Ford may field Mustang in Nationwide NASCAR Series

[NLPRacing]

This is about as meaningful as Jeff Gordon switching sock colors.

 

When did this happen and why wasn't I told!

[SVT_MAN]

When did this happen and why wasn't I told!

 

That reminds me of something. There is a terrible columnist that NASCAR.com added to their staff last year named Raygan Swan. The lady does not know how to write - at all! She is fairly young (20 something) and doesn't know much about the sport. I get the feeling they added her to meet some quota. (Note: NASCAR.com is actually not affiliated with NASCAR - they are part of Turner.)

 

Every week when I read her columns I find mistakes. The nice part about NASCAR.com is that you can email their staff members quite easily. Every week I email her with the mistakes I find in her articles. I have questioned several times whether she should be a staff writer. Her email responses were initially thanking me - needless to say they are a little less cordial now.

 

And before anybody says anything - yes I know I make typos and mistakes from time to time - but I don't get paid to post here.

 

 

Above is the ditz. And here is an example of the TRASH she writes:

 

http://www.nascar.com/2008/news/opinion/04...ctor/index.html

 

This is an editorial about how Jeff Gordon changed NASCAR for the better because he wears Prada shoes. I'd like to know why Jeff wearing Prada shoes adds value to NASCAR, a sport where men race around in ovals wearing firesuits. I personally could care less whether they wear Prada or a knock-off Adidas brand sold at Wal mart. It doesn't mean they are good at racing.

Edited April 22, 2008 by SVT_MAN

[RichardJensen]

NASCAR has been moving closer and closer towards full parity towards that time and through doing that, they grew the spot immensely. No one likes seeing his / her brand beat up on on the racetrack. That is why NASCAR has parity - to grow the sport. I personally think that backing off from parity would be healthy for the sport though. I would like to see what people could do if they opened up the rules ...

 

 

 

Despite how I loathe many aspects of NASCAR, as a business, they are actually pretty impressive ... I don't think they are the "mess" you speak of at all.

I don't think you can connect the elimination of meaningful differences between manufacturers with growth in the sport.

 

Frankly, Nascar grew by tapping into the wallets of their diehard fans. And their diehard fans WANT meaningful differences between brands.

 

Furthermore, Nascar's management strategy has been predicated on unlimited growth. It escapes me entirely how some organizations base their strategies off the idea that they will continue to grow at present rates.

 

There are only so many stock car fans in this country, and only so many people that can be turned into stock car fans. Nascar's inability to fathom that and plan around it is one of the reasons why they are teetering on the brink now.

 

What's more, there are only so many car models and t-shirts and clocks and coffee mugs and colognes and neckties and collector plates and limited edition whiskey decanters and chess sets and pool cues and decorative spice racks and bed spreads and foaming hand soap and dart boards and shoe trees and underwear and pajamas and socks and watches and key chains and window decals and vinyl clings and stuffed animals and action figures and silverware and trapper keepers and lapel pins and baseball hats and stocking caps and floor jacks and toolboxes and lamps and fish scalers and such that can be branded and sold before you reach a saturation point in the marketplace and people just stop buying.

Edited April 22, 2008 by RichardJensen

[jpd80]

So what do fans want, production racing or clones painted up to look like cars you buy?

Production racing is fine but can lead to bitter paritydisputes particularly if one manufacturer dominates a series.

The clones eliminate variables but give much higher speed threshold and make the driver/crew skills the only variables.

[Edstock]

What's more, there are only so many car models and t-shirts and clocks and coffee mugs and colognes and neckties and collector plates and limited edition whiskey decanters and chess sets and pool cues and decorative spice racks and bed spreads and foaming hand soap and dart boards and shoe trees and underwear and pajamas and socks and watches and key chains and window decals and vinyl clings and stuffed animals and action figures and silverware and trapper keepers and lapel pins and baseball hats and stocking caps and floor jacks and toolboxes and lamps and fish scalers and such that can be branded and sold before you reach a saturation point in the marketplace and people just stop buying.

Don't forget genuine NASCAR^® urinal pucks.

[SVT_MAN]

I don't think you can connect the elimination of meaningful differences between manufacturers with growth in the sport.

 

Frankly, Nascar grew by tapping into the wallets of their diehard fans. And their diehard fans WANT meaningful differences between brands.

 

Furthermore, Nascar's management strategy has been predicated on unlimited growth. It escapes me entirely how some organizations base their strategies off the idea that they will continue to grow at present rates.

 

There are only so many stock car fans in this country, and only so many people that can be turned into stock car fans. Nascar's inability to fathom that and plan around it is one of the reasons why they are teetering on the brink now.

 

What's more, there are only so many car models and t-shirts and clocks and coffee mugs and colognes and neckties and collector plates and limited edition whiskey decanters and chess sets and pool cues and decorative spice racks and bed spreads and foaming hand soap and dart boards and shoe trees and underwear and pajamas and socks and watches and key chains and window decals and vinyl clings and stuffed animals and action figures and silverware and trapper keepers and lapel pins and baseball hats and stocking caps and floor jacks and toolboxes and lamps and fish scalers and such that can be branded and sold before you reach a saturation point in the marketplace and people just stop buying.

 

I agree that NASCAR's growth is limited in the United States. Why do you think we are seeing races in Mexico City and Montreal? Just like any other company in the United States in this era of globalization, NASCAR is looking to grow in markets outside of the United States. To give you an example of how this works, take the Milwaukee Bucks. They really, really suck. They are my home team, but they still really really suck. Yet, amazingly, did you know that over 200 million people watch their games in China every week? Do you remember how many people watched the Superbowl in America? I'll give you a hint: It wasn't that big of a number.

 

My point is, there are markets outside of America that NASCAR has tapped into. Some successfully, some unsucessfully. Stock car racing in America might be almost saturated, but there are several untapped markets outside of NA that have yet to grow to their potential. Even within the US there are untapped markets. One is certainly the Northwest region near Washington state. Huge stock car racing pocket, but no major venues.

 

Furthermore, I disagree that NASCAR grew the sport by tapping into diehard fans. Many NASCAR fans these days are not about Wranglers with Skoal tins in the back pocket. If you look at races in the Midwest, the Southwest, the Northeast - those fans are not your typical image that comes to mind when you think of a NASCAR fan. Not ALL NASCAR fans are "redneck."

 

NASCAR grew the sport by tapping into NEW markets and abandoning the diehard fans who grew up as working class individuals and could relate to your Rusty Wallaces, your Darrel Waltrips, your Dale Jarrets, your Dale Earnhardts. Why do you think there is so much resentment amongst NASCAR fans about these young kids coming into NASCAR and dominating the sport at the age of 23, 24, 25?

 

Furthermore, if you need proof that NASCAR grew the sport by expanding into new markets, look no further than the track closings. Rockingham - served NASCAR well for years. Status: Closed. Darlington: Down from two dates to one date. Who replaced Darlington's one date on the schedule? A track known as California speedway (what a boring track by the way!).

 

What about North Wilkesboro? Closed. Pikes Peak? It's gone from the schedule too.

 

You see where I am going with this. NASCAR grew the sport by going to NEW venues in NEW markets and attracting NEW fans in these emerging markets. I do agree with you on one area though: the Southeastern market is certainly saturated. NASCAR agreed, too. That is why NASCAR stopped going to Rockingham. That is why NASCAR stopped going to Darlington twice a year. That is why we no longer race at North Wilkesboro. NASCAR fans were being oversaturated by NASCAR in their local region.

 

By doing so, however, NASCAR shot themselves in the foot. They traded moderate attendance at Rockingham and good racing for low attendance and boring races at California where there is boring racing. The thing is, NASCAR, much like Ford has alienated some customers while getting some others onboard. Ford has alienated older people in order to get younger people on board. Whether or not this is a successful and well-thought out strategy remains to be seen.

 

I can say one thing though: by far, most people still think that NASCAR is a redneck sport with Wrangler-wearin', Skoal-packin' rednecks with poor grammar. Heck, my boss acted like I was a horrible person because I drive a Ford, and I went to the Brickyard 400. She said something to the extent of, "I really cannot believe you would go to an event with backwards people like that. You seem really intelligent, but that makes no sense and I don't think as highly of you now." (If this doesn't sound like something your boss would say, consider yourself lucky. My boss doesn't appear to know when she needs to express her emotions and when she should keep her trap shut about how she feels about me.) Then again, she yammers on and on about how great Al Gore is and how he is going to save the planet .. but I'll save you the rest of my rants about my boss.

 

Nonetheless, my point is that the perception of most contemporary NASCAR fans is incorrect. Most contemporary NASCAR fans are far more "hip" and trendy than you'd imagine. Beyond that, they also have alot of money. Do you know how much $$$ people spend to attend NASCAR events these days? It's ridiculous. I refuse to go to NASCAR events any longer. I was a season Brickyard 400 ticket holder with great seats on the front stretch that I gave up now. Why? I gave them up because I simply don't care about the sport much anymore. NASCAR has homogenized the racing to the point where it is boring and anticlimatic.

 

In that sense, I agree that NASCAR is in trouble. But honestly, NASCAR is going to have a lot more years like this year and last before they will be in "trouble" .. in my opinion anyway.

Edited April 23, 2008 by SVT_MAN

[RichardJensen]

Furthermore, I disagree that NASCAR grew the sport by tapping into diehard fans. Many NASCAR fans these days are not about Wranglers with Skoal tins in the back pocket. If you look at races in the Midwest, the Southwest, the Northeast - those fans are not your typical image that comes to mind when you think of a NASCAR fan. Not ALL NASCAR fans are "redneck."

I did not say, and have never believe that diehard Nascar fans are rednecks.

 

Rather there has been consistent interest in Nascar across the country. Which Nascar served by expanding its base outside of the SE (aside from the longtime standbys at the Glen and Riverside).

 

Having a venue in Kansas City is a boon to fans in Omaha, Des Moines, etc., but how much did it do to draw people with no fixed opinions?

 

See, what Nascar did not realize, and what I think you may not realize as well, is that there has always been a pretty solid interest in Nascar in the 'rural' states, and that the 'growth' that Nascar claimed was going on was nothing more than the increased participation of existing fans in revenue generation.

 

I mean, pre national TV contract, etc., I had to get my Nascar news from AutoWeek and the newspaper. Net benefit to Nascar? $0. However, if Nascar started running races an hour from where I live and I went to the track every year, Net benefit to Nascar from me, let's say $60, just for argument's sake.

 

Ergo Nascar sees a HUGE increase in revenue from me as a fan, but is it sustainable? No. I'm not going to go to the track next year and spend enough for them to get $120 out of me.

 

And, moreover, if the presence of this new venue does not turn enough locals into Nascar fans, you are in trouble.

 

====

 

Expansion outside the US? Not likely to succeed once the novelty wears off.

 

Oh, and I don't for a minute put any credit in any statistic that comes out of China.

Edited April 23, 2008 by RichardJensen

[SVT_MAN]

Richard: You make some valid points there.

 

I apologize for the assumptions I made in terms of NASCAR fans as being redneck - however, that is the perception that many people do have about NASCAR fans (see posts within this thread).

 

I actually have some other things I need to attend to - but I'll respond to the rest when I get a chance.

[RichardJensen]

Of course I make some valid points!!! I wouldn't've written them if they weren't valid!!!!!! :P

 

But seriously, I think Nascar, absent quality research, interpreted the influx of money from existing fans as a growth in fan base, when it really wasn't.

[Edstock]

FIA GT3 Real car with real headlights.

 

 

Check out this dude's photos from the Goodwood Ferstival of Speed:

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/antsphoto/

[SVT_MAN]

FIA GT3 Real car with real headlights.

 

 

Check out this dude's photos from the Goodwood Ferstival of Speed:

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/antsphoto/

 

Crash that car into a wall at 160 mph and see what is left of it. Then check inside the car and see if the driver is still alive. I love the real car as much as the rest of you, but unless it's safe enough to withstand massive impacts, it doesn't belong in NASCAR.

Edited April 24, 2008 by SVT_MAN

[RichardJensen]

They don't go 160mph.

 

And, FWIW, if Nascar wasn't so addicted to those massive entry grids and interminably long races they wouldn't need 180+mph lap times to keep people entertained.

 

IMO a 40+ car grid is idiotic. I mean you practically guarantee 1) lots of crashes and 2) the strange "debris on the tracks" cautions that allow the Nascar gods to fiddle with the race--or so it appears.

 

And while I'm ranting, I just l-o-v-e the 'debris on the track' caution. I'd like to see the moment in time, the merest slip of an instant after the first 5 or 6 laps when there ISN'T debris on the track. IMO, the team owners ought to demand access to the debris removed after a race, with documentation as to where it was, when it was found, and why it was deemed a hazard.

 

Otherwise, it's just so much grist for the "Nascar is pro-wrestling" mill.

[Edstock]

I imagine that Mustang will do 160 or more, but it doesn't do walls, not NASCAR-style.

 

One of the reasons NASCAR crashes are what they are is because of ground effects. A car loses its air, and down-force, and becomes a puck. Add restrictor plates and too many cars bunched up, and that's what you get.

 

Real cars with smaller, unrestricted engines, with real-world ride heights and no ground effects.

 

And NASCAR is so brain-dead, it's a virtual certainty that they haven't even tried some test vehicles just to see.

 

I'd love to see a Hemi Chrysler 300C, with the latest CAD designed roll-cage and strengthening go up against a supercharged or turbo'd 3.5 Taurus AWD. All the Taurus needs is a roll-cage and a manual 600hp transmission. How difficult can this be? Do you think any lessons learned in racing a production-based AWD Taurus might help the production product?

 

Racing would be interesting again, plus all that money would be spent on parts that you might want to buy for your own car, instead of iron-block, iron cylinder-head pushrod engines, with carburetor.

 

 

Real headlights.

Edited April 24, 2008 by Edstock

[SVT_MAN]

They don't go 160mph.

 

And, FWIW, if Nascar wasn't so addicted to those massive entry grids and interminably long races they wouldn't need 180+mph lap times to keep people entertained.

 

IMO a 40+ car grid is idiotic. I mean you practically guarantee 1) lots of crashes and 2) the strange "debris on the tracks" cautions that allow the Nascar gods to fiddle with the race--or so it appears.

 

And while I'm ranting, I just l-o-v-e the 'debris on the track' caution. I'd like to see the moment in time, the merest slip of an instant after the first 5 or 6 laps when there ISN'T debris on the track. IMO, the team owners ought to demand access to the debris removed after a race, with documentation as to where it was, when it was found, and why it was deemed a hazard.

 

Otherwise, it's just so much grist for the "Nascar is pro-wrestling" mill.

 

NASCAR has had a 43 car entry grid for the longest time. Without 43 cars, it really isn't NASCAR. Or so that's what they say.

 

Debris cautions are a point of contention by many. They're pretty funny really. I always thought it was interesting when one popped out before Junior was about to go a lap down to the leader.

 

The bottom line is that NASCAR is a business, just like many other ventures out there. If there isn't a problem with the current infrastructure, you know they aren't going to change it because they requires money that they probably won't see back any time soon ...

 

Add restrictor plates and too many cars bunched up, and that's what you get.

 

Just as an FYI, only 4 times during the year does NASCAR race at restrictor plate tracks. You probably already knew that, but it only accounts for 11% of the schedule as a whole. Daytona is sort of weird because, while it represents NASCAR in a huge way, it paradoxically does not at the same time. The majority of NASCAR is cookie cutter 1 1/2 mile tracks.

Edited April 24, 2008 by SVT_MAN

[syrtran]

Furthermore, if you need proof that NASCAR grew the sport by expanding into new markets, look no further than the track closings. Rockingham - served NASCAR well for years. Status: Closed. Darlington: Down from two dates to one date. Who replaced Darlington's one date on the schedule? A track known as California speedway (what a boring track by the way!).

 

What about North Wilkesboro? Closed. Pikes Peak? It's gone from the schedule too.

I pretty much agree with the rest of your post, but you can blame the track closings/abandonments on one man: Bruton Smith.

 

When he needed to open NASCAR's schedule up to allow a race at his newly created Texas Motor Speedway, he bought North Wilkesboro (At least, I remember it as Texas, could've been Las Vegas). He then proceeded to convince NASCAR to give his various tracks the other NW date, plus the Rockingham dates and the Pikes Peak date.

 

Note that he also owns Atlanta, Bristol, Infineon Raceway (it'll always be Sears Point!), and New Hampshire. (Wikipedia says NH got the other NW date).

 

On the one hand, he's done almost as much for NASCAR as the France family. On the other, the loss of North Wilkesboro and, especially, the Rock is a little bit depressing.

[Roadrunner]

I pretty much agree with the rest of your post, but you can blame the track closings/abandonments on one man: Bruton Smith.

 

When he needed to open NASCAR's schedule up to allow a race at his newly created Texas Motor Speedway, he bought North Wilkesboro (At least, I remember it as Texas, could've been Las Vegas). He then proceeded to convince NASCAR to give his various tracks the other NW date, plus the Rockingham dates and the Pikes Peak date.

 

Note that he also owns Atlanta, Bristol, Infineon Raceway (it'll always be Sears Point!), and New Hampshire. (Wikipedia says NH got the other NW date).

 

On the one hand, he's done almost as much for NASCAR as the France family. On the other, the loss of North Wilkesboro and, especially, the Rock is a little bit depressing.

 

 

I thought what happened was that O. Bruton Smith and the Loudon, NH owners went halfsies and bought North Wilkesboro, and then awarded themselves one each of Wilkesboro's track dates.

[SVT_MAN]

I pretty much agree with the rest of your post, but you can blame the track closings/abandonments on one man: Bruton Smith.

 

When he needed to open NASCAR's schedule up to allow a race at his newly created Texas Motor Speedway, he bought North Wilkesboro (At least, I remember it as Texas, could've been Las Vegas). He then proceeded to convince NASCAR to give his various tracks the other NW date, plus the Rockingham dates and the Pikes Peak date.

 

Note that he also owns Atlanta, Bristol, Infineon Raceway (it'll always be Sears Point!), and New Hampshire. (Wikipedia says NH got the other NW date).

 

On the one hand, he's done almost as much for NASCAR as the France family. On the other, the loss of North Wilkesboro and, especially, the Rock is a little bit depressing.

 

Can't disagree with you there. He's one of those crazy eccentric you-don't-know-what-he'll-do-next-but-he'll-do-something-that-makes-headlines types of guys.

 

 

I personally loathe the guy to be honest. He basically pushes around his power and manipulates people with his money to get what he wants done. I wouldn't be surprised to see the All Star race move to Las Vegas at some point because of that jerk.