richard first dominated the circuit in the mid-60s, his car wasn't backed the factories any more than the Fords were. But he ran all the races while most of the Ford teams did not, a fact that changed only when Holman-Moody ran the full circuit in 1968 and '69. Until then, only Ned Jarrett ran all the races among elite-level Ford drivers, and Jarrett and Petty had quite a rivalry going until Jarrett retired in 1966. A major reason Petty was so dominant from 1967-'71 was that, except for David Pearson, all the other top stars either lost their lives or retired, fearing that fate. As a result, a power vacuum was created that took years to fill. Add to that the factory pullout after 1970, and the Pettys were again ahead of the curve, as Richard became one of the first drivers to be fully sponsored. Bobby Allison got the first major national sponsor, Coca-Cola, in 1969, with STP following in 1971, sponsoring the Nichels-Goldsmith team before moving to Petty in 1972. Purolator began sponsoring the Wood Brothers in 1971, with Coca-Cola following Allison werever he went, from Mario Rossi to Holman-Moody to Richard Howard's team (with Junior Johnson and Herb Nab), as well as his won team. But unlike some of his comtemporaries, Petty was able to handle the stiffer competition, as he won some of the most competitive races ever, including three Daytona 500s with 48 or more lead changes. The plain truth is that Petty won races spanning 25 years, a record to this day. Those wins spanned seven presidencies, from Eisenhower to Reagan. No Baker, Richard Petty is the greatest NASCAR driver of them all, not just because of his overwhelming statistics, but also his longevity, another thing I deem important when I put a rankings list together. 170. DaleSrFanForever posted: 04.24.2012 - 4:04 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) I look at what Lee did in the first 12 years of NASCAR compared to his contemporaries. By the time he had his Daytona wreck that pretty much ended his career, he had 54 wins, something that wouldn't be surpassed until his son did it over 7 years later. And his 3 championships wouldn't be matched for another 9 years when Pearson did it, and wasn't surpassed for another 12 years. All while running cars out of a modest hand built garage behind a modest house. Yeah he had factory support, but the cars were still incredibly stock. That meant very brittle under racing conditions. To just FINISH a race back then took incredible skill. To get 54 wins and 3 championships? Just wow. Same deal for Richard. Yeah he had factory support, but he still won TWO HUNDRED races. His 1967 season doesn't get enough attention. That 10 race winning streak is freaking incredible. Again, how many people back then could FINISH 10 races in a row? To balance running hard and making sure the car was around in the end took much skill. Yes he had the advantage of running more races and had factory support (just like many other teams) but still. And then he dominated the mid 70's. Sure that was probably the low water mark of stacked fields, but he still won 13 out of 30 races one year. Cale never did that. Bobby never did that. Darrell came close but never did that in '81 and '82 (the true low water mark of championships caliber teams). Only Gordon matched it in a 33 race season. And he hasn't shown The King's longevity. His first championship was in 1964. That was when the schedule was around 50 races per year, mostly on little hole in the wall dirt tracks, running 2 to 3 times a week on tracks raning from 2.5 mile paved tracks like Daytona to quarter mile dirt tracks. His 7th came in 1979, well into the modern era when he and his fading Petty Enterprises outfit outlasted the much faster outfit of DiGard and a gagging Darrell Waltrip. He had the best pre modern era season (1967) and the best modern season (1975). Let's never bring up Lee and Richard being overblown again. If anything, everyone tries to downplay their accomplishments. 171. OldSchoolNascarDude1 posted: 04.24.2012 - 4:42 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Was anyone else surprised with Jeff Burton's comments? He basically was speculating that Nascar should immpliment a system to throw a caution after 70 laps of continuous green flag racing. 172. 1995 Subaru WRX STi posted: 04.24.2012 - 7:09 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "Was anyone else surprised with Jeff Burton's comments? He basically was speculating that Nascar should immpliment a system to throw a caution after 70 laps of continuous green flag racing." Like Lucas Oil Off Road Racing Series does? I like Jeff Burton but Jeff are you nuts? Seriously Jeff, why, why mention something like that? Jimmie Johnson too me had the best comment of the week when he said ''It seems like crashing to most is more important than racing, #sucks'' Mr. 5 time has it right. (i can't believe i'm agreeing with Jimmie Johnson.....) "4,000 wrecks, 6,000 cautions, 10,000 lead changes, finish decided by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 of a second, half the field towed away on flat beds, the other half looking like modifieds, drivers throwing helmets (pick your style), giving eachother the #1 sign and every driver recieves a trophy and a 1 Million check." If races don't have ^this, they suck, boring, dull. Of course this will not apply to everyone but the more forums i visit and i read what others write, the more i believe it to be true. (I'm agreeing with 5-time on something, i'm must be going mad) 173. Anonymous posted: 04.24.2012 - 7:12 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Scott B, It was more than the fans demand that why Curtis Turner was back in NASCAR for 1965. NASCAR needed Curtis Turner for drawing fans because of what was happening in 1964 and 1965. NASCAR lost 2 Superstar drivers in 1964 in Joe Weatherly and Fireball Roberts to racing deaths. Upcoming driver Bill Wade died during a tire test in 1965. That Meant NASCAR lost 2 drivers that helped bring people into the stands. Rex White also raced his last cup race in 1964. Jack Smith also raced his final cup in 1964. All this meant was the cup series was in a transition for drivers. Bobby Allison, Buddy Baker, Cale Yarborough were unknown driver to people that only follow cup. The other thing was Richard Petty only raced 14 times in 1965 due Dodge boycotting NASCAR with Richard Petty turning into a drag racer. The Richard Petty not racing a lot was huge for NASCAR. Richard won his championship the year prior and turning into a big fan favorite. David Pearson also boycotted NASCAR with him being a Dodge driver. David Pearson came off a breakout season in 1964 and that meant NASCAR didn't have their top 2 young talents for most 1965. What NASCAR had in 1965 for drivers that were proven stars in the cup series for the cup series was Junior Johnson, Ned Jarrett, Marvin Panch, Jim Paschal, Fred Lorenzen, and a fading Buck Baker. A.J. Foyt, and Dan Gurney were star drivers, but they didn't race a lot of in the cup series with them being in different racing series outside of NASCAR. That meant NASCAR needed Curtis Turner because the drawing power of proven drivers in cup was there as much as it was. 174. Anonymous posted: 04.24.2012 - 7:41 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Before cjs3872 mentions it, Drivers were affected by the deaths of Joe Weatherly and Fireball Roberts including Ned Jarrett, and Fred Lorenzen as examples. 175. DaleSrFanForever posted: 04.24.2012 - 7:54 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) I don't want to see drivers wreck. I want to see drivers ALMOST wreck, but keep racing. Pretty much the last 10 laps of Atlanta last year, or the end of a tire run at the Truck race in Rockingham. That is what we want as fans, along with good side by side racing. The finish between Denny and Truex was pretty good in this race. But can you imagine if Goodyear brought a soft tire and they were both dead sideways the whole time, again like Jimmie and Jeff at Atlanta last year. Other great examples: the JJ/Carl battle at Atlanta in 2005. The DJ/KuBu battle at Rockingham in 2003. One year later the Kenseth/Kahne duel at The Rock. And of course the epic Craven/KuBu battle at Darlington in 2003. Nobody wrecked in any of those races. But the drivers in each case were at the end of a tire run on a track with abrasive pavement and were SLIPPING AND SLIDING. That is what we want. We don't want to watch them crash, but we want to scream "Oh shit, he's gonna crash, OH, he saved it" a bunch of times. One last example I just now remembered. The Park/B-Lab battle at Rockingham in 2001: 176. cjs3872 posted: 04.24.2012 - 8:00 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Anonymous (#173, 174), I did briefly touch in post #169 on the fact that several drivers either lost their lives or retired fearing such a fate, which aided Petty and Pearson later in the decase, because of the power vacuum the retirements created. And you forgot to mention that, in addition to Joe Weatherly and Fireball Roberts being killed, other prominent drivers who were killed in 1964 included Eddie Sachs, Dave McDonald, Jimmy Pardue, and Bobby Marshman. In addition, Jim Hurtubise and Ronnie Duman (who was killed in 1968) were badly burned in IndyCar crashes in 1964, and Billy Wade (Weatherly's replacement in Bud Moore's car) and Buren Skeen were both killed in 1965. The death of Roberts had a profound impact on several drivers. They included Fred Lorenzen, who idolized Roberts, Marvin Panch, and Ned Jarrett and Junior Johnson, who actually tangled, starting the crash on the ninth lap of the 1964 World 600 in which Roberts was killed. Roberts' death was to that era of NASCAR exactly what Dale Earnhardt, Sr.'s death was to this era of NASCAR, and that is the biggest superstar in the sport losing his life on one of the sport's biggest stages (Roberts in the World 600, just sic days before the catastrpohic crash at Indy that took both Sachs and McDonald, and Earnhardt in the Daytona 500). And those deaths, much like Earnhardt's two generations later, forced major safety changes to all major categories of racing. 177. Anonymous posted: 04.24.2012 - 8:13 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) cjs3872, I did mention Billy Wade on post 1973 by calling him Bill Wade. 178. NASCAR Predictions OMG! posted: 04.24.2012 - 9:29 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) @post 172. This is where me and many NASCAR critics differ. I criticize NASCAR for a lack of a challenge abd being a stale product. Going with what others say, wrecks are not fun to see. I know plenty of idiots who love the Big One at Daytona and Talladega but what they don't realize is just how dull the race is after a big 20-car crash. I want to see diferent trakcs and see NASCAR exlpore new horizons with its exciting brand of racing. I want to see the NASCAR that is groundbreaking that honors its traditions. I want to see the Southern 500 on Labor Day, The Rock and North Wilkesboro back and I want tracks like Cali, Kansas, Chicago go bye-bye. I am sick of the 1.5 mile ovals. bring back more short racks and lets see if we can go do a new Road Course. maybe even a street course. but anyone who wishes for more wrecks in NASCAR has no respect from me. 179. myothercarisanM535i posted: 04.24.2012 - 9:49 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) " I must say I agree with post 141 (even if he did call me childish)" Sorry mate, that wasn't meant to be directed at any one individual, it was just a broad statement. People who say "F1 is boring, there's no passing and the drivers are so lifeless" are just as bad as the people who say "NASCAR sucks, it's just cars turning left, that takes no skill whatsoever". Every different form of racing has positives and negatives and as race fans, we should be open minded enough to recognize that. "I know everyone's going to disagree because I didn't say Australian V8 Supercars, but I hardly ever get to watch those things, and when I do, I really have to stifle yawns. I don't know why, I just do." I'm not going to disagree or say you're right or wrong - it's a perfect valid opinion to have. I'm probably a bit biased towards the V8's for obvious reason (being an Australian), but I still reckon they're doing pretty alright. I haven't mentioned the Indycars much, because they don't really get enough solid coverage here for me to be able to watch consistently and I don't want to pass judgement without being able to watch it all. The only race so far this year that I've been able to watch a non-highlights telecast of was the Birmingham race, which I thought was a nice, solid race. Not overly exciting and nothing out of the ordinary, but I was still able to enjoy it. 180. myothercarisanM535i posted: 04.24.2012 - 10:09 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "Was anyone else surprised with Jeff Burton's comments? He basically was speculating that Nascar should immpliment a system to throw a caution after 70 laps of continuous green flag racing." I haven't read about this - do you have a link? Anyway, I personally disagree with that idea very strongly, but it does lead us into another area of discussion that I haven't seen brought up before; and that is racing vs "racing". By definition, a race is a contest or competition of speed. But the thing is, excitement has nothing to do with it - racing is exciting by coincidence rather than by definition or design. I think NASCAR really struggles with this, because whilst we all want excitement and entertainment, at the same time, I believe we need to stay true to the idea of what a race really is - a competition to see who is the fastest. A good race and an exciting race don't necessarily go hand in hand; I think a race can lack excitement but still be good and on the contrary, there can be excitement but the race can still be a bad race. The way I see it, is that if NASCAR wants to put excitement over racing, then they need to be straight up about it and say that's exactly what they intend to do. When Super GT was created (formerly known as the Japanese GT Championship; or JGTC), it was stated explicitly that the main goal of the series was for it to be exciting and entertaining for the fans. One of the methods they use for this is success ballast, where winning cars are fitted with a weight penalty after each round. I don't necessarily agree with that, as I don't believe it fits with the ideals of what racing is, but at the same time, that's the direction they've chosen to take and they've been completely open about it. NASCAR's problem, to me is that they (and perhaps the fans) don't really know how to tackle this. As mentioned earlier, we all love excitement, but at the same time, I think that when a team or an individual puts in an outstanding performance, we should be applauding their efforts, rather than punishing them for the sake of excitement. It really is a tough one. Because my life as a race fan has revolved around V8 Supercars and Formula 1, I probably find it easier to appreciate a "boring" race than those who grew up with short track mayhem. I guess my biggest thing is that, whatever path is taken, it needs to be adhered to without any deviation whatsoever. Thoughts? 181. cjs3872 posted: 04.24.2012 - 11:03 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Sorry about that, Anonymous (#173, 174, 177). I overlooked that. And NASCAR Predictions OMG!, I think a part of the reason that the Southern 500 was moved off of Labor Day weekend was because NASCAR just got tired of fighting the weather on Labor Day weekend at Darlington, SC, though moving that race weekend to Fontana, CA was a terrible idea. Remember that from 1997-2002, NASCAR constantly fought rain every year but one (1998) during that particular weekend. The 1997 Southern 500 saw a caution due to rain, the 1999 and 2000 Southern 500s were rain-shortened, they just barely got the 2001 Southern 500 run before a thunderstorm hit, and the 2002 Southern 500 was delayed two hours due to rain, though they did get it all in. NASCAR just got tired of battling the weather at that time of the year in one of the most vulnerable parts of the country for bad weather on one of it's mpost important weekends of the year, though as I said, just about any place would have been an improvement over the desert southwest. And what happened last year on Labor Day weekend? A hurricane forced a two-day delay at Atlanta, proving NASCAR to have been right about their fears over weather that time of year in the southeast. I would actually like to see the Southern 500 where back it was on the schedule in 2004, as a very important race in the Chase, because 500 miles at Darlington under championship pressure will REALLY test the nerves of the drivers and teams alike, because then nobody could afford a mistake at the one place that invites mistakes more than any other in the sport. 'd like to see that, and I'd like to see the Brickyard 400 open the Chase to make that an important race again, since it seems to have lost it's importance among the drivers, car owners, and teams, except for those with close ties to the Indianapolis Motor Speedway (i.e. Paul Menard, Jeff Gordon, Tony Stewart, Roger Penske, Chip Ganassi, Juan Montoya, etc.). 182. OldSchoolNascarDude1 posted: 04.25.2012 - 12:23 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) Hey, myothercarisanM535i, I don't have a link. I just caught some of the discussion on the radio this afternoon on my commute to school. It sounded more like Jeff had speculated the change on an earlier show. I don't think he was supporting it, but trying to see what fans would think about it. 183. 10andJoe posted: 04.25.2012 - 2:58 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) DaleSrFanForever/175: Funny how often Rockingham comes up in those examples, isn't it? 184. NicoRosbergFan posted: 04.25.2012 - 7:09 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) I want to see NASCAR, even if just a 15-lap exhibition with 4 cars, experiment a little with dirt tracks. If ARCA's chuckleheads can do it, surely the 43 best in the world could if a safe enough facility could get enough interest. I bet it would draw a crowd due to the novelty. If it isn't there, build it up near Raleigh and force the issue. 185. ii posted: 04.25.2012 - 3:29 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) NicoRosbergFan, this would mean that NASCAR would probably have to design an entirely different car that is much higher than today's car. And although this car would be much cheaper and many cars would attempt to race, there would have to be less cars allowed to drive, especially since most dirt tracks are less than 1/2 mile long. It is a good idea, though, and I highly agree that we should go back to dirt. But, the renovations some tracks would have to go through and the R&D process for the new car would be very costly. It's not something Brian France wants to spend money on, either. 186. DaleSrFanForever posted: 04.25.2012 - 4:04 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) 10AndJoe, it is amazing how often Rockingham provided awesome finishes. See ya in hell "New And Improved" Bristol. 2007-2012. Although I'm not 100% sure how their fix is gonna work, the racing can't possibly be any blander than it has been. Cjs, although weather definitely affected a lot of Southern 500s in a short period of time, the real reason they moved the Labor Day date to Cali was to have a race on one of the holiday weekends in a "major market" in "Los Angeles" even though, from what I hear, Fontana is geogrphically and culturally pretty far from LA. Like just about everything else NASCAR has done since Tommy Boy Brian France took over, it didn't work and eventually had to be changed. See above. 187. cjs3872 posted: 04.25.2012 - 5:42 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) DSFF, I said that the fact that NASCAR got tired of fighting the weather was a part of the reason that they moved the Southern 500 date away from Labor Day weekend, not the most important reason, because you're correct about them wanting one of the major holiday weekends in a major market, but mog the Labor Day race to Southern California's Inland Empire was a terrible idea. Before making such a move, NASCAR should have consulted someone like Roger Penske or A.J. Foyt, who was still a car owner in NASCAR then. Had they, NASCAR would never have moved the Labor Day weekend date to that part of the country. Remember that Penske and Foyt were both major factors in the IndyCar race that were run at Ontario, CA on Labor Day weekend in the early 1970s (in fact, Foyt won the first one as a car owner with Jim McElreath in 1970), so they knew how unmercifully hot it gets out there that time of year. Trust me, I lived in the San Diego area at that time, so I know from first hand experience how hot it gets that time of year there. What NASCAR could have done instead was to put the second Fontana race to the last race of the season, just as the races at Ontario in the late 70s and 1980 were, as well as the second race dates at Riverside were from that point until 1987 (there were actually three races at Riverside in 1981), moved the race at Homestead to the next-to-last race, and leave the Southern 500 alone., As it happens, the Southern 500 may be in a better spot in the schedule now, because the teams, and most importantly, the fans, no longer have to worry about potentially deadly heat (some fans at the U.S. Grand Prix one of the years it was held at Indy actually died from heat exhaustion), as well as potentially catastrophic weather such as hurricanes. 188. cjs3872 posted: 04.25.2012 - 5:51 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) And DSFF, I'll be interested to see what the next configuration of Bristol will bring. But we'll have to wait until next spring's race to see the full effects, because most of the tile contending drivers will have to play it conservatively, due to it's place inrelation to the Chase cutoff. That, more than anything else, is why the Bristol night race has gotten bland since 2004. Drivers just can not afford to take chances that close to the Chase, so they must play it cautiously. I just hope it dosn't turn into one of those races in which a guy running at the back winds up winning, or contending for the win, simply because he makes his final pit stop before the leaders do, and if it's a one-groove track, there's a good chance that will happen. Remember what I said. If I had a driver in a raqce at the pre-summer 2007 Bristol, I would just tell him to run in the back and/or not make any chancy moves, make his final pit stop between 350-375, if possible, and stay out when everyone else pits later. If that happens, guess where my car would be without racing anyone the entire night? Up front. And if it's a one-groove track, that guy who runs at the back and plays his pit strategy right, may very well win that race, or at least contend for the win, instead of those that have been racing hard all night. Not to mention that if it's a one-groove track, you'd probably see about 100-125 laps of caution and 15-20 caution periods, which nobody really wants to see. 189. Scott B posted: 04.25.2012 - 5:53 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Tony Stewart has actually gone on the record saying he'd like to see an annual Cup points race on dirt. I'm sure Newman, Kahne, Blaney and a few others would be on board for that, too. In reality, the Eldora charity event is as close as we'll get to rolling back the clock to those days. 190. Anonymous posted: 04.25.2012 - 6:33 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "If I had a driver in a raqce at the pre-summer 2007 Bristol, I would just tell him to run in the back and/or not make any chancy moves, make his final pit stop between 350-375, if possible, and stay out when everyone else pits later. If that happens, guess where my car would be without racing anyone the entire night? Up front." Well, except for the part when he goes a lap down. 191. cjs3872 posted: 04.25.2012 - 7:51 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Anonymous, if it's a caution-filled race, even a driver running in 20th-25th is going to stay on the lead lap, and even if he gets lapped, they'll be many opportunitites to get laps back with the free pass and wave around rules. In fact, I can see a driver that gets five or even six laps behind possibly being on the lead lap at the finish, if it's race with a high number of cautions, so if a driver stays on the back end of the lead lap, he could be in contention to win with the right strategy, even if doesn't race anyone in the first 350-400 laps. 192. 1995 Subaru WRX STi posted: 04.25.2012 - 7:51 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "By definition, a race is a contest or competition of speed. But the thing is, excitement has nothing to do with it - racing is exciting by coincidence rather than by definition or design. I think NASCAR really struggles with this, because whilst we all want excitement and entertainment, at the same time, I believe we need to stay true to the idea of what a race really is - a competition to see who is the fastest. A good race and an exciting race don't necessarily go hand in hand; I think a race can lack excitement but still be good and on the contrary, there can be excitement but the race can still be a bad race." NASCAR may struggle with this concept but fans struggle with it more so. It has to have both elements or else it just plain "sucks." Racing itself is exciting and entertaining but appearently "fans" like to nit pick everything in-humanly possible about something. "See ya in hell "New And Improved" Bristol. 2007-2012. Although I'm not 100% sure how their fix is gonna work, the racing can't possibly be any blander than it has been." He's gotten rid of the 3rd lane near the wall but the bottom 2 lanes are still there (as of right now) Ok, i'm gonna make a statement here and i really don't care if people hate me for it: BMS is being re-done because "fans" think the racing is "bland, boring, clean racing." Yet Mville doesn't have that but at times Martinsville CAN be a county fair demo-derby (lets face it, it CAN be). BMS is going back to Spring 2007 to get what Mville has. Those who popo on BMS "old" version are probably the VERY same people who popo on tandum drafting because it doesn't have "3 wide 20 rows deep, all cars within 1 sec. of eachother and 30 car pile ups." Most times with pack racing, it was a county fair demo-derby (they always talked about the 'big one'). NASCAR got rid of tandum drafting because it have what pack racing offered (or what people choose to remember), BMS is changes to bring what Mville has on steriods for 160,000 people (what those people choose to remember). My conclusion: Is the "racing" at Daytona and Talladega "manufactered?": Yes Is the "racing" at BMS gonna be "manufactered?": I would say so Oh and all i hear from NASCAR "fans" is how all this "manufactered" BS sucks, ruins racing and ruins NASCARs credibility (what cred they have left according to some). Yet, what we will be seening at those 3 tracks is..........manufactered...............racing? Ah, ok i got it now. I've figured it out. Yep............................................ 193. DaleSrFanForever posted: 04.25.2012 - 8:32 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "He's gotten rid of the 3rd lane near the wall but the bottom 2 lanes are still there (as of right now)" This COULD be a great thing. To me, what has killed the quality of racing is that top lane. They progressed the banking way too much, and anyone who could get a decent run through the corner on the high line and get that rocket off down the straights was pretty much unpassable. If forced to those bottom two lanes, that COULD improve racing. But I'll have to see. NASCAR's most recent "semi-retro-active" move, moving the Labor Day race from Cali to a Southern track with incredibly abrasive pavement, has been a great success. I know it is apples and oranges, but this is also a "semi-retro-active" move. As far as the rant on what fans want, I'll say it again: it is the ELEMENT of danger we like. I hate watching the big 30 car pileups. No matter how much safety improves, I only feel a sick feeling in my gut when they happen until every driver involved walks away. But seeing all those cars bunched together, knowing that the grenade could go off any moment, that is what is is about to me. My favorite plate race? The 2000 Winston 500 and not just for sentimental purposes. No big wrecks, but 500 miles of "oh shit, this could be bad". Then when it was over, and it wasn't bad, that was an awesome feeling. My other favorite plate race was the 2001 Talladega 500. A caution free race with a similar "oh shit, here it comes" vibe throughout. Of course the plate race in between those two showcased why that is such a bad thing. But safety has improved a lot. As for the Old Bristol (we'll call it Bristol II) and Martinsville, there is sort of the same deal. You just get/got the feeling that at any moment somebody is gonna go spinning off somebody's front bumper creating incredible suspense. The New Bristol (Bristol III) lacked the suspense. I guess you can look at each race as telling a story. On Bristol II, it was an incredibly suspenseful story being told lap after lap. With Bristol III, the story was pretty generic. We will see how Bristol IV's story is told. 194. NicoRosbergFan posted: 04.26.2012 - 9:16 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) ii: That's why I said they should build it. They could build a dirt track suited to NASCAR's specs. As I said, ARCA does it. They just use old horse tracks that are flat and only have to modify the shocks. The grip level makes it so that the best man always win because there are many grooves and grip is none. It is a true test of skill. I think NASCAR could do it realistically; they are just too afraid to try. Go to ARCAracing.com and watch some videos and you'll see what I mean about the racing. 195. cjs3872 posted: 04.26.2012 - 10:14 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) The problem is that sometimes you can't see at a dirt track. Sure, it showcases the driver's skill at controlling his car to the highest degree, but sometimes you can get conditions where the drivers are driving blind, and the fans can't see the action, either. Plus, they can't build a dirt track big enough to bring in the number of spectators needed, nor is there an existing dirt track big enough to bring in the number of spectators needed for a major NASCAR series race, even a Truck Series race, or even a K&N Pro Series race. Not to mention they'd need 43 pit stalls, up to date facilities, and all the rest of that mumbo jumbo, and you just can't do that with a dirt track. Eldora and the Indiana State Fairgrounds would probably be the closest thing, and they can only seat about 20,000 people maximum, and that just won't cut it. There's a reason major racing series don't race at dirt tracks, and haven't since 1970, and that's the unprdictability and even unsafe racing conditions you sometimes get at those places. After all, the last time NASCAR raced on a dirt track was in 1970, and that was the same year the final IndyCar race staged on a dirt track was held. The following year, USAC split its series, so that the teams wouldn't have to build a dirt car to be able to compete for the championship, so cost was a factor in not racing on dirt even then, and would be a major headache for teams now. 196. NicoRosbergFan posted: 04.26.2012 - 11:10 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) Let me reiterate... NASCAR WOULD have to build the dirt track. It would be more than easy to do (they succeeded with Texas Motor Speedway eventually). ARCA runs on dirt and they little to know visibility issues. I think they would see out if they built a 160,000 seat, one-mile flat dirt oval in the Raleigh area. I have watched enough to know that dirt only gets kicked out from the four-wheel drift, and NASCARs wouldn't be doing that. They would do it like ARCA and just drive it like a normal turn. Picture Dover, only instead it is flat and dirt. Basically a dirt track is an asphalt track that hasn't been paved. It would 100% have to be a NASCAR venture because, as you said cjs, it doesn't exist at the moment. Yas Marina Circuit didn't exist once upon a time, either, and they have a race there every year now. You, too, need to watch some ARCA videos. 197. NicoRosbergFan posted: 04.26.2012 - 11:15 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) I just watched some vids myself... They kicked up dirt only when running off line. If NASCAR thinks dirt track racing has visibility issues, then why have rain tires for the Nationwide Series races? PS. cjs, you must have done debating in either high school or college. 198. cjs3872 posted: 04.26.2012 - 3:24 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Well, NicoRosbergFan, I think rain tires for the NASCAR races on road courses is also a terrible idea, precisely for that reason. The one time they did it was a complete and utter disaster, because the drivers were driving blind. I saw most of that race, and the drivers could not get within 50 yards of each other, because they would lose vision if they got any closer. The only place I can see where NASCAR could ever hold a dirt track race would be Bristol. After all, they have put dirt on the banks there before to run the World of Outlaws, so if Bruton Smith wanted to, and had NASCAR's consent, he could put dirt on the banks on run a NASCAR weekend on the dirt there. After all, we know Bristol has all the other updated facilities I mentioned before, so the only place NASCAR could run a dirt track race if it wanted to would be Bristol. And yes, I have seen highlights of the ARCA dirt track races on highlight shows. But if you run a race on a dry dirt track, there would be significant vision problems for the spectators, as they would have to rely on the track announcers to find out what's going on if they can't actually see the action on the track due to dust clouds. (I used to watch the Thunder series on ESPN when I was younger, so I did watch dirt track racing years ago.) And no, I did not take debating in high school and never went to college. 199. NicoRosbergFan posted: 04.26.2012 - 4:04 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Your point is exactly why they wet the dirt down before the race. Please notice that I said that the track would have to be purpose built, or, like you said, dirt on the banking at Bristol. Also, I watched that Montreal race too. It wasn't real NASCAR racing, but it was some of the most fun I have ever seen. Excellent show of skill with Fellows leading by 50 seconds after leading less than 10 laps before rain killed it. 200. 10andJoe posted: 04.26.2012 - 4:17 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Richmond entry list update: the #52 has withdrawn. On Bristol: I'm a tad dubious about Bruton's fix. Getting rid of the progressive banking is a good start, but they should have also hiked the banking back up to "36 degrees" (= whatever it actully was, since it really wasn't that steep). 201. Spen posted: 04.26.2012 - 5:51 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Personally, I'd love to see a Langhorne-style track. It was plenty big enough for a 43-car field, and you could probably build enough seats for 100,000 (160,000 is a bit much). Langhorne's biggest problem was safety, but with SAFER barriers, and the COT, it should be managable. It'd certainly seperate the men from the boys, that's for sure. 202. myothercarisanM535i posted: 04.26.2012 - 6:17 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "Well, NicoRosbergFan, I think rain tires for the NASCAR races on road courses is also a terrible idea, precisely for that reason. The one time they did it was a complete and utter disaster, because the drivers were driving blind. I saw most of that race, and the drivers could not get within 50 yards of each other, because they would lose vision if they got any closer. " Keep in mind though, that was because the cars were not properly prepared for wet weather racing. It was a massive blunder on NASCARs part, to not do more for the cars before that event. If they're going to race in the wet, there are a number of features that I believe should be mandatory on all road course cars, otherwise they shouldn't be doing it at all - which would be a shame. It's not hard, NASCAR! 203. DaleSrFanForever posted: 04.26.2012 - 6:18 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) If Goodyear would grow a set and start bringing soft tires, and if racetrack owners would grow a set and quit repaving everytime a crack develops on the racing surface, there would be no need for dirt tracks, we would get all the cars sideways action we want. Again, see last year's Atlanta race and epic finish. Jeff and Jimmie almost wrecked in every single corner. We need a LOT more of that. 204. cjs3872 posted: 04.26.2012 - 6:22 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) But 10andJoe, 36 degrees of banking is too much. That was proven at Nashville and at Bristol. What happens is that they can't get off the bottom because centrifical force actually pins the cars to the bottom with the banking that steep and the turns as aharp as they are at Bristol, and with the G-loading and everything else that goes along with it. 26-30 degrees of banking is about the maximum to put on a good race at a track like that. And Spen, builing another track like Langhorne is a bad idea. Langhorne was not an oval, but a one-mile true circle that was considered he most dangerous track that ever existed. So dangerous that even Mario Andretti, as brave a race driver that ever lived, was afraid of it. And Rodger Ward, one of the most aggressive racers of his time, flat-out refused to run there in the second half of his career. In fact, Jimmy Bryan was killed there in 1960 driving the car that Ward usually drove, but he would not run there, because that track was so dangerous. 205. DaleSrFanForever posted: 04.26.2012 - 7:25 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Funny, a big part of my ranking of the pioneers is their results at Langehorn. That track was a freaking beast. Of course, like Riverside, it is a mall now. 206. DaleSrFanForever posted: 04.26.2012 - 7:37 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) That is a big reason Herb Thomas is the second highest poineer on my list. He is tied with Dick Rathman for the most NASCAR wins there with 3. Only Lee Petty's 3 championships (and Langhorne win) trumps that. Also Buck Baker and Tim Flock winning twice a piece there figurd in, as did Fireball winning there. Cjs, I'll give you the honor of telling everyone who won the most USAC races there with four, no surprise given his combination of freakish car control and gigantic balls. Hint: he won at another pretty famous racetrack four times. He also beat up Arie Lyendike (sp?) Which is just freaking awesome. 207. NicoRosbergFan posted: 04.26.2012 - 7:47 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Sorry, cjs. AJ Foyt pounded Arie Luyendyk. Langhorne was plain evil. Glad it is gone, dozens (literally) died there, I bet. No Langhornes, please, but a dirt Dover-- sell out. 208. 1995 Subaru WRX STi posted: 04.26.2012 - 7:56 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "If Goodyear would grow a set and start bringing soft tires, and if racetrack owners would grow a set and quit repaving everytime a crack develops on the racing surface." I highly doubt any of us are experts in ashpalt/concrete. Once one crack appears, more are on the way. And the only way you can see INTO the racetrack is too use medical technology (X-rays) to see what is happening below the surface. Just because it looks fine on the outside, doesn't mean it looks alright underneth. I'd rather have a track be PROACTIVE instead of REACTIVE. I agree tho, Goodyear does need to grow a set and bring softer tires. Even going back bias ply tires would be an option. Yes they maybe more prone to failure but they will not go off like a bomb like radials do. Besides, you can run them for 150 laps without changing them but only be good for 20-40 laps at most. I still question why NASCAR resigned with Goodyear, there are better tire companies out there then Goodyear. Perelli (SP?) is going wounders for F1, Bridgestone is good, even Firestone would be an option. 209. DaleSrFanForever posted: 04.26.2012 - 8:03 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Ok, ok. Technically The Ass Kicking Texan simply slapped the hell out of Arie which caused him to fall in some landscaping making more hilarious than a true beating. But in my mind, SuperTex beat the shit out of him. Much like in the minds of everyone, Gerald Ford fell down throwing out the first pitch of the 1975 baseball even though he didn't, the guy Tony Stewart was named after pounded on him for like 8 minutes. 210. DaleSrFanForever posted: 04.26.2012 - 8:07 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Funny you mentioned bias ply tires. I am watching the K&N race at Richmond and they run on boas plys. A car got sideways at one point, but he gathered it and stayed right with the battle he was with. If he were on radials, he would have lost half a straightaway. Sideways = kick ass. 211. cjs3872 posted: 04.26.2012 - 8:14 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) 1995 Subaru WRX STi, the last thing that is needed is a tire war. Competition is good for the sport everywhere, except tires, because nobody wins in a tire war. History shows us that. Just look at the 1994 championship race between Dale Earnhardt and Ernie Irvan. That ended because of the tire war that year. And the tire war prior to that (1988-'89) resulted in a lot of injured drivers and cost Bill Elliott a shot at defending his 1988 NASCAR championship when he broke his wrist in a practice run for qualifying for the 1989 Daytona 500. Others that suffered bad crashes in that tire war included Ricky Rudd, Neil Bonnett, Rusty Wallace, Mark Martin, Dale Earnhardt, and many others. In fact, one of the best things NASCAR ever did in the name of safety was to name Goodyear it's exclusive tire supplier not long after the tire war of 1994 ended, because it elimimated the possibility of tire wars, which in turn made the racing safer because the competitors didn't have to worry about tires blowing out due to the extremel soft compound that is used during tire wars. Another thing that did was to reduce the costs of a potential tire war, because of the softer compound tires wearing out faster, which would mean more pit stops for tire changes, and with tires costing about $2500-$3500 per set today (and quite possibly more than that), just think about how fast those expenses would climb in a tire war. NASCAR may face criticism justly for many of their decisions, but making Goodyear their exclusive tire supplier was one of the best things they ever did, because the alternative is far, far worse. 212. myothercarisanM535i posted: 04.26.2012 - 8:23 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Weighing in on the whole tyre debate, I'm going to have to side with CJS and say that rather than bringing a softer compound, a safer alternative that would have the same effect would be to increase the range of a fuel run. This would also reduce costs for the teams - a recent article I read mentioned that teams go through $35,000 worth of tyres in one 500 mile race! I also think that having a longer run would also bring the drivers ability to plan ahead and look after his tyres into play. With softer tyres and a shorter run, a fast car would be able to run hard and build up a big lead without much to risk, because he would be pitting for new rubber soon anyway. But if you took the current compound and extended the length of a fuel run, then the end of a run would really mean something. It's this very thing that has made the current Formula 1 season so exciting - because they run the entire race on one tank of fuel, the only stops made are for tyres, which really opens things up and gives drivers the opportunity to run to their cars strengths and weaknessess. 213. 1995 Subaru WRX STi posted: 04.26.2012 - 10:13 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) I don't want another Tire war either but can't you alteast test during the off-season? I mean take a bunch of different tire manus. to a tire eating track (AMS, the rock, a roady) and bring some drivers along for the ride and have them test tires for 2-3-4 days. And have them give their opinion and go from there. If any of the tire manus. (minus Goodyear) can build a tire that can survive AMS, the rock and/or a roady then they can build a tire to survive all the track NASCAR goes to. I see nothing wrong with testing another tire manufacters product *IF* it means you can find something better. Besides, it might force Goodyear to get it in gear to "make a tire that is worth a crap." heres the thing, Perelli (SP?) said when they got to be the tire supplier of F1 they said this: "don't complain the tires because if you (drivers) do, we will make tires that WILL suck." Isn't there a saying that "competation makes you better"? Goodyear is safe because NASCAR continues to kiss @$$. When you don't have someone tapping you on the shoulder warning you that your getting complacent then you can get lazy. 214. LordLowe posted: 04.26.2012 - 10:33 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) I say we drop Goodyear as the main Tire Supplier of NASCAR and find a replacement tire supplier that can produce better quality racing. 215. DaleSrFanForever posted: 04.26.2012 - 10:38 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) No need for a tire war, just tell Goodyear to quit bringing tires to the track that don't fall off, or else they will be replaced. And also make tires that allow the drivers to be sideways without losing time. Like you could with the old bias play tires. 216. cjs3872 posted: 04.27.2012 - 1:48 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) Well DSFF, there's another solution. NASCAR should make it so they go longer on a tank of fuel. Now, they can only go about 75-80 miles on a tank of fuel, so the drivers no longer have to manage their tires. But if NASCAR makes it so they can go around 100 miles on a tank of fuel, the drivers will have to manage their tires, because they'll have to go longer before making a green flag pit stop. One thing about this situation is that with these prolonged periods of green flag racing, we're seeing more pit stops, which come faster due to the decreased distance they can go on a tank of fuel, which means that they'll be even more green flag pit stops, which wil spread the field out even more. In that 234-lap/350-mile run of green flag racing to finish the race at Texas, there were four rounds of green flag pit stops. But if they went 90-100 miles per tank, there would have been only three rounds of green flag pit stops, which would give more opportunities for those that can save and manage their tires to make up ground. Longer runs between pit stops would make a lot of difference without having to change to a softer and potentially more dangerous tire compound. Right now, you're looking at an IndyCar style race when it comes to pit stops. IndyCars have only been able to go 75-80 miles on a tank of fuel since the size of the fuel cells in IndyCar racing were cut from 75 to 40 gallons after the 1973 Indianapolis 500. 217. LordLowe posted: 04.27.2012 - 3:33 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) I think the biggest change that NASCAR needs right now is a change in leadership 218. NicoRosbergFan posted: 04.27.2012 - 4:54 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) Remember, NASCAR tires used to be so good in the 60s that Tiny Lund won the Daytona 500 on one set of tires. 219. cjs3872 posted: 04.27.2012 - 10:36 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) That's true NicoRosbergFan, but also remmber that pit stops were much slower back then, as well. That's one place that the Wood Brothers gained a big advantage in that race was not changing tires. However, had it not rained that morning, Lund and the Wood Brothers would not have won, because the first 10 laps were run under caution. Lund won that race because he made just four pit stops, against five for Fred Lorenzen and Ned Jarrett, and won by 24 seconds. However, Lund ran out of gas coming off the last turn and coasted to the finish. Had it not rained, Lund would have had to make a fifth pit stop, and Lorenzen would have won. Intersting note. When Jim Clark won the Indianapolis 500 two years later, the Wood Brothers were his pit crew, and one of the secrets to their lightning-fast pit stops was the fact that they did not change a single tire on either of their two pit stops, though the rear-engine cars were so light that they probably didn't need to change tires, but it is an interesting fact that the Wood Brothers never changed a tire in their first Daytona 500 win in 1963, or when they were the winning pit crew at Indy with Jim Clark and the Lotus team in 1965. 220. NicoRosbergFan posted: 04.27.2012 - 11:57 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) Excellent points, cjs, but the point I was making was durability of Lund's (and Clark's) tires. 221. Spen posted: 04.27.2012 - 1:48 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) I fully agree that Langhorne was too dangerous of a track *for it's era*. With next to non-existent safety equiptment, it was tantamount to a death sentence to race there. But that was then. With SAFER barriers, and the COT, I believe that we could pull off racing there with minimal safety concerns. And before you bring up Dan Wheldon, remember that NASCAR and open-wheel are two very different animals. We haven't even had an on-track incident that caused a driver to miss a race since the COT was introduced. As a side note, the first Indycar race I can remember watching was at Langhorne in '64, the last year before it was paved. It made a bit of an impression on me. DSFF: "That is a big reason Herb Thomas is the second highest poineer on my list. He is tied with Dick Rathman for the most NASCAR wins there with 3. Only Lee Petty's 3 championships (and Langhorne win) trumps that." I know you asked us to drop this arguement, but hear me out. In my mind, those three Langhorne wins, plus three Southern 500 wins, plus two championships in five and a half full seasons, beats out Lee's one Langhorne win, two Daytona wins (one at the beach), and three championships in *twelve* full seasons. Add in that Lee only had six more wins despite racing 199 more races, and factor in Herb leading the point standings with three races to go in '56 before Kiekaefer had him wrecked (a very impressive accomplishment when you consider that he spent half the season in his own car, which was vastly outclassed by both Kiekaefer and DePaulo, and hadn't really been the same since his injury in '55.) all leads me to place Herb ahead of Lee in the overall rankings. Granted, I may be slightly biased in this arguement: My dad had a long-standing feud with Lee Petty. But I think the stats back me up. One thing I always wondered was just how much more Herb could have accomplished had he not been injured. Most of the stars of the early fifties were at their best on dirt. Tim Flock only won once on a fully paved track (granted, he only ran 31 races on pavement, but compared to his steller record on dirt, it's not very impressive), and Darlington aside, Buck Baker's record on pavement leaves much to be desired. (Six wins in nearly 300 starts.) Lee Petty seemed to cope pretty well with the transition, winning 11 times in 109 races. A little off from his normal percentage, but not bad at all. Herb Thomas only ran 32 races on a fully paved track. He won eight of them. That's nearly identical to his dirt perentage. If that's any indication of where he was going... once the factory teams of the mid-fifties were gone, he'd have been on *fire*. '58-'63 could have gone very differently. 222. cjs3872 posted: 04.27.2012 - 3:44 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Excellent points about Herb Thomas, Spen, though I rank him third among drivers in NASCAR's first generation behind Junior Johnson and Buck Baker. I do, however, rank Thomas ahead of Lee Petty and Tim Flock. One major thing Thomas had in his favor was the presence of two racing legends, one of whom Thomas heled to create. Thomas drove for Smokey Yunick, who he helped become a legend. Yunick, of course, also helped build the careers of Paul Goldsmith and Fireball Roberts, saw the promise of Johnny Rutherford before anyone else seemed to, and was one of the sport's greatest innovators, though not all his innovations were that great (remember the side car that he built for Bobby Johns to run at Indy the same year of the Sachs-McDonald crash). But Yunick and Thomas had another weapon at their disposal in racing legend Mauri Rose. Rose, a three-time Indianapolis 500 winner in the 1940s (and remember that race wasn't run for four years in that decade due to World War II), was one of the first engineers in NASCAR history, as he was an engineer after his racing days were over, and he parlayed that into a brief second racing career. The parlay of Thomas, Yunick, and Rose made a nearly unbeatable combination. And isn't it ironic that some old-timers for that generation became involved in NASCAR. Aside from Rose, other former Indy drivers involved in NASCAR were Peter DePaolo, the first man ever to win the Indianapolis 500 at better than 100 MPH (101.127 MPH, to be exact) in 1925, and NASCAR's first commissioner, Cannonball Baker, raced in the 1922 Indianapolis 500, so it seemed that even in NASCAR's infancy, that some of the men involved in IndyCar, or championship racing in the 1920s, '30s, and '40s somehow knew how legitimate NASCAR was, even in it's earliest years. 223. DaleSrFanForever posted: 04.27.2012 - 4:35 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Good points Spen. I probably have Herb too low. His transition to pavement is something I never even considered. That is a big reason I had resisted doing an overall Top 25. There are so many factors to consider in so many generations. I almost feel like their should be a pre and post 1965 list. 224. the_man posted: 05.06.2012 - 8:36 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) David Ragan on a 30th place finish: "We had a better car at times during the race. It just reacted very differently in dirty air than when we were out in clean air. The guys did a good job chasing it trying to make it work for each situation. But unfortunately, we put ourselves in a bit of a hole at the beginning, running out of gas. And the racing didn't really provide much opportunity to make up any ground." 225. ch posted: 07.18.2013 - 3:38 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) #26 Sponsor: MDS Transport (consistent with all 2012/2013 starts) 226. Nascar Lead Lap Points posted: 07.23.2015 - 7:34 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Sponsor Updates #27 Zecol/Menards #32 Tmone Sales #34 Barrett-Jackson Auction Company #42 Target/Clorox #47 Reese Towpower/O'Reilly Auto Parts #74 Larry the Cable Guy's Barbeque Sauce #83/93 Burger King Real Fruit Smoothies #88 Diet Mountain Dew/AMP Energy #98 Phil Parsons Racing 227. NASCARLover22 posted: 12.24.2015 - 4:19 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Sponsor updates: #51 Phoenix Construction #32 @TMone We Drive Sales/FAS Lane Racing #33 Little Joe's Auto #74 Larry the Cable Guy's BBQ Sauce #83/93 Burger King Real Fruit Smoothies 228. Yeet posted: 02.23.2019 - 12:31 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Only Cup attempt for Tim Andrews 229. BOBO83329521 posted: 03.29.2020 - 7:50 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) The broadcast for this race said that the final caution was for Juan Pablo Montoya hitting the Turn 3/4 wall. Which is correct, debris or #42 wall? 230. Rich posted: 12.19.2020 - 9:55 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Mike Joy, Larry McReynolds and Darrell Waltrip were the commentators. Dr. Dick Berggren, Steve Byrnes, Matt Yocum and Krista Voda were the pit road reporters. Jeff Hammond was the roving reporter. Chris Myers and Michael Waltrip were in the Hollywood hotel. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Post a comment:* Your comment may not appear immediately - all comments must be approved by the moderator. Name: Comment: