Twelve races have been run of a 36-race season, and we've thus had plenty to digest as the second third of the 2007 season gets underway at the Mason-Dixon 400 at Dover. There has been some good competition, a lot of controversy, and it all enters the summer months of the campaign. So a team breakdown may give us some idea of what to expect with the run to the season's playoffs:
-----------------------------
HENDRICK MOTORSPORTS CHEVROLETS - #5, 24, 25, 48 - The sport's powerhouse, Hendrick just keeps on winning, having already won nine races between its four Chevrolets; the 600 win by Casey Mears is only the eighth time in nineteen years the #25 has won. Hendrick's roll has to cool off and fast for anyone else to have any consistent shot at wins.
ROUSH/FENWAY RACING FORDS - #6, 16, 17, 26, 99 - With a win at Fontana, Roush is the only Ford to win anything this season but with a pending disbanding of one team per NASCAR's new ownership limits, things have begun cracking, notably with Greg Biffle's #16 effort between a change of crew chiefs and some rather dismal performances. The surprise of this group has been Jamie McMurray, who has rallied from last year's dismal showing to contend for a playoff spot, while the bust so far as been David Ragan, uncompetitive almost everywhere.
JOE GIBBS RACING CHEVROLETS - #11, 18, 20 - They've done everything except win, so one can expect them to break out of that skid soon. Tony Stewart's frustration, though, has been building and one should keep an eye out here. The surprise here has been J.J. Yeley, who has struggled for much of his time with this team but has begun to show some more consistency and was boosted by his stellar run at Charlotte.
RCR ENTERPRISES CHEVROLETS - #29, 31, 07 - The only other organization to have won this year, RCR has all three of its cars in the playoff roster, but has yet to show the same muscle it showed in 2006. Kevin Harvick in particular has been a disappointment after his stellar triumph at Daytona.
ROBERT GINN RACING CHEVROLETS - #01, 13, 14 - The surprise of this season, Ginn Racing has infused the former Reed Morton-Nelson Bowers outfit with new money, engineering, and strength. It first showed in Mark Martin's victory bid at Daytona and that #01 remains solidly in the top ten in owner points, pretty much a top-ten runner whenever Martin drives it in his part-time schedule of this season. However, this success hasn't translated well for Joe Nemechek or Sterling Marlin, who've shown only bursts of muscle and look increasingly tired as far as their racing goes.
PENSKE RACING SOUTH DODGES - #2, 12 - Here is something a little hard to believe right now - with twelve races run Ryan Newman has four top-tens - given how poorly he's run it's astonishing he has that many. Newman simply has fallen off the racing map since 2003 and the changes in his crew that have occurred so far aren't helping. Kurt Busch has run better but has never been able to show enough consistent muscle to be a points threat - only as a race-win threat.
EARNHARDT, INC. CHEVROLETS - #1, 8, 15 - Dale Earnhardt Jr. has officially washed his hands of his step-mom's organization, which means someone is going to suffer performance-wise when Junior finally decides on a new ride. Given the comparative spottiness of this effort's performances - Junior and Martin Truex have combined for eight top-tens and are in the top-16 in points after twelve races but haven't shown enough muscle to improve that effort - one has to wonder whtether DEI can get anything going for 2008. Rookie Paul Menard has been simply an irrelevency so far.
PETTY ENTERPRISES DODGES - #43, 45 - Given how deep a performance hole this effort was in, Robbie Loomis clearly was going to need years to get it going, and right now it's clear he's gotten this effort on the right path. The #43 is of course the team's flagship and will get the focus, but the struggle of the #45 since Loomis came back was very frustrating in 2006. 2007 began with more of the same, but lately, with Kyle Petty ready to hand over the wheel to others for parts of the year, the #45 has gotten some muscle - Chad McCumbee will drive at Pocono and John Andretti gets an overdue additional shot with this organization for several July races, a fit that should work decently given how well Andretti worked with Loomis before. It's a stretch to consider any kind of Chase effort; the focus needs to be on winning some races and also eventually re-fielding the long-shuttered third car to accelerate catching back up to the big guns.
RAY EVERNHAM MOTORSPORTS DODGES - #9, 10, 19 - Here is a sick statistic - Ray Evernham Motorsports has a combined three top-ten finishes so far and has only one car - Elliott Sadler's #19 - in the top-20 in owner points. For all of his success as a team owner - 13 wins 2001-6, led by Kasey Kahne's victory binge of 2006 - Evernham's team has never really struck me as a powerhouse along the lines of other big teams in the sport, and it's obvious that whatever setup sweet spot they found in 2006 is gone with no one seemingly having any idea what to do now. One has to wonder if Kahne is a one-shot wonder, and also one must question whether Scott Riggs can get anything done.
GANASSI/SABCO DODGES - #40, 41, 42 - Maybe Juan Montoya wasn't a good idea after all. Not only has Montoya shown very little muscle despite a top-five and another top-ten, he's done a lot to alienate his fellow racers and doesn't seem to be learning anything nor contributing to the team's technology curve. David Stremme is the surprise here with two top-tens.
AIKMAN-STAUBACH CHEVROLET - #96 - Little was expected here and little has been delivered.
ROBERT YATES RACING - #38, 88 - Ricky Rudd is proving the mistake people should have seen coming, despite a terrific effort at the 600. Rudd has contributed nothing else of worth to this effort, while his young teammate David Gilliland has been even worse despite a top-five finish. Given rumblings that Yates will cash out and quit, one has to wonder if this team has anything left in the tank.
TEAM TOYOTA - Bill Davis' #22 is highest in owner points at 36th. This is how bad it's been for the Toyota fleet, but Charlotte with the superb effort of Dieter Mateschitz's #83 of Brian Vickers and the competitive run of BDR's #36 of Jeremy Mayfield was the kind of turnaround that can spark an effort. They have to make races, however, to build momentum, and that's been a struggle all year. They at least have potential to get more momentum, something not to be said about Michael Waltrip Racing, a team that fails to make races on a consistent basis, to the point that its sponsors may jump ship by July.
WOOD BROTHERS FORD - #21 - Bill Elliott gives this team champions provisionals to burn for awhile, and his encouraging effort at Charlotte may surprisingly give them even more. This, though, is about all they have left as far as any kind of competitive hope.
So as the sport enters its summer swing, a lot of teams are trying to get some kind of effort going to knock down the Hendrick juggernaut. That, though, is a tall order.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Monday, May 21, 2007
Winston Cup Gets Split?
It's an idea the sport has had in the back of its collective mind for many years - the idea that the Winston Cup Series needs to be split into two divisions to cover more racetracks and more race teams. Now it's getting more attention with more Winston Cup teams and the problem of speedway fratricide. The quasi-official debut of the idea was the late 1990s when T. Wayne Robertson first proposed a divisional structure for Winston Cup racing, but rumors of consideration of a divisional structure date back well before that - I remember the rumor circulating among Busch North competitors around 1991.
How might a divisional structure work? Ostensibly it would involve an East-West split with the present Chase format eventually becoming a true playoff format.
While presently there seems little enthusiasm for a divisional format, one has to admit it does address some of the sport's more pressing issues - the fact that too many teams are being stiffarmed by the sport's qualifying format and the sport has sacrificed racetracks ostenibly to make room for bigger markets yet has accomplished nothing in that regard. Certainly addressing these issues is of great importance to the sport.
One, though, has to wonder if a divisional structure is the way to go.
How might a divisional structure work? Ostensibly it would involve an East-West split with the present Chase format eventually becoming a true playoff format.
While presently there seems little enthusiasm for a divisional format, one has to admit it does address some of the sport's more pressing issues - the fact that too many teams are being stiffarmed by the sport's qualifying format and the sport has sacrificed racetracks ostenibly to make room for bigger markets yet has accomplished nothing in that regard. Certainly addressing these issues is of great importance to the sport.
One, though, has to wonder if a divisional structure is the way to go.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
COT's Bizarre Version of Logic
The COT doesn't run at Charlotte this weekend, but its presence looms large noentheless, and the non-logic behind the COT and with John Darby in general helps explain why so clear a mistake has continued.
Friday, May 18, 2007
NASCAR Exclusivity Clauses May Lose The Draft
NASCAR appears to have suffered a setback in the continuing AT&T lawsuit. While this deal may not be over yet, my suspicion is NASCAR won't win this battle, and that it may begin a process where exclusivity clauses in sponsor contracts may be out the window.
One should hope so, because such clauses have had a stifling effect on sponsorships. When Nextel signed on as series sponsor they got an exclusivity clause written in aimed at rival telecommunication companies such as Cingular and AT&T, who were nonetheless grandfathered in given they were already established car sponsors in the series. It became an issue recently with the merger of AT&T and Cingular and with Jeff Burton's team in particular.
This flap potentially can reach further than just the sponsors in question, though, for exclusivity clauses apply to numerous other sponsors and potential sponsors. The most prominent exclusivity deal in Winston Cup right now is in tires, and one can certainly imagine a scenario where rival tire companies may try to enter the NASCAR scene if NASCAR can't maintain an exclusivity clause in tire deals.
One really should hope for such a scenario, for there are plenty of teams, in Winston Cup but more so in BGN and other series, in need of sponsorships that are at least partly deterred by exclusivity clauses, and certainly with the technology advantage enjoyed by Hendrick Motorsports at the present time, if a tire deal becomes an area where exclusivity is eliminated, the sport's competitive dynamic can be changed as was the case in the past.
The AT&T deal may not be over yet, but one should hope it forces the end of exclusivity clauses and opens the door for more sponsors that rival existing sponsors - partiuclarly in tires - to enter and compete.
One should hope so, because such clauses have had a stifling effect on sponsorships. When Nextel signed on as series sponsor they got an exclusivity clause written in aimed at rival telecommunication companies such as Cingular and AT&T, who were nonetheless grandfathered in given they were already established car sponsors in the series. It became an issue recently with the merger of AT&T and Cingular and with Jeff Burton's team in particular.
This flap potentially can reach further than just the sponsors in question, though, for exclusivity clauses apply to numerous other sponsors and potential sponsors. The most prominent exclusivity deal in Winston Cup right now is in tires, and one can certainly imagine a scenario where rival tire companies may try to enter the NASCAR scene if NASCAR can't maintain an exclusivity clause in tire deals.
One really should hope for such a scenario, for there are plenty of teams, in Winston Cup but more so in BGN and other series, in need of sponsorships that are at least partly deterred by exclusivity clauses, and certainly with the technology advantage enjoyed by Hendrick Motorsports at the present time, if a tire deal becomes an area where exclusivity is eliminated, the sport's competitive dynamic can be changed as was the case in the past.
The AT&T deal may not be over yet, but one should hope it forces the end of exclusivity clauses and opens the door for more sponsors that rival existing sponsors - partiuclarly in tires - to enter and compete.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
The Feminazi Fraud
We await feminism's campaign against Islamo-Arab female headdresses, a symbol of the gender kristalnacht that is part and parcel of Islamo-Arab imperialism. And I must have missed Ashley Judd's passionate denunciation of sharia, the terrorist code of law.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
COT Numbers Don't Tell The Story
I knew this would happen. We now have in T.J. McCarthy a writer citing NASCAR scoring loop data to make a COT race look more competitive than it actually was. McCarthy compiles scoring loop data on "quality" passes and shows where there have been three races where there were more "quality" passes with the COT than with the "older" flush airdam/spoilered cars.
Scoring loop data is inherently deceptive because it counts as "quality" passes any kind of position change in the top-15, even if lapped cars pass cars running in the top-15 - which happens a lot at Darlington as cars short-pit and get fresh tires on the track's notoriously rough surface. There is always position passing and lapped cars interfering with lead-lap cars outside the top-ten; it's in the top ten that passing matters most, and at Darlington the top ten hardly changed hands all race long and was usually spread out over nearly half the track, a pattern seen at all the other COT races so far.
And as far as lead changes go, the COT hasn't made any kind of dent in the sport's Dead-Lane Era. 21 lead changes in a 500 mile race is hardly impressive unless the lead bounces around several times a lap, as has happened at places like Pocono - the 1990 Summer 500 had 21 official lead changes and over a dozen unofficial ones, including four lead changes on Lap 117 alone and three on Lap 180 - but which manifestly didn't happen at Darlington or any other COT race. NASCAR counted 673 "quality" passes at Darlington - but there were only 21 lead changes, and nowhere did the lead change more than once a lap.
This is where scoring loop data is worse than useless. First of all, these stats are compiled for all those fantasy geeks that have permeated pro sports' fanbases like poison over this decade - that hilarious NFL Network ad with the fantasy geek who can't pronounce T.J. Houshmenzedah's name isn't entirely exaggerating what fantasy geeks are about. Second, as McCarthy is doing, NASCAR is using this data to make its races to be better than they actually are.
"Give it time," McCarthy claims. "The smartest people in racing are working on a solution." McCarthy makes the classic mistake of flattering John Darby, Brett Bodine, Gary Nelson, and others involved with this project as smarter than they actually are. The COT has gone through over a year of testing and now five races and it has shown zero improvement. That fantasy-geek data cited by McCarthy doesn't tell the real story, which is that passing is down with the COT, as the car cannot turn, pushes worse in dirty air than the older car, and is hamstrung from improvement by its fundamentally unsound design. You can't get good racing out of a racecar design with a bulky roofline, short nose, gapped airdam, long rear deck, and use of a wing.
There was also a lot of nonsense about how "tough" the COT was, though that gets debunked here. Few noticed how much more sensitive to spinning out the COT proved to be at Darlington - when McCarthy starts talking about how the leaders all slapped the wall and kept going, "tell me that isn't old school." No, it isn't, because the COT resisted turning. Not being able to turn is not old school.
The COT "has lost 30 to 40 percent of the handling," noted Jimmie Johnson after the Southern 500. With so little passing at any of its races despite Tom McCarthy's pathetic attempt to use deceptive scoring loop data to argue otherwise, the car has had enough time to prove itself, and it has failed.
Scoring loop data is inherently deceptive because it counts as "quality" passes any kind of position change in the top-15, even if lapped cars pass cars running in the top-15 - which happens a lot at Darlington as cars short-pit and get fresh tires on the track's notoriously rough surface. There is always position passing and lapped cars interfering with lead-lap cars outside the top-ten; it's in the top ten that passing matters most, and at Darlington the top ten hardly changed hands all race long and was usually spread out over nearly half the track, a pattern seen at all the other COT races so far.
And as far as lead changes go, the COT hasn't made any kind of dent in the sport's Dead-Lane Era. 21 lead changes in a 500 mile race is hardly impressive unless the lead bounces around several times a lap, as has happened at places like Pocono - the 1990 Summer 500 had 21 official lead changes and over a dozen unofficial ones, including four lead changes on Lap 117 alone and three on Lap 180 - but which manifestly didn't happen at Darlington or any other COT race. NASCAR counted 673 "quality" passes at Darlington - but there were only 21 lead changes, and nowhere did the lead change more than once a lap.
This is where scoring loop data is worse than useless. First of all, these stats are compiled for all those fantasy geeks that have permeated pro sports' fanbases like poison over this decade - that hilarious NFL Network ad with the fantasy geek who can't pronounce T.J. Houshmenzedah's name isn't entirely exaggerating what fantasy geeks are about. Second, as McCarthy is doing, NASCAR is using this data to make its races to be better than they actually are.
"Give it time," McCarthy claims. "The smartest people in racing are working on a solution." McCarthy makes the classic mistake of flattering John Darby, Brett Bodine, Gary Nelson, and others involved with this project as smarter than they actually are. The COT has gone through over a year of testing and now five races and it has shown zero improvement. That fantasy-geek data cited by McCarthy doesn't tell the real story, which is that passing is down with the COT, as the car cannot turn, pushes worse in dirty air than the older car, and is hamstrung from improvement by its fundamentally unsound design. You can't get good racing out of a racecar design with a bulky roofline, short nose, gapped airdam, long rear deck, and use of a wing.
There was also a lot of nonsense about how "tough" the COT was, though that gets debunked here. Few noticed how much more sensitive to spinning out the COT proved to be at Darlington - when McCarthy starts talking about how the leaders all slapped the wall and kept going, "tell me that isn't old school." No, it isn't, because the COT resisted turning. Not being able to turn is not old school.
The COT "has lost 30 to 40 percent of the handling," noted Jimmie Johnson after the Southern 500. With so little passing at any of its races despite Tom McCarthy's pathetic attempt to use deceptive scoring loop data to argue otherwise, the car has had enough time to prove itself, and it has failed.
Monday, May 14, 2007
MSM Wrongs And Rights In Iraq
Believe it or not, there are MSM types who get it right in Iraq, and some of them are shown here. Where the MSM still gets it wrong, though, is shown here.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
NASCAR 1998 Redux
The 2007 Winston Cup season has now run events at Daytona, Fontana, Vegas, Atlanta, Bristol, Texas, Martinsville, Phoenix, Talladega, Richmond, and Darlington, and only three of these eleven events have been won by cars other than Hendrick Motorsports. It is a near-monopoly not seen since Carl Kiekhafer all but annihilated the 1955-6 seasons with his Chrysler 300s; it also brings to mind a more recent episode of Hendrick dcomination, which began in ironic fashion.
The 1997 NASCAR season had been a transitional year, with the debut of Texas and California Speedways, a second date at New Hampshire, and the reconfiguration of Atlanta International Raceway. For 1998 there were numerous changes in the garage area - Ford teams were debuting the Taurus, an egg-shaped racecar replacing the long-nosed MN12 Ford Thunderbird. Among Ford teams, Roush Performance was expanding to five cars with the debut of Johnny Benson's #26 and the purchase of Mark Rypian's #97 Pontiac with driver Chad Little. Robert Yates racing also had a new face - USAC racer Kenny Irwin, who'd won twice in NASCAR's Craftsman Truck series in 1997 and had run a dramatic eighth in a satellite Yates Ford at Richmond the previous September. Rusty Wallace and Penske Racing, meanwhile, welcomed a teammate, as Michael Kranefuss, former Ford Motorsports honcho and now a team owner, merged his #37 Ford with Jeremy Mayfield into the Penske organization, renumbering the car #12.
A bigger change for all the teams also came for 1998. With speeds at the reconfigured Atlanta layout over 195, NASCAR tested a restrictor plate there, a plate larger than the one used at Daytona and Talladega - the Atlanta plate was reportedly 1.25 inches versus the roughly 7/8-inch used at the superpseedways. It was a virtual repeat of the experience of late-summer/autumn 1993 when NASCAR tested a 1.25-inch plate at Charlotte and the test car (Ken Schrader's Chevy in 1993) ran wide open all the way around with no discernable reduction in speed. Persuaded by driver and crew chief input, NASCAR shaved spoiler and airdam clearence from the cars for Charlotte in October 1993 to reduce corner speeds by forcing drivers to lift for the corners. Spoiler was shaved to five inches in heigth and airdam clearence increased to five inches. This 5&5 rule collapsed in its first race when no one could race hard and Ernie Irvan led all but 33 laps en route to an embarassingly easy win.
For 1998, however, NASCAR threw away what it had learned five years earlier and went with the 5&5 rule again, apparantly believing that the cars, now generating more downforce than 1993 models, could now handle a reduction in downforce.
The first order of business, however, was the Daytona 500, and despite early challenges from Sterling Marlin and Bobby Labonte, the 500 became a showdown between Dale Earnhardt and the Penske Fords. Earnhardt had long been NASCAR's most controversial driver, popular with a strong percentage of the fanbase but hated by a greater percentage and holder of the dubious distinction of having a fan club dedicated to opposing him in Fans Against Dale Earnhardt.
In 1996, however, he was seriously injured at Talladega, and despite recovering 1997 turned into a poor season. New crew chief Larry McReynolds had come over from Robert Yates' team in what had been considered a blockbuster trade, but the 1997 season had failed to scratch the win column. The lowlight of 1997 came in the Southern 500 when Earnhardt passed out on the opening lap and had to be taken to the hospital during the race. A battery of tests failed to determine why Earnhardt had passed out, and the mysterious incident was not repeated.
Now in the Daytona 500 he held a strong lead for over half the race, and as Bobby Labonte clawed to second, a spin erupted down the backstretch with some three to go and Earnhardt easily won the race to the flag. A scene unthinkable barely two years earlier then occurred - not only was the crowd cheering loudly, but rival crewmen lined up to shake Earnhardt's hand as he went down pit road to victory lane.
It was RCR's first win in the Daytona 500 - and Earnhardt's only win that season.
--------------------------------
Jeff Gordon then won the Carolina 400, a surprisingly competitive race that some felt was a vindication of the 5&5 rule. Las Vegas Motor Speedway then debuted on the Winston Cup tour and Mark Martin dominated to the first win of the season. The Atlanta 500 then saw several hard crashes, injuring Mike Skinner and Derrike Cope. John Andretti, driving the Petty #43 Pontiac, won the pole and led early before an admitted mistake by crew chief Robbie Loomis dropped him to 20th at the end. His future teammate Bobby Labonte, meanwhile, overhauled Kenny Irwin for the win.
By the Virginia 500 the 5&5 rule had become a source of controversy and five drivers had won the season's first seven races; Hendrick and Roush were rapidly becoming the season's dominators, but were being chased closely by Penske Racing even though they hadn't broken through yet. Bobby Hamilton, driving the Morgan-McClure #4 Chevrolet, won the pole, and the ensuing race turned into a rare break from the dominance of the Hendrick, Roush, and Penske cars. He domianted the race but past halfway got into a sensational shootout with John Andretti, an old adversary now driving the #43 Hamilton had won with the previous three seasons. The two of them raced nose to nose for the lead for nearly ten laps and got into a close duel in the final 100 laps before Hamilton rode off to the win. In victory lane Hamilton pointedly noted how the cars pushed worse in traffic than the previous year, an opinion that would slowly find greater outlet as the season went on.
In an exciting World 600 Jeff Gordon took on tires under a late yellow and rocketed to the win, and from there on he began beating down the rest of the field. He won at Sears Point in a surprisingly ferocious duel with Hamilton, then erupted to wins at Pocono, Indianapolis, Watkins Glen, and Michigan; the Michigan win was especially disheartening to others because Ernie Irvan led 120 laps from the pole and then Mark Martin held a late lead, but Gordon skipped a late tire change and rocketed through the field for an easy win, pulling away from cars that had outrun him all day and had taken on tires under the late yellow.
Mark Martin finished second in that race days after his father, Julian Martin, died in a plane crash. Martin managed to win at Bristol and dedicated the win to his dad, but at New Hampshire a week later fell in behind Gordon after late pitstops; Gordon did not take on tires and Martin did, yet in the run to the finish Gordon pulled away from the cars that took on tires, a win that set off the ever-irritable Jack Roush on a campaign to expose crew chief Ray Evernham as a cheater. Lost in the hullabaloo was the age-old Goodyear practice of playing favorites on tire deals - a favoritism touched on by team owner Andy Petree a year later in noting how he was being stiffarmed on tires for test sessions. Whether this played a role in Gordon's surprising wins remains a mystery, but that Gordon couldnot take tires and outpull cars that did take on tires remains implausible.
It also meant the effective end of the 1998 season's competitive phase, as Gordon ultimately racked up 13 wins and clinched the title with three races to go. Hendrick Motorsports wound up with 14 wins total that year - Terry Labonte's Richmond win was the only other Hendrick win - against Roush's nine. Yates won three times while Joe Gibbs and Penske each won twice. RCR, Morgan-McClure, and Ricky Rudd each won once.
That October the death-knell for the 5&5 rule was sounded when Terry Labonte publically noted that the racing had become "boring," and the rule was dropped for the season-ending Dixie 500 and a postseason exhibition race at Motegi, a strikingly competitive affair in which Dale Earnhardt Jr., fresh off his first BGN title, fought nose to nose for the lead with Jeff Gordon and Mike Skinner held off Gordon for the win.
What began with a Daytona 500 win for RCR became a monopoly for Hendrick Motorsports. Such was 1998.
The 1997 NASCAR season had been a transitional year, with the debut of Texas and California Speedways, a second date at New Hampshire, and the reconfiguration of Atlanta International Raceway. For 1998 there were numerous changes in the garage area - Ford teams were debuting the Taurus, an egg-shaped racecar replacing the long-nosed MN12 Ford Thunderbird. Among Ford teams, Roush Performance was expanding to five cars with the debut of Johnny Benson's #26 and the purchase of Mark Rypian's #97 Pontiac with driver Chad Little. Robert Yates racing also had a new face - USAC racer Kenny Irwin, who'd won twice in NASCAR's Craftsman Truck series in 1997 and had run a dramatic eighth in a satellite Yates Ford at Richmond the previous September. Rusty Wallace and Penske Racing, meanwhile, welcomed a teammate, as Michael Kranefuss, former Ford Motorsports honcho and now a team owner, merged his #37 Ford with Jeremy Mayfield into the Penske organization, renumbering the car #12.
A bigger change for all the teams also came for 1998. With speeds at the reconfigured Atlanta layout over 195, NASCAR tested a restrictor plate there, a plate larger than the one used at Daytona and Talladega - the Atlanta plate was reportedly 1.25 inches versus the roughly 7/8-inch used at the superpseedways. It was a virtual repeat of the experience of late-summer/autumn 1993 when NASCAR tested a 1.25-inch plate at Charlotte and the test car (Ken Schrader's Chevy in 1993) ran wide open all the way around with no discernable reduction in speed. Persuaded by driver and crew chief input, NASCAR shaved spoiler and airdam clearence from the cars for Charlotte in October 1993 to reduce corner speeds by forcing drivers to lift for the corners. Spoiler was shaved to five inches in heigth and airdam clearence increased to five inches. This 5&5 rule collapsed in its first race when no one could race hard and Ernie Irvan led all but 33 laps en route to an embarassingly easy win.
For 1998, however, NASCAR threw away what it had learned five years earlier and went with the 5&5 rule again, apparantly believing that the cars, now generating more downforce than 1993 models, could now handle a reduction in downforce.
The first order of business, however, was the Daytona 500, and despite early challenges from Sterling Marlin and Bobby Labonte, the 500 became a showdown between Dale Earnhardt and the Penske Fords. Earnhardt had long been NASCAR's most controversial driver, popular with a strong percentage of the fanbase but hated by a greater percentage and holder of the dubious distinction of having a fan club dedicated to opposing him in Fans Against Dale Earnhardt.
In 1996, however, he was seriously injured at Talladega, and despite recovering 1997 turned into a poor season. New crew chief Larry McReynolds had come over from Robert Yates' team in what had been considered a blockbuster trade, but the 1997 season had failed to scratch the win column. The lowlight of 1997 came in the Southern 500 when Earnhardt passed out on the opening lap and had to be taken to the hospital during the race. A battery of tests failed to determine why Earnhardt had passed out, and the mysterious incident was not repeated.
Now in the Daytona 500 he held a strong lead for over half the race, and as Bobby Labonte clawed to second, a spin erupted down the backstretch with some three to go and Earnhardt easily won the race to the flag. A scene unthinkable barely two years earlier then occurred - not only was the crowd cheering loudly, but rival crewmen lined up to shake Earnhardt's hand as he went down pit road to victory lane.
It was RCR's first win in the Daytona 500 - and Earnhardt's only win that season.
--------------------------------
Jeff Gordon then won the Carolina 400, a surprisingly competitive race that some felt was a vindication of the 5&5 rule. Las Vegas Motor Speedway then debuted on the Winston Cup tour and Mark Martin dominated to the first win of the season. The Atlanta 500 then saw several hard crashes, injuring Mike Skinner and Derrike Cope. John Andretti, driving the Petty #43 Pontiac, won the pole and led early before an admitted mistake by crew chief Robbie Loomis dropped him to 20th at the end. His future teammate Bobby Labonte, meanwhile, overhauled Kenny Irwin for the win.
By the Virginia 500 the 5&5 rule had become a source of controversy and five drivers had won the season's first seven races; Hendrick and Roush were rapidly becoming the season's dominators, but were being chased closely by Penske Racing even though they hadn't broken through yet. Bobby Hamilton, driving the Morgan-McClure #4 Chevrolet, won the pole, and the ensuing race turned into a rare break from the dominance of the Hendrick, Roush, and Penske cars. He domianted the race but past halfway got into a sensational shootout with John Andretti, an old adversary now driving the #43 Hamilton had won with the previous three seasons. The two of them raced nose to nose for the lead for nearly ten laps and got into a close duel in the final 100 laps before Hamilton rode off to the win. In victory lane Hamilton pointedly noted how the cars pushed worse in traffic than the previous year, an opinion that would slowly find greater outlet as the season went on.
In an exciting World 600 Jeff Gordon took on tires under a late yellow and rocketed to the win, and from there on he began beating down the rest of the field. He won at Sears Point in a surprisingly ferocious duel with Hamilton, then erupted to wins at Pocono, Indianapolis, Watkins Glen, and Michigan; the Michigan win was especially disheartening to others because Ernie Irvan led 120 laps from the pole and then Mark Martin held a late lead, but Gordon skipped a late tire change and rocketed through the field for an easy win, pulling away from cars that had outrun him all day and had taken on tires under the late yellow.
Mark Martin finished second in that race days after his father, Julian Martin, died in a plane crash. Martin managed to win at Bristol and dedicated the win to his dad, but at New Hampshire a week later fell in behind Gordon after late pitstops; Gordon did not take on tires and Martin did, yet in the run to the finish Gordon pulled away from the cars that took on tires, a win that set off the ever-irritable Jack Roush on a campaign to expose crew chief Ray Evernham as a cheater. Lost in the hullabaloo was the age-old Goodyear practice of playing favorites on tire deals - a favoritism touched on by team owner Andy Petree a year later in noting how he was being stiffarmed on tires for test sessions. Whether this played a role in Gordon's surprising wins remains a mystery, but that Gordon couldnot take tires and outpull cars that did take on tires remains implausible.
It also meant the effective end of the 1998 season's competitive phase, as Gordon ultimately racked up 13 wins and clinched the title with three races to go. Hendrick Motorsports wound up with 14 wins total that year - Terry Labonte's Richmond win was the only other Hendrick win - against Roush's nine. Yates won three times while Joe Gibbs and Penske each won twice. RCR, Morgan-McClure, and Ricky Rudd each won once.
That October the death-knell for the 5&5 rule was sounded when Terry Labonte publically noted that the racing had become "boring," and the rule was dropped for the season-ending Dixie 500 and a postseason exhibition race at Motegi, a strikingly competitive affair in which Dale Earnhardt Jr., fresh off his first BGN title, fought nose to nose for the lead with Jeff Gordon and Mike Skinner held off Gordon for the win.
What began with a Daytona 500 win for RCR became a monopoly for Hendrick Motorsports. Such was 1998.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
The Junior Soap Opera
It's become the most intensely-monitored contract squabble in racing since Darrell Waltrip's prolonged divorce from DiGard Racing in 1980. Dale Earnhardt Jr. may be on the verge of quitting the organization owned by his mother-in-law Teresa Earnhardt over his demands to own 51% of the organization, and Hendrick Motorsports may have an inside edge toward hiring him because of their engine program.
That anything involving Junior could receive as much attention as it does is remarkable, but then seemingly anything involving Junior has become a #1 story in NASCAR, from the enraged crowd reaction after Brian Vickers took out Junior at Talladega to the often-absurd level of adulation he receives at any moment. I'm not sure Junior for his part isn't a little embarassed by it all; after seeing him at NHIS a few years back he seemed a little overwhelmed to be as popular as he is when discussing matters in a postrace press conference.
If Junior does leave DEI for Hendrick, it seems a certainty that Casey Mears, the latest sacrificial lamb to the #25, will be fired. What happens to DEI after that remains a mystery, since virtually everything about the organization has revolved around Junior's racecars. Given the organization's uneven performances this year, losing Junior is a potential blow from which they may not properly recover.
The way this soap opera has gone, about the only thing missing are Anthony Geary and Genie Francis facing down evil John Colicos. Rest assured, whatever the next step involving Junior is, the racing world will know about it whether it wants to or not.
That anything involving Junior could receive as much attention as it does is remarkable, but then seemingly anything involving Junior has become a #1 story in NASCAR, from the enraged crowd reaction after Brian Vickers took out Junior at Talladega to the often-absurd level of adulation he receives at any moment. I'm not sure Junior for his part isn't a little embarassed by it all; after seeing him at NHIS a few years back he seemed a little overwhelmed to be as popular as he is when discussing matters in a postrace press conference.
If Junior does leave DEI for Hendrick, it seems a certainty that Casey Mears, the latest sacrificial lamb to the #25, will be fired. What happens to DEI after that remains a mystery, since virtually everything about the organization has revolved around Junior's racecars. Given the organization's uneven performances this year, losing Junior is a potential blow from which they may not properly recover.
The way this soap opera has gone, about the only thing missing are Anthony Geary and Genie Francis facing down evil John Colicos. Rest assured, whatever the next step involving Junior is, the racing world will know about it whether it wants to or not.
Monday, May 07, 2007
Some Richmond Stuff
Some Richmond weekend miscellenia:
*** Two stories out of the Richmond weekend warrant comment. First is the story that two of Michael Waltrip's sponsors may want out of his team, and right now. That this would be the case is hardly surprising since one had to question the sanity of these sponsors sticking with Michael Waltrip to begin with.
The other story is that the inspection process for the Car Of Tomorrow "is a joke." Given the wholesale failure of the project in every other angle, why would inspections be different? It also raises questions about who's really legal out there with these things. Of course Robin Pemberton was out there with the spin that "everyone is doing a good job." Yeah, they suddenly decided to stop trying to cheat the inspection rules.
Then there is a potential bidding war for race teams with Chevy factory contracts expiring after 2007. While it is doubtful Hendrick, RCR, and Gibbs will do anything beyond signing new deals with Chevy, it adds more to the DEI/Yates soap opera.
--------------------
Has the sport seen this level of domination since Carl Kiekhafer's mid-1950s rampage through the Grand National series? To date only three races - Daytona, Fontana, and Texas - have been won by teams other than Hendrick Motorsports, and there seems little realistic prospect of change this season. While Kevin Harvick's strong run bodes well for the RCR fleet, the Richmond 400 was notable for how minor the threat to a Hendrick sweep really was.
The Car Of Tomorrow races have been a Hendrick monopoly, and while this Richmond race saw some good dicing up front, by no stretch can the COT earn any praise for that, with team after team fighting push once again.
It all added up to another Hendrick weekend.
*** Two stories out of the Richmond weekend warrant comment. First is the story that two of Michael Waltrip's sponsors may want out of his team, and right now. That this would be the case is hardly surprising since one had to question the sanity of these sponsors sticking with Michael Waltrip to begin with.
The other story is that the inspection process for the Car Of Tomorrow "is a joke." Given the wholesale failure of the project in every other angle, why would inspections be different? It also raises questions about who's really legal out there with these things. Of course Robin Pemberton was out there with the spin that "everyone is doing a good job." Yeah, they suddenly decided to stop trying to cheat the inspection rules.
Then there is a potential bidding war for race teams with Chevy factory contracts expiring after 2007. While it is doubtful Hendrick, RCR, and Gibbs will do anything beyond signing new deals with Chevy, it adds more to the DEI/Yates soap opera.
--------------------
Has the sport seen this level of domination since Carl Kiekhafer's mid-1950s rampage through the Grand National series? To date only three races - Daytona, Fontana, and Texas - have been won by teams other than Hendrick Motorsports, and there seems little realistic prospect of change this season. While Kevin Harvick's strong run bodes well for the RCR fleet, the Richmond 400 was notable for how minor the threat to a Hendrick sweep really was.
The Car Of Tomorrow races have been a Hendrick monopoly, and while this Richmond race saw some good dicing up front, by no stretch can the COT earn any praise for that, with team after team fighting push once again.
It all added up to another Hendrick weekend.
Friday, May 04, 2007
The Right Way To Reestablish NASCAR's Credibility
David Poole authors five ideas to help NASCAR reestablish its credibility. While some of them have an interesting angle, the issue of the sanctioning body's credibility goes beyond what are comparative window-dressing offered by Poole.
His ideas - publish the NASCAR rulebook so fans can read it; paint lines on racetracks delineating scoring loops; show pit-road and other such pertinent telemetry on TV so fans can see whether a car is speeding on pti road, etc.; wave cars trapped on the tail-end of the lead lap because of the timing of a yellow past the leader and to the rear of the field: and "develop a thick skin" when it comes to inept officiating.
The problem here is that the ideas are window-dressing, for the sanctioning body's core credibility issues go beyond whether or not the rulebook is available for fans to read. Painting scoring-loop stripes on the track and showing pit-speed telemetry on TV amount to endorsement of rules whose sagacity warrants debate.
The sanctioning body's credibility has been challenged more and more lately and with legitimate reason, and it is an issue going to the core of the sport's competition. The issues involved with the credibility of NASCAR require a mixture of specific actions and desired results -
-------------------------
THE SPORT MUST TAKE SOME CONTROL OF THE RACING AWAY FROM THE OFFICIATING TOWER - The amount of control the officiating tower has over the racing is now at an absurd level, and a lot of rules put into place over the years have helped bring that level of power to its present state. Pit-road closure upon the flying of a yellow, pit-speed limits, freezing the field and the use of scoring loops, the Lucky Dog rule, the out-of-bounds line - all have been implemented and thus increased the power the officiating tower has over the racing.
None of these rules should even been there to begin with. Pit-closure is responsible for the pit crowding that has led to numerous accidents over the years, and pit speed limits serve only to give the officials more opportunity to hit a driver with a penalty. The rule should be that pit road remains open at all times short of catastrophic pit blockage; no speed limit entering or exiting the pits; crews must not go over the wall until their specific car has come to a complete, straight stop in their pit box. There was no running issue of pit crowding before the pit-closure rule.
Dressing bad rules in a tophat and tails won't make them good rules. Freezing the field has got to go; the only credible gauge of the running order is the start-finish line, so race to the caution - the only time NASCAR should "freeze" the field is when blockage threatens cars racing to the yellow, and in that circumstance NASCAR should wave the red and yellow flags and revert to the last completed lap in scoring. Cars should thus race to the stripe to make up a lap; no lucky dog passes.
There is never supposed to be an out-of-bounds area other than pit road - if it's paved, it's supposed to be fair game. Out-of-bounds lanes have taken away a legitimate passing area and allowed officials to hit some drivers but not others with penalties. That has to stop - cars that pass other cars below the yellow line should be left alone.
--------------------
THE SPORT MUST STOP TURNING TRACKS AND SPONSORS AGAINST EACH OTHER - NASCAR should have told Bruton Smith in 1996, "We're racing at Texas and we're staying at North Wilkesboro, too." It should also have kept Rockingham at two dates and added two dates to Kentucky. The sanctioning body also needs to stop writing exclusivity contracts into sponsor deals - Sprint and AT&T/Cingular should be fighting nose to nose in motorsports marketing, not having NASCAR stiffarm AT&T; Goodyear should not have any monopoly, it should be battling Firestoine and Hoosier on the racetrack. NASCAR needs to treat all sponsors as partners, and it needs to treat all its tracks as partners and work with them as well as with other racing organizations like IRL.
---------------------
THE FAVORITES MUST GET HIT HARD ALONG WITH EVERYONE ELSE - When Gary Nelson took over as NASCAR Competition Director in 1992 he had to work to prove his credibility to the field. His rigorous inspections helped there, but an unsung area where his credibility was established was that with his new inspections, the sport's top dog - Dale Earnhardt - fell on his face and was manifestly seen falling on his face on the racetrack. Rusty Wallace also fell on his face in 1992.
NASCAR needs an identical result here. Just as Baseball's steroid policy has no credibility until Barry Bonds is removed from the game, so NASCAR won't rebuild its credibility as a sanctioning body until its biggest organization, Hendrick Motorsports, falters - especially in situations where officating controversies go against the Hendrick fleet as opposed to the smaller teams that otherwise always get the shaft in officiating controversies.
----------------------
THE TIGHTNESS OF THE SPORT'S RACECAR BOX MUST BE LOOSENED TO SOME EXTENT - Having a tight "box" within which the racecars operate is not a bad thing - it's a big part of what made NASCAR the most competitive racing in the world - but that box needs to be opened up somewhat because in the era of Aero-Matching (2003 onward) only nine organizations have won races and a tenth (PPI Motorsports) dried up and died out. In contrast, the previous two seasons (2001-2) saw 26 winning drivers among 14 teams. Of course the tire package of that period helped enormously, but a looser box for the racecars played a role as well.
----------------------
THE DEAD-LANE ERA MUST END - In this decade the sport learned what aero and engine package makes the most exciting racing. The sport must now work to end the Dead-Lane Era that has permeated the sport since 1985. From that period only four tracks broke the 40-lead-change barrier and three of them did it a combined four times; the other (Talladega) has done it eleven times from 1985 onward. Scrapping the Car Of Tomorrow will help greatly.
The sanctioning body indeed has some serious credibility problems and they need to be addressed, and in a big-picture way.
His ideas - publish the NASCAR rulebook so fans can read it; paint lines on racetracks delineating scoring loops; show pit-road and other such pertinent telemetry on TV so fans can see whether a car is speeding on pti road, etc.; wave cars trapped on the tail-end of the lead lap because of the timing of a yellow past the leader and to the rear of the field: and "develop a thick skin" when it comes to inept officiating.
The problem here is that the ideas are window-dressing, for the sanctioning body's core credibility issues go beyond whether or not the rulebook is available for fans to read. Painting scoring-loop stripes on the track and showing pit-speed telemetry on TV amount to endorsement of rules whose sagacity warrants debate.
The sanctioning body's credibility has been challenged more and more lately and with legitimate reason, and it is an issue going to the core of the sport's competition. The issues involved with the credibility of NASCAR require a mixture of specific actions and desired results -
-------------------------
THE SPORT MUST TAKE SOME CONTROL OF THE RACING AWAY FROM THE OFFICIATING TOWER - The amount of control the officiating tower has over the racing is now at an absurd level, and a lot of rules put into place over the years have helped bring that level of power to its present state. Pit-road closure upon the flying of a yellow, pit-speed limits, freezing the field and the use of scoring loops, the Lucky Dog rule, the out-of-bounds line - all have been implemented and thus increased the power the officiating tower has over the racing.
None of these rules should even been there to begin with. Pit-closure is responsible for the pit crowding that has led to numerous accidents over the years, and pit speed limits serve only to give the officials more opportunity to hit a driver with a penalty. The rule should be that pit road remains open at all times short of catastrophic pit blockage; no speed limit entering or exiting the pits; crews must not go over the wall until their specific car has come to a complete, straight stop in their pit box. There was no running issue of pit crowding before the pit-closure rule.
Dressing bad rules in a tophat and tails won't make them good rules. Freezing the field has got to go; the only credible gauge of the running order is the start-finish line, so race to the caution - the only time NASCAR should "freeze" the field is when blockage threatens cars racing to the yellow, and in that circumstance NASCAR should wave the red and yellow flags and revert to the last completed lap in scoring. Cars should thus race to the stripe to make up a lap; no lucky dog passes.
There is never supposed to be an out-of-bounds area other than pit road - if it's paved, it's supposed to be fair game. Out-of-bounds lanes have taken away a legitimate passing area and allowed officials to hit some drivers but not others with penalties. That has to stop - cars that pass other cars below the yellow line should be left alone.
--------------------
THE SPORT MUST STOP TURNING TRACKS AND SPONSORS AGAINST EACH OTHER - NASCAR should have told Bruton Smith in 1996, "We're racing at Texas and we're staying at North Wilkesboro, too." It should also have kept Rockingham at two dates and added two dates to Kentucky. The sanctioning body also needs to stop writing exclusivity contracts into sponsor deals - Sprint and AT&T/Cingular should be fighting nose to nose in motorsports marketing, not having NASCAR stiffarm AT&T; Goodyear should not have any monopoly, it should be battling Firestoine and Hoosier on the racetrack. NASCAR needs to treat all sponsors as partners, and it needs to treat all its tracks as partners and work with them as well as with other racing organizations like IRL.
---------------------
THE FAVORITES MUST GET HIT HARD ALONG WITH EVERYONE ELSE - When Gary Nelson took over as NASCAR Competition Director in 1992 he had to work to prove his credibility to the field. His rigorous inspections helped there, but an unsung area where his credibility was established was that with his new inspections, the sport's top dog - Dale Earnhardt - fell on his face and was manifestly seen falling on his face on the racetrack. Rusty Wallace also fell on his face in 1992.
NASCAR needs an identical result here. Just as Baseball's steroid policy has no credibility until Barry Bonds is removed from the game, so NASCAR won't rebuild its credibility as a sanctioning body until its biggest organization, Hendrick Motorsports, falters - especially in situations where officating controversies go against the Hendrick fleet as opposed to the smaller teams that otherwise always get the shaft in officiating controversies.
----------------------
THE TIGHTNESS OF THE SPORT'S RACECAR BOX MUST BE LOOSENED TO SOME EXTENT - Having a tight "box" within which the racecars operate is not a bad thing - it's a big part of what made NASCAR the most competitive racing in the world - but that box needs to be opened up somewhat because in the era of Aero-Matching (2003 onward) only nine organizations have won races and a tenth (PPI Motorsports) dried up and died out. In contrast, the previous two seasons (2001-2) saw 26 winning drivers among 14 teams. Of course the tire package of that period helped enormously, but a looser box for the racecars played a role as well.
----------------------
THE DEAD-LANE ERA MUST END - In this decade the sport learned what aero and engine package makes the most exciting racing. The sport must now work to end the Dead-Lane Era that has permeated the sport since 1985. From that period only four tracks broke the 40-lead-change barrier and three of them did it a combined four times; the other (Talladega) has done it eleven times from 1985 onward. Scrapping the Car Of Tomorrow will help greatly.
The sanctioning body indeed has some serious credibility problems and they need to be addressed, and in a big-picture way.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
George Tenet And Chuck Hagel Get Exposed
George Tenet recently released an alleged memoir about his days in the CIA under George W. Bush, but some key componants of that book get ripped, and with ample reason. Meanwhile, Senator Chuck Hagel gets the once-over as violence in Iraq continues to decrease.
Monday, April 30, 2007
NASCAR, Stop Playing Favorites
The recent controversy over Tony Stewart's questions about the integrity of NASCAR's yellows has garnered continuing examination, but amid this recent examination, missed is what may be the real point of at least some of this controversy.
At at Alabama 500 we saw some more questionable timing of a late yellow as well as continued proof of the absurdity of freezing the field. When David Reutimann blew up in the trioval, the yellow did not fly until after Jeff Gordon had retaken the lead, even though Reutimann had erupted halfway through the trioval, well before Gordon and the other leaders had even reached the stripe. This of course was followed by a green-white-checker finish that got aborted as soon as the field hit the backstretch after Johnny Sauter punched the second-turn wall. What followed was graphic evidence that a key argument against racing to the yellow - to prevent crashes - is nothing but safety-overkilling hot air, as Tony Stewart got blasted into the inside wall even with the yellow flying.
This controversy is but a small part of larger continuing controversies over how NASCAR officiates races. Amid the controversies lies what should be a key point of criticism - the fact that far too often officiating calls go to the "favorites."
It isn't a new controversy; it has been ongoing. I remember John Andretti pitting too early under a yellow at New Hampshire in 2001 but beating the pace car to the pit exit stripe, yet NASCAR ruled he was put a lap down. When does a penalty like that ever hit a "favorite" like Jeff Gordon or Dale Junior? Talladega's yellow-line rule only seems to apply to "field fillers" like Mike Skinner, who got flagged in 2001 in Bobby Hamilton's win, but let Dale Junior pass on the apron entering Three and NASCAR contrives a lame excuse that he'd "completed the pass" when he went below the line, never mind that the rule means clearing a car by going below the line and Earnhardt was nowhere close to such before he went below the line.
These are but two of a myriad number of examples observors can find that show that NASCAR officiating too often benefits the big drivers and teams.
The point of controversy like this is that most people want NASCAR to stop playing favorites. There have to be situations where the big names like Gordon and Junior and Jimmie Johnson are the ones who get penalized and the "smaller" names who wind up the beneficiary. We see the opposite too often. People will regain a lot of confidence in the sanctioning body when they can see that the superstars get hit in the gut with penalties, too.
At at Alabama 500 we saw some more questionable timing of a late yellow as well as continued proof of the absurdity of freezing the field. When David Reutimann blew up in the trioval, the yellow did not fly until after Jeff Gordon had retaken the lead, even though Reutimann had erupted halfway through the trioval, well before Gordon and the other leaders had even reached the stripe. This of course was followed by a green-white-checker finish that got aborted as soon as the field hit the backstretch after Johnny Sauter punched the second-turn wall. What followed was graphic evidence that a key argument against racing to the yellow - to prevent crashes - is nothing but safety-overkilling hot air, as Tony Stewart got blasted into the inside wall even with the yellow flying.
This controversy is but a small part of larger continuing controversies over how NASCAR officiates races. Amid the controversies lies what should be a key point of criticism - the fact that far too often officiating calls go to the "favorites."
It isn't a new controversy; it has been ongoing. I remember John Andretti pitting too early under a yellow at New Hampshire in 2001 but beating the pace car to the pit exit stripe, yet NASCAR ruled he was put a lap down. When does a penalty like that ever hit a "favorite" like Jeff Gordon or Dale Junior? Talladega's yellow-line rule only seems to apply to "field fillers" like Mike Skinner, who got flagged in 2001 in Bobby Hamilton's win, but let Dale Junior pass on the apron entering Three and NASCAR contrives a lame excuse that he'd "completed the pass" when he went below the line, never mind that the rule means clearing a car by going below the line and Earnhardt was nowhere close to such before he went below the line.
These are but two of a myriad number of examples observors can find that show that NASCAR officiating too often benefits the big drivers and teams.
The point of controversy like this is that most people want NASCAR to stop playing favorites. There have to be situations where the big names like Gordon and Junior and Jimmie Johnson are the ones who get penalized and the "smaller" names who wind up the beneficiary. We see the opposite too often. People will regain a lot of confidence in the sanctioning body when they can see that the superstars get hit in the gut with penalties, too.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
NASCAR's Credibility Increasingly Questioned
Tony Stewart's open questioning of the integrity of NASCAR yellows for debris isn't exactly shocking. It is merely a public blast from within a sport increasingly distrustful of the integrity of the sanctioning body. NASCAR's credibility has come under more and more fire in this decade, for the very good reason that the sanctioning body's rule over the sport has produced less and less while saddling the sport's members and fans with more and more absurdity.
Suspicions about debris yellows isn't new, and it certainly is true that the Car Of Tomorrow has needed late yellows to get good finishes in the races in which it has run. The sanctioning body's credibility, though, goes beyond debris yellows. The recent developments in Kentucky Speedway's lawsuit against NASCAR highlight the credibility problems involved here. By publically questioning the relationship between NASCAR and Int'l Speedway Corporation, Kentucky Speedway makes a point about the absurdly arbitrary method by which race dates are awarded. That point was clear by the simple fact that Kentucky was built and is in a strong racing demographic, yet NASCAR ignored it for Winston Cup while pushing speedways and Winston Cup dates in markets that don't want racing.
There is also the reality that the varied rule changes made over recent years all have the common thread of the sanctioning body taking more and more control of the racing away from the track and into the officiating tower. Of course some of them get dressed up in safety garb, but it's all bunk; pit speed limits are not about safety, they're about presenting opportunities to bust some driver - giving officials an excuse to exercise authority. The Car Of Tomorrow isn't about safety or improved racing, it's about the sanctioning body dictating how racecars are built - notice how in the COT little mention is made of the safety improvements made to tracks, and in improving racing notice how low-cost bolt-on alternatives that actually do improve the racing are never considered - even though the most successful such bolt-on aero package raced at Daytona and Talladega 2000-1 in Winston Cup cars and presently races those tracks for BGN cars. Some areas of racecar engineering that are considered "cheating" probably aren't even about true competitive integrity; they're an excuse for officials to ride herd over race teams.
Big Bill France and Billy France wielded iron hands, but they had enough sense to know when to back off. Brian France so far hasn't shown any such sense. The sanctioning body's credibility is a legitimate issue as much as the credibility of CART was a serious issue in the 1980s and 1990s.
The question one should ask is this - what harm could come to the sport by the sanctioning body letting go some of the control over the racing it presently wields?
Suspicions about debris yellows isn't new, and it certainly is true that the Car Of Tomorrow has needed late yellows to get good finishes in the races in which it has run. The sanctioning body's credibility, though, goes beyond debris yellows. The recent developments in Kentucky Speedway's lawsuit against NASCAR highlight the credibility problems involved here. By publically questioning the relationship between NASCAR and Int'l Speedway Corporation, Kentucky Speedway makes a point about the absurdly arbitrary method by which race dates are awarded. That point was clear by the simple fact that Kentucky was built and is in a strong racing demographic, yet NASCAR ignored it for Winston Cup while pushing speedways and Winston Cup dates in markets that don't want racing.
There is also the reality that the varied rule changes made over recent years all have the common thread of the sanctioning body taking more and more control of the racing away from the track and into the officiating tower. Of course some of them get dressed up in safety garb, but it's all bunk; pit speed limits are not about safety, they're about presenting opportunities to bust some driver - giving officials an excuse to exercise authority. The Car Of Tomorrow isn't about safety or improved racing, it's about the sanctioning body dictating how racecars are built - notice how in the COT little mention is made of the safety improvements made to tracks, and in improving racing notice how low-cost bolt-on alternatives that actually do improve the racing are never considered - even though the most successful such bolt-on aero package raced at Daytona and Talladega 2000-1 in Winston Cup cars and presently races those tracks for BGN cars. Some areas of racecar engineering that are considered "cheating" probably aren't even about true competitive integrity; they're an excuse for officials to ride herd over race teams.
Big Bill France and Billy France wielded iron hands, but they had enough sense to know when to back off. Brian France so far hasn't shown any such sense. The sanctioning body's credibility is a legitimate issue as much as the credibility of CART was a serious issue in the 1980s and 1990s.
The question one should ask is this - what harm could come to the sport by the sanctioning body letting go some of the control over the racing it presently wields?
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
King Of The Superspeedways
In the sport's Dead Lane Era, it is the oasis. With almost no other racing anywhere worthy of the adulation the sport has earned over the decades, Talladega is almost the one track that rescues the sport from permanent decline in popularity. It is the biggest superspeedway in the US and the most competititve in the world.
Talladega has averaged over 40 official lead changes per race in this decade, and broke that barrier eight times in that span. Now it prepares for its fifteenth Winston Cup race and eighth Busch Grand National race of this decade, and should serve as most competitive racing venue for both classes this season.
Chevrolet has all but monopolized restrictor plate racing, so barring a huge upset a Chevy will win this Alabama 500. Hendrick Motorsports has dominated the season so far, but curiously they didn't look that good at Daytona. RCR, Joe Gibbs, and Robert Ginn were the strongest cars at Daytona, and Tony Stewart will likely be fighting harder than normal for the win, since he hasn't won this year and is clearly torked off by that fact.
Of course one shouldn't count out the Hendrick cars after they won three of four plate races in 2006 and have won five of this season's first eight races.
David Gilliland and Ricky Rudd have been MIA pretty much everywhere this year, but Robert Yates has dominated Talladega qualifying the last few years, so the pole is a good bet for the Yates Fords. That the pole is not relevent to anything of course shows in Gilliland's poles that have gone nowhere. The Roush Fords are basically the only Ford team and thus have by far the best shot at a Ford win.
Penske Racing was the only Dodge organization with any muscle at Daytona and have been the strongest Dodge effort at Talladega lately, but Kurt Busch has a teammate in Ryan Newman who can no longer be counted on to run strong but instead will find new and creative ways to blow good runs, such as at Phoenix last week.
Ray Evernham's Dodges have been awful almost everywhere but Daytona was a rare strong finish and one can expect Kasey Kahne and Elliott Sadler to do something here.
Given the nature of Talladega, one can write a scouting report on why any driver who makes the field can win the race. This is why Talladega makes the sport so much better.
Talladega has averaged over 40 official lead changes per race in this decade, and broke that barrier eight times in that span. Now it prepares for its fifteenth Winston Cup race and eighth Busch Grand National race of this decade, and should serve as most competitive racing venue for both classes this season.
Chevrolet has all but monopolized restrictor plate racing, so barring a huge upset a Chevy will win this Alabama 500. Hendrick Motorsports has dominated the season so far, but curiously they didn't look that good at Daytona. RCR, Joe Gibbs, and Robert Ginn were the strongest cars at Daytona, and Tony Stewart will likely be fighting harder than normal for the win, since he hasn't won this year and is clearly torked off by that fact.
Of course one shouldn't count out the Hendrick cars after they won three of four plate races in 2006 and have won five of this season's first eight races.
David Gilliland and Ricky Rudd have been MIA pretty much everywhere this year, but Robert Yates has dominated Talladega qualifying the last few years, so the pole is a good bet for the Yates Fords. That the pole is not relevent to anything of course shows in Gilliland's poles that have gone nowhere. The Roush Fords are basically the only Ford team and thus have by far the best shot at a Ford win.
Penske Racing was the only Dodge organization with any muscle at Daytona and have been the strongest Dodge effort at Talladega lately, but Kurt Busch has a teammate in Ryan Newman who can no longer be counted on to run strong but instead will find new and creative ways to blow good runs, such as at Phoenix last week.
Ray Evernham's Dodges have been awful almost everywhere but Daytona was a rare strong finish and one can expect Kasey Kahne and Elliott Sadler to do something here.
Given the nature of Talladega, one can write a scouting report on why any driver who makes the field can win the race. This is why Talladega makes the sport so much better.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Why We're In Iraq - And Winning
Yes, we are winning, as democracy gains strength. The problem is the Democrats don't want to see that we are in fact winning, so they argue otherwise, even though their argument winds up contradicting itself.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
NASCAR Troubles Get Ranted
"Peter DeLorenzo has long been the most outspoken national critic of NASCAR." So notes Janice Putman in the introduction to Autoextremist's April 18 rant on NASCAR's decline in popularity. This of course is a bit of an understatement, as DeLorenzo's attacks on NASCAR have often been vicious and periodically grossly unfair; even when he makes valid points, as he does in his April 18 Rant, he cannot pass up some cheapshots and offering some solutions that are either wrong and/or do not address the sport's problems.
DeLorenzo notes the massive drop in TV ratings from the start of 2004 - interestingly, the launching point of the Chase For The Championship, implemented ostensibly to boost ratings - onward across the country. "That the wheels are coming off the NASCAR money train shouldn't be a surprise to anyone." Indeed, as the decline in ratings and attendence have shown, NASCAR is not as hot as it once was, and the more it tries to market itself the worse it gets.
DeLorenzo runs off a laundry list of reasons for the sport's decline - "Sky-high ticket prices, empty seats, market oversaturation, too many sponsors creating a paralyzing amount of message clutter, the abandonment of traditional dates and racetracks, cookie-cutter cars that bear no resemblence to recognizable production car versions, too many races, etc."
The problem in this list is that some of the reasons are wrong. "Cookie-cutter cars that bear no resemblence to recognizable production car versions?" What is he talking about? Because the racecar versions of the Monte Carlo have an airdam, side skirts, etc. they do not resemble their production breathren? This is the revisionist history that permeates a lot of discussion, the notion that "stock cars used to really be stock cars." The fact of the matter is stock cars stopped being stock as soon as the sanctioning body was founded, and when superspeedways were built - by far the biggest single reason for the sport's growth - stock cars could no longer have any serious stock quality. They had to evolve into racecars.
And too many races? If anything the sport has too few races. The anger over some of the sport's markets would not be there to any extent if the sport had simply stayed at North Wilkesboro and Darlington - it was the way Texas and other tracks got onto the schedule, at the expense of North Wilkesboro and Darlington, that drives anger, not the fact of these new tracks themselves. What drives anger over now-abandoned projects in NYC and Washington State is that such tracks were aimed at replacing existing tracks instead of simply being added onto the schedule.
Certainly the reality of demographics argues against tracks in NYC and the Seattle area regardless of that, and one cannot deny that it is the "redneck" demographic that makes the sport - "Are we moonshiners, country music, banjos, and Route 66? Or are we merlot and Rodeo Drive?" as Humpy Wheeler has frequently asked. The fact is that merlot and Rodeo Drive do not account for any serious percentage of a sport's demographic, and the sport needs to stop trying to cater to merlot and Rodeo Drive.
Incredibly, DeLorenzo misses the most salient failing accounting for the sport's decline in popularity, and it it summed up in this question -
Where Are The Lead Changes?
It is telling that Talladega almost alone in the sport has not seen significant losses in attendence or TV ratings - with a per-race average of 40 lead changes from 2000 onward, it is all too easy to see why, and it is all too relevent to ask - why can't these other tracks also break the 40-lead-change barrier?
The sport's Dead-Lane Era of uncompetitive racing and a closed-loop of winning teams has done more than anything to alienate fans. Only ten teams have won races from 2003 onward, and one of them - Cal Wells - disbanded after 2006 while another - Morton-Bowers Racing - was bought out by billionaire Robert Ginn. On top of this several other teams in the sport - Ray Evernham, Robert Yates, and Petty Enterprises - are almost certain to be either bought out or take on big-money partners just to keep racing.
The sport's rules packages have for the most part done nothing to alter any of this, and frequently have made it worse. The Car Of Tomorrow is the most graphic such example; the roof spoiler package was abandoned after 2001 (though it returned for BGN in 2004); high downforce has given way to the 5&5 rule; and the hard-tire package of 2001-2 - which helped see 26 winners among 14 teams - was abandoned.
Whether coming from the view of Peter DeLorenzo or someone else, the fact remains that the sport needs to drop the "yes-man" coverage so depressingly common and start acting toward real solutions for the sport's real problems.
DeLorenzo notes the massive drop in TV ratings from the start of 2004 - interestingly, the launching point of the Chase For The Championship, implemented ostensibly to boost ratings - onward across the country. "That the wheels are coming off the NASCAR money train shouldn't be a surprise to anyone." Indeed, as the decline in ratings and attendence have shown, NASCAR is not as hot as it once was, and the more it tries to market itself the worse it gets.
DeLorenzo runs off a laundry list of reasons for the sport's decline - "Sky-high ticket prices, empty seats, market oversaturation, too many sponsors creating a paralyzing amount of message clutter, the abandonment of traditional dates and racetracks, cookie-cutter cars that bear no resemblence to recognizable production car versions, too many races, etc."
The problem in this list is that some of the reasons are wrong. "Cookie-cutter cars that bear no resemblence to recognizable production car versions?" What is he talking about? Because the racecar versions of the Monte Carlo have an airdam, side skirts, etc. they do not resemble their production breathren? This is the revisionist history that permeates a lot of discussion, the notion that "stock cars used to really be stock cars." The fact of the matter is stock cars stopped being stock as soon as the sanctioning body was founded, and when superspeedways were built - by far the biggest single reason for the sport's growth - stock cars could no longer have any serious stock quality. They had to evolve into racecars.
And too many races? If anything the sport has too few races. The anger over some of the sport's markets would not be there to any extent if the sport had simply stayed at North Wilkesboro and Darlington - it was the way Texas and other tracks got onto the schedule, at the expense of North Wilkesboro and Darlington, that drives anger, not the fact of these new tracks themselves. What drives anger over now-abandoned projects in NYC and Washington State is that such tracks were aimed at replacing existing tracks instead of simply being added onto the schedule.
Certainly the reality of demographics argues against tracks in NYC and the Seattle area regardless of that, and one cannot deny that it is the "redneck" demographic that makes the sport - "Are we moonshiners, country music, banjos, and Route 66? Or are we merlot and Rodeo Drive?" as Humpy Wheeler has frequently asked. The fact is that merlot and Rodeo Drive do not account for any serious percentage of a sport's demographic, and the sport needs to stop trying to cater to merlot and Rodeo Drive.
Incredibly, DeLorenzo misses the most salient failing accounting for the sport's decline in popularity, and it it summed up in this question -
Where Are The Lead Changes?
It is telling that Talladega almost alone in the sport has not seen significant losses in attendence or TV ratings - with a per-race average of 40 lead changes from 2000 onward, it is all too easy to see why, and it is all too relevent to ask - why can't these other tracks also break the 40-lead-change barrier?
The sport's Dead-Lane Era of uncompetitive racing and a closed-loop of winning teams has done more than anything to alienate fans. Only ten teams have won races from 2003 onward, and one of them - Cal Wells - disbanded after 2006 while another - Morton-Bowers Racing - was bought out by billionaire Robert Ginn. On top of this several other teams in the sport - Ray Evernham, Robert Yates, and Petty Enterprises - are almost certain to be either bought out or take on big-money partners just to keep racing.
The sport's rules packages have for the most part done nothing to alter any of this, and frequently have made it worse. The Car Of Tomorrow is the most graphic such example; the roof spoiler package was abandoned after 2001 (though it returned for BGN in 2004); high downforce has given way to the 5&5 rule; and the hard-tire package of 2001-2 - which helped see 26 winners among 14 teams - was abandoned.
Whether coming from the view of Peter DeLorenzo or someone else, the fact remains that the sport needs to drop the "yes-man" coverage so depressingly common and start acting toward real solutions for the sport's real problems.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
NASCAR: Buyers Beware, Indeed
The title should say it all - Buyers Beware. That some outside the Race-Stream Media get it only makes it more frustrating that those in the sanctioning body seem not to get it, and based on some of John Darby's quotes, there seems widespread denial in the sanctioning body about the sport's costs and the absurdity of its economic system.
Morton-Bowers really got the investor trend started, and it's paid off in very substantial performance gains for the organization. John W. Henry's investment in Roush Racing has helped them keep pace, and word is that Robert Kraft is being wooed by Robert Yates, this as Ray Evernham and Richard Petty have both talked to the Montreal Canadiens ownership.
But do we really want a sport that requires billionaires to keep teams going? And with all the talk of inter-team cooperation and alliances, where is the talk of inter-team revenue sharing? Where is the lobby for some kind of hard spending cap?
Buyers need to be beware, but it is NASCAR in far greater need of awareness.
Morton-Bowers really got the investor trend started, and it's paid off in very substantial performance gains for the organization. John W. Henry's investment in Roush Racing has helped them keep pace, and word is that Robert Kraft is being wooed by Robert Yates, this as Ray Evernham and Richard Petty have both talked to the Montreal Canadiens ownership.
But do we really want a sport that requires billionaires to keep teams going? And with all the talk of inter-team cooperation and alliances, where is the talk of inter-team revenue sharing? Where is the lobby for some kind of hard spending cap?
Buyers need to be beware, but it is NASCAR in far greater need of awareness.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Bruton Boasts While Burton Wins
Bruton Smith was at it again, boasting about his tracks and lobbying for a second date at Las Vegas. His verbiage sounded a lot more hollow, however, when one noticed that at the Texas 500 about half of the backstretch grandstands were closed off from spectators, replaced with mammoth sponsor signage. Even Bruton Smith isn't immune to the realities of a sport's erosion of popularity, which doesn't bode well for his case for a second Vegas date.
Meanwhile, Jeff Burton made history. He won the very first Texas 500 in 1997, and ten years later he became not only the first Winston Cup driver to win more than once at Texas, he became the winner of the first Texas Winston Cup race where the lead changed hands on the final lap. Worth noting is that in the ten years of Texas racing, Pocono saw two races where the lead changed on the final lap, Atlanta saw it twice, and Talladega saw it four times.
That it took Winston Cup this long to see racing anywhere close to what the IRL had put on with such frequency at Texas shows how wrong-headed NASCAR's rulesmakers have been over the years. They continue to look at downforce as the enemy when it is a major part of the solution. They ignore the need for the draft to kick in - not that this particular race saw any kind of drafting effect, just that the IRL proved long ago how much passing is helped by the draft. They continue to ignore the issue that to get good racing the cars need grip - so much grip as to stick anywhere and thus eliminate impediment to passing.
This Texas 500 may not be a ringing endorsement of any rules package other than reconfirmation of what NASCAR needs to learn but still hasn't, but it is interesting that the finish was so much more exciting than what we saw in the two Car Of Tomorrow races - worth mentioning because of recent scuttlebutt that the first serious design change to the COT may be in the pipeline. Of course if a major design change is coming, it is sure to be followed by another after that, and more after that, and one can easily see a scenario where the COT evolves back to what this Texas 500 raced.
Chevrolet continued to monopolize the series right now, leaving non-Chevy fans looking for scraps. Dodge fans can take heart from Juan Montoya's productive top ten, but should also cringe at the continued lack of competitive depth in the Dodge program and take note of the continued chaos that is the entire program's leadership, chaos that has wiped out the inter-team cooperation and thus the very depth the program needs. Of course Montoya's run saw another Swervin' move, this one against Tony Stewart, himself not exactly a repository of sane racing.
The ultimate irony of this Texas 500 is that everything has come full circle - the Texas 500 saw a first-lap melee, controversial driving, difficulty in passing, and Jeff Burton's win.
Meanwhile, Jeff Burton made history. He won the very first Texas 500 in 1997, and ten years later he became not only the first Winston Cup driver to win more than once at Texas, he became the winner of the first Texas Winston Cup race where the lead changed hands on the final lap. Worth noting is that in the ten years of Texas racing, Pocono saw two races where the lead changed on the final lap, Atlanta saw it twice, and Talladega saw it four times.
That it took Winston Cup this long to see racing anywhere close to what the IRL had put on with such frequency at Texas shows how wrong-headed NASCAR's rulesmakers have been over the years. They continue to look at downforce as the enemy when it is a major part of the solution. They ignore the need for the draft to kick in - not that this particular race saw any kind of drafting effect, just that the IRL proved long ago how much passing is helped by the draft. They continue to ignore the issue that to get good racing the cars need grip - so much grip as to stick anywhere and thus eliminate impediment to passing.
This Texas 500 may not be a ringing endorsement of any rules package other than reconfirmation of what NASCAR needs to learn but still hasn't, but it is interesting that the finish was so much more exciting than what we saw in the two Car Of Tomorrow races - worth mentioning because of recent scuttlebutt that the first serious design change to the COT may be in the pipeline. Of course if a major design change is coming, it is sure to be followed by another after that, and more after that, and one can easily see a scenario where the COT evolves back to what this Texas 500 raced.
Chevrolet continued to monopolize the series right now, leaving non-Chevy fans looking for scraps. Dodge fans can take heart from Juan Montoya's productive top ten, but should also cringe at the continued lack of competitive depth in the Dodge program and take note of the continued chaos that is the entire program's leadership, chaos that has wiped out the inter-team cooperation and thus the very depth the program needs. Of course Montoya's run saw another Swervin' move, this one against Tony Stewart, himself not exactly a repository of sane racing.
The ultimate irony of this Texas 500 is that everything has come full circle - the Texas 500 saw a first-lap melee, controversial driving, difficulty in passing, and Jeff Burton's win.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Sadr's Madhi Uprising Going Nowhere
At least Sadr himself admits such. Too bad Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama or whoever else is whining about the Iraq situation aren't so forthcoming.
Monday, April 09, 2007
Anatomies Of Deception And Illogic
Two recent articles illustrate the related problems of deception and illogic. The first dissects the deception involved in MSM coverage of a soldier's death, while the second examines dissects the illogic of the Supreme Court's ruling giving the EPA power to regulate "greenhouse" gases, including carbon dioxide. And an example of deception and illogic is found in a key area of Al Gore's global warming sham.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
John Darby Keeps Talking Out His Butt
The Virginia 500 at Martinsville hardly qualified as a great race, and a big reason was the continuation of the Car Of Tomorrow as the drivers continued to avoid hard racing both because of increased push from the gapped front-end design and to avoid grinding off the front splitter. What kept the race close was the usual allotment of crashes, notably Juan Montoya's bully act that is getting tiresome.
NASCAR's John Darby has been point man in the spin campaign defending the COT and in such capacity is talking out his butt much of the time. He isn't the only one doing so - witness Robin Pemberton's absurd "A" grade to the COT after Bristol - but right now Darby is the more egregious here. His comments on the rash of fires from the use of foam padding in these cars is often mind-boggling and his general takes on the COT have been silly when not outright preposterous - his repeated comments about "stopping the practice of teams building 20 cars for 20 different tracks" totally ignored reality.
Incredibly, Jimmy Spencer has gone along with this nonsense (to his credit he has questioned the use of a wing instead of spoiler), criticizing drivers for "being soft" and talking about how they have to drive their cars now, never mind that they're not able to race anyone with this car.
The COT gets a respite until Phoenix, so for one week at least the sport gets back the flush-airdam/spoilered cars it has run for so long.
NASCAR's John Darby has been point man in the spin campaign defending the COT and in such capacity is talking out his butt much of the time. He isn't the only one doing so - witness Robin Pemberton's absurd "A" grade to the COT after Bristol - but right now Darby is the more egregious here. His comments on the rash of fires from the use of foam padding in these cars is often mind-boggling and his general takes on the COT have been silly when not outright preposterous - his repeated comments about "stopping the practice of teams building 20 cars for 20 different tracks" totally ignored reality.
Incredibly, Jimmy Spencer has gone along with this nonsense (to his credit he has questioned the use of a wing instead of spoiler), criticizing drivers for "being soft" and talking about how they have to drive their cars now, never mind that they're not able to race anyone with this car.
The COT gets a respite until Phoenix, so for one week at least the sport gets back the flush-airdam/spoilered cars it has run for so long.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Sidney Lumet's Cinematic Brilliance
Recently came this look back at the motion picture 12 Angry Men examining the deceptive nature of its political outlook. 12 Angry Men is one of the iconic films of Hollywood more because of its leftism - albiet rather subtle leftism - than because of its cinematic quality. It's also been a staple of high school required reading - yours truly had the fortune of reading Henry Fonda's character in 10th grade English class way back a quarter-century ago.
Now 12 Angry Men may be revered for its ideological hue placed on the murder trial of an 18-year-old boy - whose racial makeup is left unstated but which is presumably either black or latino, hence the film's outlook - and the titular jury's deliberation on a hot New York day, but it's still a superior presentation, featuring one of the best ensemble casts of its time or any other. Henry Fonda and Lee J. Cobb are the primary combatants, but they are backed by a dazzling supporting cast that includes Jack Klugman, E.G. Marshall, John Fiedler, Edward Binns, Jack Warden, Robert Webber, Ed Begley, and Martin Balsam. It's ironic that quite a few of these performers had notable guest roles in The Fugitive with David Janssen, Barry Morse, and Bill Raisch - another iconic statement about the folly of the death penalty when the innocent are the target, and another filmed presentation whose superior quality overcomes ideological objection to its view of the world.
12 Angry Men was one of many films directed by Sidney Lumet, and it's no accident that it is one of his three best films. It has in common with the other two that they have strong and disagreeable ideological viewpoints as well as brilliant execution in script and by the cast, production, and director.
Fail-Safe is the second of Lumet's best films. Based on Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler's 1962 novel, it was produced by Columbia Pictures at the same time they were backing Stanley Kubrick's epic black comedy Dr. Strangelove. Kubrick used his influence to get his film released first, and as a result Fail-Safe got lost in the shuffle.
This is too bad, because in some ways Lumet's film is the better of the two. While nothing tops Peter Sellers' spectacular triple role of the titular Strangelove, RAF officer Lionel Mandrake, and the US President (it's always fascinating hearing British actors like Sellers, Barry Morse, and Jane Seymour speaking in American accents, as the best of them often speak the accent better than some American actors - heck, Seymour and Morse made a superb career out of it), Fail-Safe crackles with superb performances from Dan O'Herlihy, Walter Matthau, Frank Overton, Fritz Weaver, Edward Binns, Henry Fonda, Larry Hagman, and a short but brilliant dramatic turn by comedian Dom Deluise. As in 12 Angry Men Lumet uses claustrophobia to excellent effect, trapping the audience in the bowels of Strategic Air Command HQ, the Pentagon, the cockpit of a supersonic nuclear bomber, and the President's underground nuclear command chamber. By no means is the film a realistic portrayal of such facilities in reallife - the "Hot Line" in the film is a bulky telephone with headphones for use by translators, where in reallife the Hot Line was a teletype communicator - but they succeed in terms of dramatic pull nonetheless.
The story revolves around a bomber squadron led by Colonel Jack Grady (Binns). A failure of a fault indicator at SAC HQ leads to routine replacement of the part in question; when the bulky part is replaced, the SAC computer system reboots, but in so doing it activates the strategic attack code box aboard Jack Grady's warplane, and by a fatal confluence the Russians begin jamming the squadron's radios so they can't contact home; forced to proceed on the assumption that nuclear war has broken out, Grady's squadron proceeds toward its target - Moscow. It is from here that the story revs up as SAC and the President work to stop the bombers, but are frustrated by the skill and working orders of the squadron pilots as well as the power of their planes.
The story's ideological flaw stems from its portrayal of General Warren Black (O'Herlihy) and political scientist Walter Groteschele (Matthau). Groteschele has some audacious ideas about nuclear warfare, some of which come out in a dinner discussion with a local writer named Foster (Dana Elcar of MacGyver fame) where Foster loudly objects to Groteschele's notion that a nuclear war does not necessarily have to escalate to the point of the complete annihilation of the world. The notion that use of nuclear weapons would ipso facto escalate to armageddon has always been the bumper-sticker boilerplate of liberalism's view of such devices - never mind that at the end there is indeed an exchange of nuclear blows, which does not escalate. The audience is supposed to side with Foster and later Warren Black in disputes with Groteschele, especially when Groteschele argues that Soviet Russia will surrender to the US as the squadron penetrates Soviet airspace, an idea too absurd to be believed by any serious individual and which as a result hurts the story's dramatic pull. Yet even here irony creeps in, for Groteschele's argument winds up being partially vindicated as the Russians prove even more afraid of war than the US.
Warren Black is supposed to have the decisive line when he tells Groteschele, "You remember (Nazi tyranny) so well that you're no different from what you want to kill." Never mind that Groteschele's larger point - that Soviet Russia was the enemy of the West that had launched Cold War upon the West - was accurate; never mind also that the Russians escalated a comparatively simple attack code snafu into outright crisis by refusing to let the US contact their planes - and also lie about it to the President.
Letting ideology trump common sense continues as throughout the varied negotiations with the Russians - first between the President and the Red Chairman via the Hot Line, later between SAC General Frank Bogan (Overton) and his Soviet counterpart via an identical communication system - an absurd moral equivalence permeates things - "You have the same equipment we do, what did it tell you?" the President pointedly asks at one point; "We have computers, like yours," the Red Chairman states later; "We got a taste of the future, do we learn from it or go on the way we have?" the President angrilly asks at the end.
The absurdity of the confluence of events in the film is why the US Air Force asked for the disclaimer at the film's end, and the disclaimer was correct in being added.
Yet for all that the film is outstanding storytelling, from Lumet's claustrophobic direction through the excellence of the entire cast - when a Technical Sergeant (Deluise) must reveal to the Russians how to detonate nuclear-tipped air to air missiles, the performance is made so well that it leaves the audience shaken watching the man limp back to his desk at SAC HQ, head bowed in shame. The film works so well that even the preposterous ending - SPOILER WARNING - the President vows to the Russians that if Moscow is destroyed he will sacrifice New York City to appease the Russians, and carries out this promise by ordering Warren Black to launch two 20-megaton bombs onto the Big Apple using the Empire State Building for Ground Zero - works.
--------------------------------------
The other of Lumet's three best films is Network. A rambling attack both on the power of television and also of large corporations, the film revolves around the fictional UBS TV network and its star newscaster Howard Beale (Peter Finch, who passed away after completing work on the film Raid On Entebbe and received a posthumous Oscar for Network). Beale is fired and goes on-air to announce that he will kill himself. He requests permission to issue an on-air apology, but is becoming insane. UBS is owned by a company called CCA, and its hatchet man is Frank Hackett (Robert Duvall, who seemingly can never fail with any role he gets), who despises UBS' news division chief Max Schumacher (William Holden) and the annual deficits his division runs. At a stockholders' meeting Hackett stabs Schumacher in the back by announcing a network reorganization that takes away his power; Max retaliates by letting Howard Beale go on-air and make a vulgar rambling commentary about life.
Schumacher is fired by network cheif Edward George Ruddy (William Smith, perhaps better known from the 1977 Clint Eastwood film The Gauntlet) but rehired when ratings for UBS' newscasts explode whenever Howard Beale is on. Max sees Beale becoming more and more insane and is livid because Frank Hackett and programming chief Diana Christenson (Faye Dunawaye in one of the few roles of her career that actually accomplishes something) want to exploit him for the network's ratings.
Hackett fires Schumacher once and for all just before Beale sneaks onto the news set and delivers his most insane speech yet, urging the audience to start yelling "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" He thus gets his own talk-show-style series that brings in enormous ratings, but his downfall begins when he reveals that a Saudi front company has purchased CCA and demands viewers lobby the government to stop the deal. To the horror of everyone except Christenson, Beale's speech leads to an avalanche of telegrams to Washington DC demanding the deal be stopped, even though the Saudi front company literally controls the network.
CCA chief Arthur Jensen (Ned Beatty) then gives a growling pep talk to Howard Beale explaining the reality that dollars control things, so Beale does a spectacular about-face and devotes his speeches to pessimistic takes on life and the powerlessness of people. UBS thus begins to collapse, and the only way out is for Christenson to hire out a gang of terrorists who've been a pet project of hers - this leads to the film's funniest scene when the terrorists fight bitterly over royalties from their proposed TV deal, with one of their own calling them out about acting like those despised capitalists - to gun down Beale on his TV show.
The rambling nature of the film's message stems in part from the fact that the script is a black-humor satire by noted playwright Paddy Chayevsky. This rambling nature makes it difficult for the audience to really catch what the message is - are we supposed to hate TV for being TV, or for letting corporations control things? That corporations do not wield the clout the film implies comes through every day by the often reprehensible treatment they get from government, the MSM, and so forth - when was the last time a film or TV show ever stood up for corporations and against their critics? Even so, Lumet steers a brilliant story forward into a crackling good film.
This really conveys how good a director Sidney Lumet was. Almost regardless of how absurd the story's point of view can be, Lumet tells it and makes the audience enjoy it.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
How Good Is Old School?
MD80891 makes good points in discussing the COT spin campaign that began almost as soon as the checkered flag fell at Bristol. Among the points he makes is the repeated use of the term "old school" by defenders of the COT. It is worth examining because there is a very romanticized view of Old School racing and one needs to look back to see how much of that romanticized view is really relevent to the present.
An argument often made is that "back in the day" the racers had to really drive their cars, had to manhandle their cars, etc. whereas modern drivers simply aim their cars, do not have to exert themselves as much, and so forth. What this argument so often ignores is that back in the day there were quite a few differences in the cars compared to today - they were substantially heavier; they ran bias-ply tires which could be "raced" differently from radials, a difference still seen today at tracks such as NHIS where Busch East cars run bias-plies when running companion races with Winston Cup, BGN, and Trucks; a lot of the limits placed on the cars today, such as sway bar size and mounting, were not issues back then; template rules were far more relaxed by today's standards; and the cars had just over half the horsepower of present cars. They were thus some five or more seconds a lap slower at virtually all the tracks compared to today.
There were also some important differences to some of the tracks, Bristol in particular. It had an asphalt surface that was frequently treated with sealer to prevent cracking. It was notorious for forcing cars to run the high grooves and when cars wanted to race side by side they did so with more frequency than on concrete surfaces.
When discussing aerodynamics a common argument is that the cars back then didn't run as much spoiler etc. as today, an argument that ignores that spoiler sizes increased as the cars got faster and less stable; when NASCAR faced issues of car stability it answered by increasing downforce, and it consistently worked. The "old school" revisionism of today ignores that the drivers then wanted more, not less, grip for their cars, and teams worked to get more grip - indeed, Kyle Busch's postrace blast at the COT at Bristol mirrored driver complaints about the cars they'd had to switch to early in 1978 - "The Dodge Magnum is undriveable at 190," Richard Petty said while Donnie Allison said, "I can't drive the Olds, it moves around too much." Cale Yarborough said in Daytona qualifying, "I couldn't hold my breath any longer, you wouldn't believe how unstable the car is." NASCAR increased spoiler size to get the cars stable, and things more or less settled down.
The simple fact is that Old School racing was often better than today, but it was never because of lack of stability or lack of grip; the cars had as much grip as was possible back then. Certainly "back in the day" the answer to issues of competition was never to punish aggressive racing or setups; it was never to cut downforce.
The implicit notion is that "Old School" drivers would not want more grip for their cars, would not want this or that, etc. This, though, ignores that racers want to be able to race in a car that sticks to the track and can take the lead of the race; the old school fought for more downforce and so forth as much as today's generation of racers.
Nostalgia for the old school isn't a bad thing, until it is distorted to justify a bad rules package. The Old School was cited to defend the varied incarnations of the failed 5&5 rule and is being used again to justify the COT. When this happens then "old school" becomes unrecognizible.
An argument often made is that "back in the day" the racers had to really drive their cars, had to manhandle their cars, etc. whereas modern drivers simply aim their cars, do not have to exert themselves as much, and so forth. What this argument so often ignores is that back in the day there were quite a few differences in the cars compared to today - they were substantially heavier; they ran bias-ply tires which could be "raced" differently from radials, a difference still seen today at tracks such as NHIS where Busch East cars run bias-plies when running companion races with Winston Cup, BGN, and Trucks; a lot of the limits placed on the cars today, such as sway bar size and mounting, were not issues back then; template rules were far more relaxed by today's standards; and the cars had just over half the horsepower of present cars. They were thus some five or more seconds a lap slower at virtually all the tracks compared to today.
There were also some important differences to some of the tracks, Bristol in particular. It had an asphalt surface that was frequently treated with sealer to prevent cracking. It was notorious for forcing cars to run the high grooves and when cars wanted to race side by side they did so with more frequency than on concrete surfaces.
When discussing aerodynamics a common argument is that the cars back then didn't run as much spoiler etc. as today, an argument that ignores that spoiler sizes increased as the cars got faster and less stable; when NASCAR faced issues of car stability it answered by increasing downforce, and it consistently worked. The "old school" revisionism of today ignores that the drivers then wanted more, not less, grip for their cars, and teams worked to get more grip - indeed, Kyle Busch's postrace blast at the COT at Bristol mirrored driver complaints about the cars they'd had to switch to early in 1978 - "The Dodge Magnum is undriveable at 190," Richard Petty said while Donnie Allison said, "I can't drive the Olds, it moves around too much." Cale Yarborough said in Daytona qualifying, "I couldn't hold my breath any longer, you wouldn't believe how unstable the car is." NASCAR increased spoiler size to get the cars stable, and things more or less settled down.
The simple fact is that Old School racing was often better than today, but it was never because of lack of stability or lack of grip; the cars had as much grip as was possible back then. Certainly "back in the day" the answer to issues of competition was never to punish aggressive racing or setups; it was never to cut downforce.
The implicit notion is that "Old School" drivers would not want more grip for their cars, would not want this or that, etc. This, though, ignores that racers want to be able to race in a car that sticks to the track and can take the lead of the race; the old school fought for more downforce and so forth as much as today's generation of racers.
Nostalgia for the old school isn't a bad thing, until it is distorted to justify a bad rules package. The Old School was cited to defend the varied incarnations of the failed 5&5 rule and is being used again to justify the COT. When this happens then "old school" becomes unrecognizible.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Southeastern 500 Winners And Losers
The Southeastern 500 of 2007 has been run and Kyle Busch survived a late scare from Jeff Burton for his first win of the season. Being the debut race of NASCAR's SpecCar/Car Of Tomorrow it has gotten unusually tight attention, and a listing of winners and losers is in order.
------------------------------------------------
WINNERS -
HENDRICK MOTORSPORTS - Two of their cars could either struggle or hit the wall and yet the Hendrick fleet has enough depth to win and finish in the top three. Jeff Gordon's rally from a mediocre mid-portion of the race was somewhat surprising given that his effort over the past year has been more uneven than it had been over the course of his career. Casey Mears, meanwhile, recovered from several incidents and finished an encouraging tenth.
RCR ENTERPRISES - Kevin Harvick had a dismal qualifying session, yet through pit cycling and some hard running he finished fourth. Jeff Burton, meanwhile, nearly stole the whole show at the end with an audacious restart in the final laps, passing Jeff Gordon high with two to go. Clint Bowyer, meanwhile, went largely unnoticed en route to a solid eighth place.
JEFF GREEN - Strong all weekend, Green finally got breaks his way to finish sixth.
JAMIE McMURRAY - The black sheep of the Roush/Fenway fleet finally surged forward in a race and hung tough all day.
CARL EDWARDS - Over the last year-plus seeing Carl Edwards running strong has become less and less frequent, but here he was mixing it up well after his BGN win.
BRIAN VICKERS and MIKE BLISS - Just making the race was an accomplishment; running strong all day was even better.
--------------------------------------------------
But with winners, we have plenty of losers -
LOSERS -
THE CAR OF TOMORROW - Finally fans got to see what a year of testing indicated - the car races poorly in dirty air. Kyle Busch made that point abundantly clear. Literally no one could get the car balanced properly and anyone from fifth on back was largely DOA as far as catching the leaders went. For the entirety of the race the drivers could ill-afford to race aggressively; of course being Bristol this fact could be explained away, but the COT's punishment of aggressive racing and setups nonetheless showed itself to all.
ROBERT YATES RACING - All of a sudden David Gilliland is falling off the map; the wreck can't be blamed on him but it comes amid less and less muscle being displayed in his racing. Ricky Rudd meanwhile looks just plain poor in that racecar.
RAY EVERNHAM MOTORSPORTS - They all qualified superbly and for awhile raced well, but blown tires and wrecks wiped out any chance of a decent finish.
JOE GIBBS RACING - This is one that will haunt the organization for awhile. First Tony Stewart has the race in his hip pocket and then a fuel pump cable breaks and he loses 25 laps. Then Denny Hamlin takes over but late in the race gets waylaid in lapped traffic and loses the lead, then almost wrecks on a late restart and loses the top ten.
DAVID RAGAN - Welcome to Bristol, David - did your dad Ken ever talk about this place?
JUAN MONTOYA - He was one of the few drivers actually trying to make something happen, and it cost him big time; that he only lost seven laps is amazing.
MICHAEL WALTRIP RACING - Talladega headline - "MICHAEL WALTRIP RACING A NO-GO AT TALLADEGA: Former track winners Waltrip, Jarrett once again fail to qualify" - yes, chances are it's come down to this for Dale Jarrett.
ROBERT GINN RACING - Regan Smith took over for Mark Martin as scheduled, but it was a bad weekend for the organization as Joe Nemechek failed to make the race and both Smith and Sterling Marlin had subpar days.
DODGE - The highest-finishing Dodge was David Stremme in 12th. It was a bad day all around - Ganassi's Avengers aside from Stremme wrecked or spun; Evernham's guys wrecked; Petty's two Dodges could never get out of traffic; and Penske's Panzers resembled George Peppard's flame-thrower scenes in Tobruk.
NASCAR - NASCAR was a loser not just because of the poor showing of the COT, it was also a loser with AT&T's lawsuit over NASCAR's ban on use of its logos on Jeff Burton's car. It brings back reminder that NASCAR is overstepping badly in dictating to sponsors instead of welcoming them with open arms.
-------------------------------------------
So now the SpecCar travels to Martinsville, and chances are its weaknesses as a racecar will be exacerbated by Martinsville's hairpin flatness.
Stay tuned for more verbiage like from Kyle Busch after winning the Southeastern 500.
------------------------------------------------
WINNERS -
HENDRICK MOTORSPORTS - Two of their cars could either struggle or hit the wall and yet the Hendrick fleet has enough depth to win and finish in the top three. Jeff Gordon's rally from a mediocre mid-portion of the race was somewhat surprising given that his effort over the past year has been more uneven than it had been over the course of his career. Casey Mears, meanwhile, recovered from several incidents and finished an encouraging tenth.
RCR ENTERPRISES - Kevin Harvick had a dismal qualifying session, yet through pit cycling and some hard running he finished fourth. Jeff Burton, meanwhile, nearly stole the whole show at the end with an audacious restart in the final laps, passing Jeff Gordon high with two to go. Clint Bowyer, meanwhile, went largely unnoticed en route to a solid eighth place.
JEFF GREEN - Strong all weekend, Green finally got breaks his way to finish sixth.
JAMIE McMURRAY - The black sheep of the Roush/Fenway fleet finally surged forward in a race and hung tough all day.
CARL EDWARDS - Over the last year-plus seeing Carl Edwards running strong has become less and less frequent, but here he was mixing it up well after his BGN win.
BRIAN VICKERS and MIKE BLISS - Just making the race was an accomplishment; running strong all day was even better.
--------------------------------------------------
But with winners, we have plenty of losers -
LOSERS -
THE CAR OF TOMORROW - Finally fans got to see what a year of testing indicated - the car races poorly in dirty air. Kyle Busch made that point abundantly clear. Literally no one could get the car balanced properly and anyone from fifth on back was largely DOA as far as catching the leaders went. For the entirety of the race the drivers could ill-afford to race aggressively; of course being Bristol this fact could be explained away, but the COT's punishment of aggressive racing and setups nonetheless showed itself to all.
ROBERT YATES RACING - All of a sudden David Gilliland is falling off the map; the wreck can't be blamed on him but it comes amid less and less muscle being displayed in his racing. Ricky Rudd meanwhile looks just plain poor in that racecar.
RAY EVERNHAM MOTORSPORTS - They all qualified superbly and for awhile raced well, but blown tires and wrecks wiped out any chance of a decent finish.
JOE GIBBS RACING - This is one that will haunt the organization for awhile. First Tony Stewart has the race in his hip pocket and then a fuel pump cable breaks and he loses 25 laps. Then Denny Hamlin takes over but late in the race gets waylaid in lapped traffic and loses the lead, then almost wrecks on a late restart and loses the top ten.
DAVID RAGAN - Welcome to Bristol, David - did your dad Ken ever talk about this place?
JUAN MONTOYA - He was one of the few drivers actually trying to make something happen, and it cost him big time; that he only lost seven laps is amazing.
MICHAEL WALTRIP RACING - Talladega headline - "MICHAEL WALTRIP RACING A NO-GO AT TALLADEGA: Former track winners Waltrip, Jarrett once again fail to qualify" - yes, chances are it's come down to this for Dale Jarrett.
ROBERT GINN RACING - Regan Smith took over for Mark Martin as scheduled, but it was a bad weekend for the organization as Joe Nemechek failed to make the race and both Smith and Sterling Marlin had subpar days.
DODGE - The highest-finishing Dodge was David Stremme in 12th. It was a bad day all around - Ganassi's Avengers aside from Stremme wrecked or spun; Evernham's guys wrecked; Petty's two Dodges could never get out of traffic; and Penske's Panzers resembled George Peppard's flame-thrower scenes in Tobruk.
NASCAR - NASCAR was a loser not just because of the poor showing of the COT, it was also a loser with AT&T's lawsuit over NASCAR's ban on use of its logos on Jeff Burton's car. It brings back reminder that NASCAR is overstepping badly in dictating to sponsors instead of welcoming them with open arms.
-------------------------------------------
So now the SpecCar travels to Martinsville, and chances are its weaknesses as a racecar will be exacerbated by Martinsville's hairpin flatness.
Stay tuned for more verbiage like from Kyle Busch after winning the Southeastern 500.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
IRL Begins Difficult Season
The Indy Racing League begins what is likely to be a difficult season with the Homestead 300 on Saturday night. The 2006 season was difficult enough with only two teams all but monopolizing the season and Penske Racing winning it all yet again, something they weren't able to do earlier this decade in IRL.
Therein lies the league's competitive difficulty. Earlier this decade it showed a nice diversity of winners and could be counted on for breathtakingly ferocious racing up front - its intermediate superspeedway races were must-see races with all-time greats at Texas in 1998, 2000, 2001 (twice), and 2002, at Chicagoland in 2002-4, and at Kansas in 2001, 2004, and 2005. Kentucky also displayed excellent racing in 2000, 2002, and 2004 and the 500 saw some terrific racing in 2005 followed by its greatest finish ever in 2006.
Homestead qualifying didn't indicate that the ennui of 2006 will change right now, as Ganassi Racing's Dan Wheldon won the pole and Sam Hornish of Penske timed second. Andretti-Green Racing had several strong spots other than Little Miss Perfect Danica Patrick, who was slower this year than she was last year and was well off the pace of her teammates. Maybe this year the league as a group finally figures out that Danica Patrick is a fraud.
Uninspired qualifying efforts came from Panther Racing, Vision Racing, and A.J. Foyt's team; the downfall of Foyt's team remains a stain on Indycar racing.
IRL has restructured its management team for 2007 and that restructured management needs to come up with some different ideas as well as to get back to what made Indycar racing great. It needs larger car counts and it needs much better racing than it generally had last year. The kind of continuous sidedraft battles up front that were once a staple of the league became a rarity in 2006, never a good sign for racing.
It needs, in short, to make itself relevent again.
POSTSCRIPT - Dan Wheldon pretty much had his way in a rain-marred Miami Indy 300, beating the Penske cars and an encouraging effort by Panther Racing. Andretti-Green Racing had a terrible night. The racing was for the most part uncompetitive, showing how much work the league faces in improving its competitive product and also showcasing how overrated the use of progressive banking is for racetracks.
Therein lies the league's competitive difficulty. Earlier this decade it showed a nice diversity of winners and could be counted on for breathtakingly ferocious racing up front - its intermediate superspeedway races were must-see races with all-time greats at Texas in 1998, 2000, 2001 (twice), and 2002, at Chicagoland in 2002-4, and at Kansas in 2001, 2004, and 2005. Kentucky also displayed excellent racing in 2000, 2002, and 2004 and the 500 saw some terrific racing in 2005 followed by its greatest finish ever in 2006.
Homestead qualifying didn't indicate that the ennui of 2006 will change right now, as Ganassi Racing's Dan Wheldon won the pole and Sam Hornish of Penske timed second. Andretti-Green Racing had several strong spots other than Little Miss Perfect Danica Patrick, who was slower this year than she was last year and was well off the pace of her teammates. Maybe this year the league as a group finally figures out that Danica Patrick is a fraud.
Uninspired qualifying efforts came from Panther Racing, Vision Racing, and A.J. Foyt's team; the downfall of Foyt's team remains a stain on Indycar racing.
IRL has restructured its management team for 2007 and that restructured management needs to come up with some different ideas as well as to get back to what made Indycar racing great. It needs larger car counts and it needs much better racing than it generally had last year. The kind of continuous sidedraft battles up front that were once a staple of the league became a rarity in 2006, never a good sign for racing.
It needs, in short, to make itself relevent again.
POSTSCRIPT - Dan Wheldon pretty much had his way in a rain-marred Miami Indy 300, beating the Penske cars and an encouraging effort by Panther Racing. Andretti-Green Racing had a terrible night. The racing was for the most part uncompetitive, showing how much work the league faces in improving its competitive product and also showcasing how overrated the use of progressive banking is for racetracks.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Two Kinds Of Gas Pains In Iraq
Two kinds of gas pains can be found in Iraq right now. The first is the use of poison gases by the enemy and its comparative ineffectiveness, a possible sign amid the surging success of the recent Baghdad cleanup that the enemy is weakening more.
Then there is the absurd system of gas station rationing seen in Tikrit, which shows how backward that area of the world can be and how difficult it is to fix it. Nonetheless, one can feel confident that even this will see positive change.
Then there is the absurd system of gas station rationing seen in Tikrit, which shows how backward that area of the world can be and how difficult it is to fix it. Nonetheless, one can feel confident that even this will see positive change.
A Superbly Biting Look At Billary Milhous Clinton
One has to look pretty far to find a better, more biting look at the bizarre phenomenon known as Bill and Hillary.
NASCAR Needs To Decide Something
The question of just what NASCAR really is right now is a pertinent one with more and more controversy over more and more areas of the sport and with the twin obsessions of TV ratings and attendence still a serious issue. It is often said, "NASCAR is big business." But one needs to ask the question - just how much is the business aspect of the sport supposed to trump the sporting aspect?
Monday, March 19, 2007
Bristol Debuts SpecCar
NASCAR's Car Of Tomorrow arrives at Bristol for real this weekend, and will certainly be the most micro-inspected NASCAR project in memory. In these analyses we will hear a lot about how the use of a wing instead of spoiler reduces turbulence behind a car and thus theoretically allow a trailing car to close up to pass. Never cited, however, is any example of passing increasing due to reduced turbulence. On the contrary, Indycar racing experience has proven that the opposite is the case, especially on superspeedways, where adding air-displacement devices and/or simply bulking up the bodies to generate more turbulence was what increased passing - yes, that pesky draft again, guys. It would seem that IRL has had to relearn that lesson as it reduced drag on its rear wings in 2006 but may be adding it back for 2007.
There is also the theory that the design will eliminate the variances in individual car designs so that teams can reuse superspeedway cars on short tracks and vice versa. No one, though, seems to be asking just what all those engineers on the sport's mega-teams are supposed to do with the Car Of Tomorrow. Can anyone buy the notion that these engineers are not going to attack the COT's tolerances and slice open holes to exploit and thus kill NASCAR's much-hoped cost reduction?
Then there is the fundamental unsoundness of the design. It is said the car will evolve, but given this it is impossible not to see it evolving back to what the cars have been for the last ten-plus years now - with a flush airdam, chopped roof, spoiler instead of a wing, etc. This basic design has proven itself sound.
While we'll need to see the race to start getting some answers, one thing should be certain - if the Car Of Tomorrow produces any kind of quality racing, it will be the biggest surprise in the sport in years.
There is also the theory that the design will eliminate the variances in individual car designs so that teams can reuse superspeedway cars on short tracks and vice versa. No one, though, seems to be asking just what all those engineers on the sport's mega-teams are supposed to do with the Car Of Tomorrow. Can anyone buy the notion that these engineers are not going to attack the COT's tolerances and slice open holes to exploit and thus kill NASCAR's much-hoped cost reduction?
Then there is the fundamental unsoundness of the design. It is said the car will evolve, but given this it is impossible not to see it evolving back to what the cars have been for the last ten-plus years now - with a flush airdam, chopped roof, spoiler instead of a wing, etc. This basic design has proven itself sound.
While we'll need to see the race to start getting some answers, one thing should be certain - if the Car Of Tomorrow produces any kind of quality racing, it will be the biggest surprise in the sport in years.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
NASCAR Now Overstepping - Badly
"Big Bill Sr. never competed with the companies that sponsored his sport's cars. He saw them as partners, and told his children that you didn't take food off a partner's plate."
Shaun Assael, WIDE OPEN: Days And Nights On The NASCAR Tour
NASCAR may now have begun going too far. Of course one can make the case that it crossed that Rubicon years ago, but now sponsors of racecars are under attack from the sanctioning body. It is now known that NASCAR has tried to strongarm at least one big-name sponsor into sponsoring a race, contingency award, and/or other action on top of what was already purchased, a combined cost that has driven some sponsors (as well as NBC Sports) out of the game altogether - as Athlon Sports put it before the season, "It made no sense for NBC to continue losing dollars, and the fault lies with NASCAR for demanding astronomical rights fees." By extension this includes sponsors directly priced out of the game by NASCAR "asking" them to spend money on areas they didn't want to go to.
Then there is NASCAR's Drive For Diversity, which is beginning to show the favoritism universal to all such "diversity" boondoggles when Juan Monotya was allowed to run at Darlington in a Goodyear tire test even though he wasn't scheduled for that test; the excuse that he has yet to run there in a Winston Cup race applies to David Ragan, Paul Menard, and the other rookies of this season, but then they're not "the chosen one" for the Drive For Diversity.
Now NASCAR is in trouble on two sponsor fronts. First it strongarmed Robby Gordon into yanking Motorola sponsorship decals from his car, and now it faces a lawsuit by AT&T over restrictions placed on its Cingular wireless logos on Jeff Burton's Chevrolet. More than one observor is noting the blatant absurdity of NASCAR's direct attack on some sponsors, and one need recall the flap that erupted over Kevin Harvick's Shell Oil sponsorship at the Daytona 500, a flap instigated by series sponsor Sunoco.
Such bullying crosses another line that the sport for so long recognized could not afford to be crossed, but which the Brian France administration more and more refuses to recognize. Clearly Brian France cannot be trusted with the sanctioning body anymore, and bullying of sponsors is all the reason one needs to fight back against him.
Shaun Assael, WIDE OPEN: Days And Nights On The NASCAR Tour
NASCAR may now have begun going too far. Of course one can make the case that it crossed that Rubicon years ago, but now sponsors of racecars are under attack from the sanctioning body. It is now known that NASCAR has tried to strongarm at least one big-name sponsor into sponsoring a race, contingency award, and/or other action on top of what was already purchased, a combined cost that has driven some sponsors (as well as NBC Sports) out of the game altogether - as Athlon Sports put it before the season, "It made no sense for NBC to continue losing dollars, and the fault lies with NASCAR for demanding astronomical rights fees." By extension this includes sponsors directly priced out of the game by NASCAR "asking" them to spend money on areas they didn't want to go to.
Then there is NASCAR's Drive For Diversity, which is beginning to show the favoritism universal to all such "diversity" boondoggles when Juan Monotya was allowed to run at Darlington in a Goodyear tire test even though he wasn't scheduled for that test; the excuse that he has yet to run there in a Winston Cup race applies to David Ragan, Paul Menard, and the other rookies of this season, but then they're not "the chosen one" for the Drive For Diversity.
Now NASCAR is in trouble on two sponsor fronts. First it strongarmed Robby Gordon into yanking Motorola sponsorship decals from his car, and now it faces a lawsuit by AT&T over restrictions placed on its Cingular wireless logos on Jeff Burton's Chevrolet. More than one observor is noting the blatant absurdity of NASCAR's direct attack on some sponsors, and one need recall the flap that erupted over Kevin Harvick's Shell Oil sponsorship at the Daytona 500, a flap instigated by series sponsor Sunoco.
Such bullying crosses another line that the sport for so long recognized could not afford to be crossed, but which the Brian France administration more and more refuses to recognize. Clearly Brian France cannot be trusted with the sanctioning body anymore, and bullying of sponsors is all the reason one needs to fight back against him.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Iraq's Fractured Antiwar Tales
More progress in Iraq comes amid signs that the Islamo-Arab enemy has begun splintering apart. It would thus seem that the surge is having a positive effect, though there is more to some recent developments to keep in mind.
Overall, though, we are seeing progress that one could have expected by the US staying on the strategic offensive instead of cowering into a reactive mode as Congress has been demanding.
Overall, though, we are seeing progress that one could have expected by the US staying on the strategic offensive instead of cowering into a reactive mode as Congress has been demanding.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Post-Vegas Miscellenia
With the Vegas 400 weekend wrapped up, some miscellenia:
--------------------------------------------
The Race-Stream Media has been pushing Mark Martin to run the full 2007 schedule despite Martin's protestation against it. It seems that the motive behind the RSM's lobbying is to have something interesting to write about.
It certainly shows how covering the sport has become problematic with the lack of good competition and the media's endless hunger for soundbiting athletes. Certainly Martin is a better interview than Jimmie Johnson or the other Hendrick drivers, but for the RSM to lobby a driver to change his mind reflects poorly on them. If Martin does not want to run the ful schedule, then leave him alone about it.
---------------------------------------------
The outstanding quality of the Vegas 400, alas, was the same quality of so many races - it was what didn't happen that was the big story. There wasn't much side by side racing up front, and between the increase in speeds, the lack of downforce, and a repaved surface that several complained was poorly done, it turned out not to be much different from other Vegas races. NASCAR and Bruton Smith got lucky in the Vegas 300, as a late yellow set up another crashing finish - so far this year we've seen late-race-deciding melees at Daytona, Mexico, and now Vegas.
It reflects the reality that the sport's competition package is so ineffective that late yellows, or a flurry of yellows, remain almost the only way to get any kind of memorable competition out of the sport. The increased banking didn't help - the Vegas 300 finish was like the Vegas 400 finish last year when Jimmie Johnson sidedrafted past Matt Kenseth up high on the final lap, on the old flat layout.
----------------------------------------------
Bruton Smith commented that "I want more Montoya." By this he apparantly meant that he wants more of the kind of racing Montoya showed in the Mexico BGN GP when he nailed erstwhile teammate Scott Pruett into a spin. Montoya's belligerent move in that race, though, crossed the line between aggressive racing and bullying; this sport doesn't need another Dale Earnhardt.
It also reflects how timid his oval racing is right now. He flat looks like a rookie, and a very timid one, on the ovals right now, which I'm sure perplexes quite a few people who want to see him win. Now some of it is the usual assortment of unforseen and often strange occurrances common to racing - breaking in the BGN race was hardly part of the career plan. But his overall oval timidity isn't an encouraging sign; when he hit CART and F1 as a rookie he had far more confidence as a racer and it showed up right away. Right now, however, he's not progressing, and his timidity brings to mind the reality that an overaggressive rookie can be calmed down, but a timid rookie can never be fired up.
-----------------------------------------------
Could Kasey Kahne turn out to be a one-season wonder? His start to this season has been pretty bad despite running strong pretty much everywhere. He clearly wanted to avoid a repeat of his wreck in the Vegas 300, but what happened? He got a repeat of that wreck anyway.
-----------------------------------------------
Ward Burton made his first race of the year. For all the good it did, he might as well have stayed home. The track time he's lost will never be made up for him this year.
-----------------------------------------------
With Vegas wrapped up it's on to Atlanta, which has struggled to sell out the last number of years. Vegas sold superbly; it will be interesting to see if Atlanta sees any serious void of empty seating.
--------------------------------------------
The Race-Stream Media has been pushing Mark Martin to run the full 2007 schedule despite Martin's protestation against it. It seems that the motive behind the RSM's lobbying is to have something interesting to write about.
It certainly shows how covering the sport has become problematic with the lack of good competition and the media's endless hunger for soundbiting athletes. Certainly Martin is a better interview than Jimmie Johnson or the other Hendrick drivers, but for the RSM to lobby a driver to change his mind reflects poorly on them. If Martin does not want to run the ful schedule, then leave him alone about it.
---------------------------------------------
The outstanding quality of the Vegas 400, alas, was the same quality of so many races - it was what didn't happen that was the big story. There wasn't much side by side racing up front, and between the increase in speeds, the lack of downforce, and a repaved surface that several complained was poorly done, it turned out not to be much different from other Vegas races. NASCAR and Bruton Smith got lucky in the Vegas 300, as a late yellow set up another crashing finish - so far this year we've seen late-race-deciding melees at Daytona, Mexico, and now Vegas.
It reflects the reality that the sport's competition package is so ineffective that late yellows, or a flurry of yellows, remain almost the only way to get any kind of memorable competition out of the sport. The increased banking didn't help - the Vegas 300 finish was like the Vegas 400 finish last year when Jimmie Johnson sidedrafted past Matt Kenseth up high on the final lap, on the old flat layout.
----------------------------------------------
Bruton Smith commented that "I want more Montoya." By this he apparantly meant that he wants more of the kind of racing Montoya showed in the Mexico BGN GP when he nailed erstwhile teammate Scott Pruett into a spin. Montoya's belligerent move in that race, though, crossed the line between aggressive racing and bullying; this sport doesn't need another Dale Earnhardt.
It also reflects how timid his oval racing is right now. He flat looks like a rookie, and a very timid one, on the ovals right now, which I'm sure perplexes quite a few people who want to see him win. Now some of it is the usual assortment of unforseen and often strange occurrances common to racing - breaking in the BGN race was hardly part of the career plan. But his overall oval timidity isn't an encouraging sign; when he hit CART and F1 as a rookie he had far more confidence as a racer and it showed up right away. Right now, however, he's not progressing, and his timidity brings to mind the reality that an overaggressive rookie can be calmed down, but a timid rookie can never be fired up.
-----------------------------------------------
Could Kasey Kahne turn out to be a one-season wonder? His start to this season has been pretty bad despite running strong pretty much everywhere. He clearly wanted to avoid a repeat of his wreck in the Vegas 300, but what happened? He got a repeat of that wreck anyway.
-----------------------------------------------
Ward Burton made his first race of the year. For all the good it did, he might as well have stayed home. The track time he's lost will never be made up for him this year.
-----------------------------------------------
With Vegas wrapped up it's on to Atlanta, which has struggled to sell out the last number of years. Vegas sold superbly; it will be interesting to see if Atlanta sees any serious void of empty seating.
Friday, March 09, 2007
Islamo-Arab Imperialism Gets Schooled
Islamo-Arab imperialism isn't just military aggression, though military aggression is a key component. This manifesto by the Muslim Council of Britain for British treatment of Muslim students lays bare another aspect of Islamo-Arab imperialism - soft bullying of society to conform to the oppressive culture of Islam.
Just say no.
Just say no.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Borges Gets Burned For Real
It's a week of joy for a great many members of the fanbase of the New England Patriots, because the worst excuse for a reporter to cover the Patriots has been suspended without pay from the Boston Globe for plagurizing an article from a Tacoma, WA paper.
Seeing Ron Borges crash and burn is one of those rare examples of a story developing piece by piece in rapid fashion but it is also an example of sadistic joy. Borges has been a Broadsheet Bully for many years. Some, such as Glen Ordway of WEEI Radio in Boston, have stated that Borges is driven by a hard agenda, but that at least some of his critics are also agenda-driven in that they use his anti-Bill Belichick attitude as a reason on top of the plagurism to attack Borges until he is finished in media.
What those who offer this line of reasoning ignore is that Borges pushes an agenda that is contrary to reality and which in fact is detrimental to the success of the team he has covered. Bill Belichick does not cooperate with the sports media to any significant extent, because it does nothing to advance his cause - leading the Patriots to success. On the contrary, the media can help defeat a team by fostering acrimony, internal dissent, and so forth - most spectacularly seen by Dan "The Shank" Shaughnessy and his slanted reporting that helped lead to the Theo Epstein episode of late-2005.
Borges' coverage of the Patriots is aimed at discrediting their coach; that Borges has failed to do so does not stop him from this agenda. Why he pushes such an absurd agenda is a mystery. In any event Borges has let the general hate that permeates his reporting get the best of him, and for this his downfall should be greeted positively.
Seeing Ron Borges crash and burn is one of those rare examples of a story developing piece by piece in rapid fashion but it is also an example of sadistic joy. Borges has been a Broadsheet Bully for many years. Some, such as Glen Ordway of WEEI Radio in Boston, have stated that Borges is driven by a hard agenda, but that at least some of his critics are also agenda-driven in that they use his anti-Bill Belichick attitude as a reason on top of the plagurism to attack Borges until he is finished in media.
What those who offer this line of reasoning ignore is that Borges pushes an agenda that is contrary to reality and which in fact is detrimental to the success of the team he has covered. Bill Belichick does not cooperate with the sports media to any significant extent, because it does nothing to advance his cause - leading the Patriots to success. On the contrary, the media can help defeat a team by fostering acrimony, internal dissent, and so forth - most spectacularly seen by Dan "The Shank" Shaughnessy and his slanted reporting that helped lead to the Theo Epstein episode of late-2005.
Borges' coverage of the Patriots is aimed at discrediting their coach; that Borges has failed to do so does not stop him from this agenda. Why he pushes such an absurd agenda is a mystery. In any event Borges has let the general hate that permeates his reporting get the best of him, and for this his downfall should be greeted positively.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Robin Miller Still Doesn't Get It
Robin Miller authors a self-pitying soliloquy on being fired from several media outlets over the years where he pats himself on the back for attacking the IRL from its beginning in 1996 and for the fact that some have lamented the evolution of the series into "CART Lite" (A.J. Foyt's term). Now certainly there is ample reason to take IRL's present course to task, but Miller's slightly revisionist history needs rebuttal.
The Indy 500 has lost lister and crowds, but claiming it's because of the IRL is wrong, because the IRL, even when on the wrong track as it's been since 2003, has nonetheless produced much better racing than most of what its chief open wheel rival, CART, ever did, and one needs to remember that open wheel racing was already in noticable decline in 1994-5 because of CART.
CART was a mistake to begin with. Born in 1979 from Roger Penske and Pat Patrick, it was able to spring to life thanks to the power vacuum at USAC following Anton Hulman's death and the deaths of several key USAC officials in a 1978 plane crash. CART was a sanctioning body run by the sport's richest car owners for their own competitive self-aggrandizement. The corrupt nature of CART was graphically illustrated by the late Andy Kenopensky's running and loud battle against CART during the 1980s and given what amounted to written form by 1993's CART White Paper on conflict of interest within the sanctioning body, a paper that showed CART was run "like a white's only country club," as writer Joe Scalzo put it at the time.
Tony George founded IRL in 1996 amid near-universal condemnation. CART was advertised as "The Real Stars, The Real Cars, The Real Race." It was none of the above; it was a closed-loop of super-rich teams buying championships. IRL in its first handful of years was closer to mid-1970s NASCAR in that it was peopled with small, scrappy raceteams and produced excellent racing. Indeed, it was IRL that directly influenced CART into the one mechanical change that actually improved racing - after IRL's exciting Texas Indy 300 in June 1998, a competitive race made such by bigger IRL wings and bulky ram-air scoops atop the cars, CART developed the Hanford rail for its superspeedway wings to increase the power of the draft. It succeeded at the 1998 Michigan 500 as the lead changed 63 times, obliterating the record for a 500-mile open wheel race by a factor of some 100%.
Open wheel racing became relevent again with IRL and both bodies produced ferocious superspeedway battles with draft-inducing bodies and add-on pieces; IRL produced must-see 300-milers at Texas, Kentucky, Kansas, and Chicagoland and when it took over Michigan and Fontana it produced some good racing at those venues as well; before then, CART's 500-milers at Fontana and Michigan became must-see races once the Hanford wing was mandated - the 50-lead-change barrier was broken at Michigan in 1998, 2000, and the track's CART swan song in 2001, while Fontana broke the 50-lead-change barrier in 2000 and 2001 - 2001 saw 73 lead changes, only the second automobile race of any sanctioning body to ever reach the 70-lead-change barrier.
The direction of IRL from 2003 onward, however, has been the wrong track as car counts and team counts have dropped due to the cancerous involvement of Honda and Toyota 2003-5; they helped weaken the competitiveness of the racing overall, to where only Kansas in 2005 and Chicagoland in 2006 saw truly competitive racing.
CART, meanwhile, proved a sanctioning body built on a house of cards, collapsing and being reborn under Kevin Kalkhoven into ChampCar. While that body has recoverd reasonably well from the collapse of CART, it nonetheless has its own issues with the cancellation of its Denver GP to go with its lack of exciting racing. There remains a campaign to unify the two sanctioning bodies, but in so doing championship/Indycar racing needs to relearn the lesson that retro-technology and a powerful draft on the superspeedways are what make better racing and what wins fans more than high-tech; that including American short track open wheelers into Indycar racing's field of contenders remains a must; and that car owners must never have a decisive role in rulesmaking, because rules need to be made with the big picture in mind always.
It's a lesson NASCAR needs to relearn as well.
If you ever get a chance to see tapes of the following open-wheel races (some of them are available in highlight form at YouTube), do so, for you will see racing in its purest form -
1990 CART Michigan 500
1992 CART Michigan 500
1996 IRL Las Vegas 300
1998 IRL Texas Indy 300
1998 CART Michigan 500
1999 IRL Texas Indy 300
2000 IRL Texas Indy 300
2000 CART Michigan 500
2000 IRL Kentucky Indy 300
2000 CART California 500
2001 IRL Texas Indy 300
2001 CART Michigan 500
2001 IRL Kansas Indy 300
2001 IRL Lone Star Indy 300
2001 CART California 500
2002 IRL California Indy 400
2002 IRL Kentucky Indy 300
2002 IRL Chicago Indy 300
2002 IRL Lone Star Indy 300
2003 IRL Michigan Indy 400
2003 IRL Chicago Indy 300
2004 IRL Kansas Indy 300
2004 IRL Chicago Indy 300
2005 IRL Kansas Indy 300
The Indy 500 has lost lister and crowds, but claiming it's because of the IRL is wrong, because the IRL, even when on the wrong track as it's been since 2003, has nonetheless produced much better racing than most of what its chief open wheel rival, CART, ever did, and one needs to remember that open wheel racing was already in noticable decline in 1994-5 because of CART.
CART was a mistake to begin with. Born in 1979 from Roger Penske and Pat Patrick, it was able to spring to life thanks to the power vacuum at USAC following Anton Hulman's death and the deaths of several key USAC officials in a 1978 plane crash. CART was a sanctioning body run by the sport's richest car owners for their own competitive self-aggrandizement. The corrupt nature of CART was graphically illustrated by the late Andy Kenopensky's running and loud battle against CART during the 1980s and given what amounted to written form by 1993's CART White Paper on conflict of interest within the sanctioning body, a paper that showed CART was run "like a white's only country club," as writer Joe Scalzo put it at the time.
Tony George founded IRL in 1996 amid near-universal condemnation. CART was advertised as "The Real Stars, The Real Cars, The Real Race." It was none of the above; it was a closed-loop of super-rich teams buying championships. IRL in its first handful of years was closer to mid-1970s NASCAR in that it was peopled with small, scrappy raceteams and produced excellent racing. Indeed, it was IRL that directly influenced CART into the one mechanical change that actually improved racing - after IRL's exciting Texas Indy 300 in June 1998, a competitive race made such by bigger IRL wings and bulky ram-air scoops atop the cars, CART developed the Hanford rail for its superspeedway wings to increase the power of the draft. It succeeded at the 1998 Michigan 500 as the lead changed 63 times, obliterating the record for a 500-mile open wheel race by a factor of some 100%.
Open wheel racing became relevent again with IRL and both bodies produced ferocious superspeedway battles with draft-inducing bodies and add-on pieces; IRL produced must-see 300-milers at Texas, Kentucky, Kansas, and Chicagoland and when it took over Michigan and Fontana it produced some good racing at those venues as well; before then, CART's 500-milers at Fontana and Michigan became must-see races once the Hanford wing was mandated - the 50-lead-change barrier was broken at Michigan in 1998, 2000, and the track's CART swan song in 2001, while Fontana broke the 50-lead-change barrier in 2000 and 2001 - 2001 saw 73 lead changes, only the second automobile race of any sanctioning body to ever reach the 70-lead-change barrier.
The direction of IRL from 2003 onward, however, has been the wrong track as car counts and team counts have dropped due to the cancerous involvement of Honda and Toyota 2003-5; they helped weaken the competitiveness of the racing overall, to where only Kansas in 2005 and Chicagoland in 2006 saw truly competitive racing.
CART, meanwhile, proved a sanctioning body built on a house of cards, collapsing and being reborn under Kevin Kalkhoven into ChampCar. While that body has recoverd reasonably well from the collapse of CART, it nonetheless has its own issues with the cancellation of its Denver GP to go with its lack of exciting racing. There remains a campaign to unify the two sanctioning bodies, but in so doing championship/Indycar racing needs to relearn the lesson that retro-technology and a powerful draft on the superspeedways are what make better racing and what wins fans more than high-tech; that including American short track open wheelers into Indycar racing's field of contenders remains a must; and that car owners must never have a decisive role in rulesmaking, because rules need to be made with the big picture in mind always.
It's a lesson NASCAR needs to relearn as well.
If you ever get a chance to see tapes of the following open-wheel races (some of them are available in highlight form at YouTube), do so, for you will see racing in its purest form -
1990 CART Michigan 500
1992 CART Michigan 500
1996 IRL Las Vegas 300
1998 IRL Texas Indy 300
1998 CART Michigan 500
1999 IRL Texas Indy 300
2000 IRL Texas Indy 300
2000 CART Michigan 500
2000 IRL Kentucky Indy 300
2000 CART California 500
2001 IRL Texas Indy 300
2001 CART Michigan 500
2001 IRL Kansas Indy 300
2001 IRL Lone Star Indy 300
2001 CART California 500
2002 IRL California Indy 400
2002 IRL Kentucky Indy 300
2002 IRL Chicago Indy 300
2002 IRL Lone Star Indy 300
2003 IRL Michigan Indy 400
2003 IRL Chicago Indy 300
2004 IRL Kansas Indy 300
2004 IRL Chicago Indy 300
2005 IRL Kansas Indy 300
Obama Flunks On Facts, Shown In AIPAC Speech
First off, this repost from February 22 -
Barack Obama claims liberal arguments are grounded in reason and fact. He's lying. Of course it isn't stopping him from "reaching out" for a nonexistent consensus.
More recently his foolishness on foreign policy was shown in his recent speech before AIPAC. He kept attacking George W. Bush on Iraq without understanding that he was right about Iraq; that Obama was speaking before a body with members with firsthand knowledge of Saddam Hussein's war (by proxy via Al Qaida and the PLO, and otherwise via direct military attack) against Israel as well as the US is an irony hopefully not lost on anyone in attendence.
The MSM will beatify Obama, but the fact is he is a foolish lightweight.
Barack Obama claims liberal arguments are grounded in reason and fact. He's lying. Of course it isn't stopping him from "reaching out" for a nonexistent consensus.
More recently his foolishness on foreign policy was shown in his recent speech before AIPAC. He kept attacking George W. Bush on Iraq without understanding that he was right about Iraq; that Obama was speaking before a body with members with firsthand knowledge of Saddam Hussein's war (by proxy via Al Qaida and the PLO, and otherwise via direct military attack) against Israel as well as the US is an irony hopefully not lost on anyone in attendence.
The MSM will beatify Obama, but the fact is he is a foolish lightweight.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Al "Ron Borges" Gore
You can't stop Al Gore, YOU CAN ONLY HOPE TO CONTAIN HIM!
Of course people did stop Al Gore in 2000, but he's still out there and looking like he's trying for the White House yet again. His crusade is against "global warming," and it is treated as a religious crusade with the full approval of the MSM. Too bad the MSM won't reveal the truth about Gore's greed-mongering motive behind his crusade. But then it also would prefer to skate over this.
Some may want to imagine what a Gore Administration would look like - trouble is it isn't a positive vision.
WEEI Radio Boston had a hilariously deranged incident where former NFL player Steve DeOssie ripped a particularly obnoxious caller (known as Dakota From Braintree; and he is as obnoxious as this piece implies) as "the Ron Borges of WEEI callers." a reference to the serial falsification in his reporting by Boston Globe sportswriter Ron Borges. I guess we could call Al Gore the Ron Borges of liberalism - except liberalism consists entirely of Ron Borges types.
Of course people did stop Al Gore in 2000, but he's still out there and looking like he's trying for the White House yet again. His crusade is against "global warming," and it is treated as a religious crusade with the full approval of the MSM. Too bad the MSM won't reveal the truth about Gore's greed-mongering motive behind his crusade. But then it also would prefer to skate over this.
Some may want to imagine what a Gore Administration would look like - trouble is it isn't a positive vision.
WEEI Radio Boston had a hilariously deranged incident where former NFL player Steve DeOssie ripped a particularly obnoxious caller (known as Dakota From Braintree; and he is as obnoxious as this piece implies) as "the Ron Borges of WEEI callers." a reference to the serial falsification in his reporting by Boston Globe sportswriter Ron Borges. I guess we could call Al Gore the Ron Borges of liberalism - except liberalism consists entirely of Ron Borges types.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
More Reality On Iraq
Chances are you didn't know this, but this shows that real progress is being made in Iraq to go with the progress already made - progress of course covered up by the MSM's endless gloom-and-doom coverage of Iraq to go with the absurd "debate" in Congress over funding of the war, a "debate" that has shown how two-faced some people really are, in keeping with the general level of disingenuity among the Democrats.
Bristol COT Test
Bristol ran the COT's most recent pre-competition test session during the late-winter bye week for Winston Cup, and it allowed teams and drivers to further shake down these cars before their debut at the end of March.
The test produced several incidents, notably Ward Burton's crash during an added night session on the first day of testing and Clint Bowyer's wreck late in the test. It also saw teams attacking front-end grip to keep the splitter off the ground. The speeds as expected were noticably off the track record, but then the cars will be faster than what they were in this test come late-March's Southeastern 500.
Some drivers expressed surprise at how well the cars drove, but what was interesting was what was not said - no indication was given that the cars race well. In fact, the consensus seemed to be that the cars don't race well. Of course being Bristol it isn't the best venue to gauge long-term raceability with these cars - and in this test only twelve cars were ever on the track at any point of the test - but it nonetheless can tell us something, and that there seemed indication that the car does not race well seems in keeping with the running theme of COT testing - the car's inferior raceability in dirty air. And given how important it will be to keep the splitter off the ground, it seems unlikely that truly raceable setups will proliferate come the Southeastern 500.
Of course the mantra was repeated that "The COT is here," but there remains no guarantee that it will stay here. Given shrinkage in attendence and TV ratings, the sport is taking a chance with the COT and had better have a backup plan for the project's likely failure to live up to its hype.
What the Bristol test seemed to confirm is one of the key problems with the COT - it punishes aggressive driving and aggressive setups. Those, though, are the kind of driving and setups that make good racing; conservative driving and setups has never made good competitive racing. This bottom line is a bottom line NASCAR can ill-afford to have to relearn.
The test produced several incidents, notably Ward Burton's crash during an added night session on the first day of testing and Clint Bowyer's wreck late in the test. It also saw teams attacking front-end grip to keep the splitter off the ground. The speeds as expected were noticably off the track record, but then the cars will be faster than what they were in this test come late-March's Southeastern 500.
Some drivers expressed surprise at how well the cars drove, but what was interesting was what was not said - no indication was given that the cars race well. In fact, the consensus seemed to be that the cars don't race well. Of course being Bristol it isn't the best venue to gauge long-term raceability with these cars - and in this test only twelve cars were ever on the track at any point of the test - but it nonetheless can tell us something, and that there seemed indication that the car does not race well seems in keeping with the running theme of COT testing - the car's inferior raceability in dirty air. And given how important it will be to keep the splitter off the ground, it seems unlikely that truly raceable setups will proliferate come the Southeastern 500.
Of course the mantra was repeated that "The COT is here," but there remains no guarantee that it will stay here. Given shrinkage in attendence and TV ratings, the sport is taking a chance with the COT and had better have a backup plan for the project's likely failure to live up to its hype.
What the Bristol test seemed to confirm is one of the key problems with the COT - it punishes aggressive driving and aggressive setups. Those, though, are the kind of driving and setups that make good racing; conservative driving and setups has never made good competitive racing. This bottom line is a bottom line NASCAR can ill-afford to have to relearn.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Still Straightening The Iraq Record
The House earlier in February had a resolution criticizing Bush's war policy. Why anyone should ever take such resolutions seriously remains a puzzle except for the general insanity that pervades political debates. That the record constantly needs to be set straight about Iraq is the most graphic example of this insanity.
The ones living this insanity are the Democrats, and the insincerity of their antiwar rhetoric reminds one that the term "loyal opposition" has been corrupted by the Democrats for decades.
This is why Republicans need to steel up and fight back.
The ones living this insanity are the Democrats, and the insincerity of their antiwar rhetoric reminds one that the term "loyal opposition" has been corrupted by the Democrats for decades.
This is why Republicans need to steel up and fight back.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Gordon And Biffle Flunk On Reality
Are Jeff Gordon and Greg Biffle kidding? They claim that NASCAR should have thrown the yellow when the last-lap melee erupted and assert that they kept racing to the stripe even though they were involved in the wreck because "all I remember is my spotter kept saying, 'No caution, no caution, still green, still green.' So I just put it back to the floor even though the car was torn up..." according to Gordon, while according to Biffle, "I was coming through the grass in reverse as wide open as I could, trying to get to the finish line."
Now think about this - they keep it wide open even though they are in a wreck that's directly ahead of them because they're expecting their spotter to yell, "Caution, slow down." They come across as either liars or preposterously stupid because they know that a wreck is right in front of them yet they're not trying to avoid it, instead waiting for some spotter to tell them what to do. When NASCAR had the race to the yellow rule the drivers all had more sense than this; they knew to back off to avoid a wreck.
Jeff Gordon and Greg Biffle flunk on reality here.
Now think about this - they keep it wide open even though they are in a wreck that's directly ahead of them because they're expecting their spotter to yell, "Caution, slow down." They come across as either liars or preposterously stupid because they know that a wreck is right in front of them yet they're not trying to avoid it, instead waiting for some spotter to tell them what to do. When NASCAR had the race to the yellow rule the drivers all had more sense than this; they knew to back off to avoid a wreck.
Jeff Gordon and Greg Biffle flunk on reality here.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
MSM Fraud Continued
Barack Obama isn't the only one flunking on facts. The MSM's war coverage continues that ignoble tradtion, from Newsweek's inaccurate take on Iran through the NY Times' inaccurate resurrection of Al Qaida.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)