What an embarrassment this was. Should we call this "race" the Daytona 378 or the Daytona 423? The commentators got it right when they said, they were expecting "The Who" to play in the halftime show. And given the "racing", why do they even bother with 200 laps? Why not just run it for 5 laps. It doesn't seem to matter anyhow what happened in the previous 195 laps.
I don't understand this logic. why not make it the one lap of LeMans? or the Indianapolis 5? hell, why play 9 innings of baseball, or 18 holes of golf? why not take NFL games down to just the 2 minute warning?
At Indianapolis you have the same problem. It is a problem inherent to spec series racing where the field stays together. At Le Mans you dont have that issue because the field spreads out. It actually matters what happened in the previous 23 hours. It's just my dig against NASCAR where it seems irrelevant who was leading the race in the previous 195 laps. Dont read too much into this. I'm just getting back at the NASCAR fans who boast the 30+ passes for the lead and bash F1 for having had a total of 3 lead changes in a race.
does NASCAR go too far in managing the end of the race to provide an "exciting" finish? yes. does that mean that what happens in the first 195 laps (or whatever) doesn't matter? no.
That yes should be capitalized and bold. I found the end of the race pure agony to watch. BTW: I have similar grapes with some of the heavy handed refereeing in F1 as well. I wish pace cars would break down more often (in any racing). Of course it matters, but not in a great sense. It only seems to matter for those who get eliminated. But that's why we start with such a ridiculous huge field. Make it a 20 car field and run it for 5 laps and the results would be similar.
but how to pick those 20 cars? why wasn't the ALMS finale last year whittled down to 4 cars and 1 lap? why wasn't the entire F1 series in 2008 ago reduced to the last lap of the last race? golf, baseball, etc. your argument only highlights that you find the racing boring. (as do i)
qualifying ...or drawn from a hat. After all that's how NASCAR seems to pick its winners anyway with these staged last 2 laps redos. Because everything that happened up to that point was crucial as it elminated 18 of the 20 players and left the last two within a hair of a margin. Maybe I'm just too stupid for NASCAR, but it looks to me that (aside from the occasional eliminating accidents) every single car had a shot at winning the race up to the last few laps. When I then also hear the commentators openly speak about "deals" the drivers made and then watch how the race gets stopped more often than a NFL game, it really looses its draw. Just pick a name and be done with it. Agreed, except that I dont even consider this racing.
When I want to see close real competition, side by side, numerous lead changes, I watch NASCAR superspeedway events, sometimes BTCC. The arugment that there should be less cars, or that the race should only be 20 laps or whatever, just demonstrates a lack of understanding of the strategies involved in NASCAR. It is very interesting, and very technical. There is 195 laps of strategy that leads up to the finish. When I am at the track, it is really interesting to listen in on the radio conversations between driver and crew. The continually changing strategies. The pit stops are incredible to watch. To understand NASCAR better, I would suggest watching the 24/7 HBO show that followed Jimmy Johnson around for the last month. The behind the scenes of the building of the cars, the driver's physical training, and even the weekly required yoga and daily physical training of the pit crews, shows a winning NASCAR team in a light that would surprise most here. When you understand the technique of the draft, you would understand the need to work with another car, even if not your teammate. Potentially it helps both cars. It helped McMurray. Except for the delays for track repairs which actually worked into my Sunday schedule quite well, the Daytona 500 was a fun to watch. And of my friends that I know attended, everyone I spoke to this morning felt it was one of the best races and incredible finishes in the last 10 years. All of them drive MBs or BMWs, and have secondary college degrees to refute that redneck argument. Now if I want to watch cars racing around a track strictly because they are beautiful, highly engineered machines, I watch F1, which is actually the only series I faithfully watch. To echo the biggest complaint from 70+% of F1 fans and even the promoters, F1 needs to improve on track competition, because generally, there isn't any. That is one of the FIAs and FOTAs listed challenges for 2012 when the diffusers go away. Unless you are into the cars and the strategy, F1 is really boring. When you understand it, then F1 is quite interesting despite not much on track competition. Even the IRL has better on track racing. But F1 is beautiful. To use the reduced lap theory, why not reduce the laps of an F1 race to 5, the cars would be together, and there would be the possibility of some real racing, instead of the parade we usually see at the end? The truth is, that in any race, any series, those early laps are all part of the strategy. I would not want to see F1 reduce the length or time of a race. The reality, comparing the two is silly. Two different forms of racing, two different and I believe equally difficult driver skill sets. I really enjoy both, but then I consider myself a race fan.
Are you actually implying that the race winner ultimately won the race because of strategy? A strategy they had from the beginning and continually adapted? Again it might be down to my ignorance, but a race whose finish is run behind the pace car up to the very last two laps to me looks like a lottery. Sometimes the FIA screws up the F1 races bad enough too to end up with such idiotic races (Malaysia last year comes to mind). When that happens strategy has little to do with the end result. But the difference is that in F1 it happens rarely whereas in NASCAR the field stays together up to the very end. In between there are enough yellow (or even red) phases to neutralize out any strategic, technical or skill advantages there might have been accumulated. Hence my comment about why even bother with the previous 195 laps. PS: I understand drafting. Quite frankly any such agreements should be outlawed. F1 does it for teammates, but beyond that it is unheard of.
When asked whether NASCAR is a "sport" or "show", each and every driver toes the company line and replies "show". There is too much in it for them (millions to be made in the t-shirt and trinket business, far more than is made in prize money annually) to step out of line and say otherwise, lest they be brought in for sanctions from NASCAR; just ask Tony Stewart. Thus, should it be surprising when asked if the bumps at Daytonner bother them they reply that they like the bumps as well? What racing driver (regardless of series or era) ever likes bumps? Some fans must go along with the "rubbin is racin" and "racin is a show". The problem with this is casual observers think that endless hype (which no event could ever possibly live up to), "Green-White-Checker", adding 8 laps to a set standard race mileage, heavy-handed manipulation of qualifying and the race itself is real racing. I've had friends from around the world attend the Daytonner Debacle. Each of them participants in two and four wheeled racing in various forms. They consistently ask me to attend with them and every one of them report their disappointment and vow never to return. So, it goes to reason those going expecting to see a race predictably go away disappointed and those going expecting to see a show go away happy. The point about strategy is absolutely absurd as each team goes into this race under the impression that it is going to be 500 miles (as the very name suggests). But, as we see in these manipulated farces, the element of strategy is immediately eliminated as seen last evening with the addition of eight laps added making this a 520 mile race so NASCAR gets their melancholy finish; even the exaspirated commentators were begging for it to end. Again, if this show was done by time, it took 6h:13m to complete 520 miles, average speed 84.828MPH. RM
To ask the question about strategy tells me you do not understand racing, and we both know you do. So your point may be based on bias. Of course there is strategy, in every form of professional motorsports there is strategy. But the fact is it must be evolving strategy. Possibly you need to do a Hekki and sit in the pits of a NASCAR race and receive the same education he got in November. It got him excited. I believe he stated in the interview how surprised he was at the serious technical aspect of NASCAR and the strategy needed to win the race. Of course he was sitting just behind Roger Penske, someone that understands strategy. You would not be in place to win a race, any race, without evolving strategy. Just as when suddenly there is rain at a road race, rain tires go on, with the subsequent change in race strategy, as the Daytona 500 progresses, the flags whether yellow/red continously change the strategy. Strategy may change because the weather on race day is causing the tires to wear differently than expected, the weather may affect gas mileage. If a yellow flag happens on lap 21, and you had planned to pit on lap 25, that will change the stragtegy for the balance of the race. The key to winning, is the guy in the pits that makes the sudden decisions to keep a car out front. Two tires, or four? Stay out on the yellow as did Speed, or come in as did the winner? Expect another yellow, or gamble there may not be another. Before the race starts, the entire team is versed on contingencies. What if X occurs? What if Y occurs? What if Z occurs? Every lap of every NASCAR race, as in F1, is carefully reviewed by the engineers in the pits, and everything is analyzed. if someone does not cut the mustard, they do not return on the team. It is that serious. In additions to driver skill, what wins races, whether NASCAR, F1, BTCC, or ALMS, is strategy, and the ability to adapt to different and constantly changing situations. So yes, I am saying there was strategy and the driver's skill that won the Daytona 500. And the one other element that affects the finish of every automobile race, a little luck that nothing broke or someone wrecked in front of you. I can not imagine anyone thinking there would not be strategy.
I can understand that you do not appreciate NASCAR, that is very obvious. But it doesn't seem you follow the sport enough to understand its nuances. 1) The Speedway had already announced before the current problem that they would repave the track for the 2011 "500", so the driver's comments were based on their actual opinions. If they wanted to kiss ass as you imply they would have unanamously praised Speedway mangement, but they didn't. I have never heard any driver state that what they do is not a sport. Of course they want to put on a good show for the fans, but that does not make it any less of a sport. I suggested earlier that if one gets HBO, watch the 24/7 show about Jimmie Johnson. He states over and over what he does is a sport. 2) Everyone I know that goes to one of these races, me included, goes to see a race, the side by side competition, the numereous lead changes, etc. I find that a good race is in fact also a show. LeMans is a show, F1 is a show, but I can't speak for anyone else, I go to see the racing. The 2010 Daytona 500 was a great race. The only time I have been disappointed is when the race needs to end on a yellow. Please keep reading, you might understand this point about ending on a yellow. 3) What would be absurd if I may use your words, is to even think there was no strategy involved. That would mean one truly has no idea about motor sports. Every form of racing has strategy, and in order to win a race, that strategy must adapt to constant changes. Yes, every team at Daytona expects to finish 500 miles, why else start the race? Every team had a strategy that kept them in the running at the end. 4) The reason for the additional laps was NASCAR's reaction to the fans in the stands. They come to see a 500 mile race, not a 500 mile event with 40 laps of parades. The complaint has been, when there was a yellow with 1 lap to go, the fan felt cheated, speaking for myself, I want to see a race to the finish. So NASCAR came up with this in response, and again, except for the problem with the track falling apart, I have not heard a single complaint about the extra laps. The commentators were not complaining about the extra laps, they were talking about the time under red flag. They all praised NASCAR's response to the fans. 5) I apologize, but I am not sure of the relevance of your point about the time of the race and the average speed including the red flag periods. I do not see that point as remotely relevant. Red flags tend to lower the average speed of any auto race.
Well, to those whom have drunk the NASCAR Kool-Aid and see their shows masquerading as racing through rose tinted glasses, the latest edition of the Daytonner Debacle would be seen as a great race because that's exactly what the announcers keep calling it. These will be the very people screaming the loudest when NASCAR achieves it's aim to monopolize the American professional racing scene. They're close enough to this already as we see in American media, any race may be called "NASCAR" as we have seen ALMS races called "NASCAR Grand Prix" or "NASCAR Rally", etc. by otherwise professional media. The 1976 24 Hours of Daytona was a race affected by weather. The race was stopped for over two hours due to rain and water getting into the racing fuel. The reason this is brought up is during the long delay, the clock kept running as reflected in the final average speed, just as the chronograph on my watch did this past Sunday. True to form, NASCAR's official results are posted. They say Sunday's show took 3h:47m to cover 208 laps for an average speed of 137.284MPH. However, on my watch which ran from the green flag at 1:20PM to the (eventual) checker at 7:33PM, the time was 6h:13m for an average speed of 84.828MPH. There has never been a driver or team manager in F-1,sports cars, Indy cars, etc. who have ever said their sport was a "show" a-la NASCAR. The only one who come close is Bernie Ecclestone who as F-1 commercial rights holder naturally calls F-1 a "show" but also says or does anything to keep F-1 in the headlines. The point is, removing the sporting aspect from racing in favour of "show" reduces racing to professional wrestling level. As such, there aren't the classic Petty/Pearson type rivalries that helped build NASCAR. Rather, we get NASCAR promoters like Bruton Smith who state that NASCAR needs more "manufactured drama". So, what does it really matter who wins any more? When is 500 miles not really 500 miles? Are these shams ever called "classics" any more?* These orchestrated, melancholy finishes, however entertaining they may be, only serve to placate the masses. And while American fans applaud and some even justify a NASCAR monoploly over the U.S. two and four wheeled racing scene, those overseas recognize these debacles for the embarrassing shams they are. It's all a matter of taste... RM
Right out if the mouth of the four time consecutive NASCAR champion, Jimmy Johnson... "It has really made finishes less predictable," four-time defending Sprint Cup champion Jimmie Johnson said. "I don't know if there really even is a strategy now. It's more what the masses do." Perhaps Jimmy Johnson dosent understand the nuances of NASCAR rules. New NASCAR bad guy Kyke Busch is asked is it even strategy anymore? "It's a crapshoot," Busch said. Whole article here: http://670thescore.stats.com/nascar/preview.asp?lg=NASCAR&g=20100418032
Those Daytonner bumps that all the drivers love won't be around next year as the track has decided to resurface the oval two years ahead of schedule. No word on whether this interrupts the France's plans to build on-site casinos at ISC tracks merging America's two favorite past times, gambling and gambling... http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/83131 RM