Is That SAND In Those Bags?

Well, another cherished NASCAR conceit just went down the drain.

Aero-matching was supposed to put an end to politicking over aerodynamics. It
was supposed to equalize the cars to where no team felt their marque impeded its
ability to go to the front. It was supposed to……

Now wait a minute – do you think NASCAR and everyone within NASCAR actually
BELIEVED their own propaganda?

So what we saw from Day One of winter testing is that nothing is radically
different from last year other than the rear decks of GM’s W-body cars – gone
are the cambered shape read decks that gave the GM bodies the most distinctive
aura since the mean bubble-glass GM machines of 1987-8 – and the noses of
Pontiac’s Grand Prixs. And the salesmen lined up by the beach were making a
small profit from hawking gritty white-yellowish grains that race teams shoveled
into heavy burlap bags……

Gasp – is that SAND in those bags?

Remember the pre-season hype that Chevrolet teams were giving A+ grades in
pre-season testing of the aero-matched Monte Carlo? Obviously they were lying to
someone, because come Daytona testing and – paging the cop from
"Casablanca" – Chevy teams are shocked, SHOCKED to find their
aero-matched Monte Carlos slower than….. MIKE WALLACE, of all people!

This is not a slam at Mike Wallace, just an illustration of how Chevy teams
are either lying through their teeth or are incompetent. Just one Chevy made the
top eleven in Day One speeds, just two made the top fifteen, and five of the
slowest times were Chevys – Jimmie Johnson, the 2002 superstar, was just 4/10ths
of a MPH ahead of Andy Petree’s stillborn #55 team on the charts; Carl Long, in
an R&D Petty Dodge, was faster than both Labontes.

And the fastest on Day One was a driver whom basically no one even noticed
was even entered in races last year – Mike Skinner. This was Morgan-McClure’s
first racecar not skinned in Chevrolet sheet metal since the 1990 Summer 500 at
Pocono, and in the morning session he clocked at 181.837, then bagged 182.767
after lunch.

And he wasn’t the only quick Grand Prix – Johnny Benson lost a half-MPH
between sessions but still managed 181.025 in the Morton-Bowers-Valvoline #10.
Teammate Jerry Nadeau – whose Army sponsorship will also reach Official status
with NASCAR – bagged 181.097.

Ford didn’t have much to howl about on Day One – Elliott Sadler’s Yates #38
bagged 181.646 at third fastest, while Kurt Busch was fastest Roushketeeer at
181.127. The other Roushketeers on hand had a mixed session – Matt Kenseth was
good at 180.937 (just 7/1000ths ahead of Dave Blaney), while Jeff Burton was the
Ford in the bottom six on the charts, at 180.307.

The marque with the most depth was Dodge – five in the top ten, six in the
top fifteen, and their slowest Dodge faster than the Labontes and Jeff Burton.
The big surprises were Ken Schrader, eighth in Elizabeth Morgenthau’s #49, and
Mike Wallace in the Finch #09 vacated by Geoff Bodine. Dodge has long sought
such depth, and will certainly try to keep it that way come Speedweeks.

So what’s next? More testing, and the politicking that was not supposed to
happen with aero-matched bodies.

Several respondents to my previous piece objected that I "maligned"
writer Lee Spencer. Spencer’s piece on the point system only shows what is right
and wrong about her coverage of the sport – it shows some interesting insight,
then ruins it by being more wrong than right.¹

"Don’t talk to me about common templates……Talk to me about giving
the drivers an attitude adjustment." Hear hear. The drivers definitely need
a wholesale attitude adjustment.

Spencer gets it right by noting how, after 28 seasons, the Latford point
system is grossly inadequate, especially in the absurdly small gap from the
winner down the top five and to eleventh. But she throws genuine insight away
with a pedestrian and totally wrongheaded view that winning the pole should
award points, and that only the top 25 finishers should get points.

The spread first to eleventh definitely needs to be vastly increased, but
also necessary is to award bonus points for net race wins, both in ten-race
periods (similar to Winston’s old leader bonus awarded every third of the
season) and for the season’s entirety – 100 bonus points to the winner of the
most races every ten events, and another 150 points to the winner of the most
races in the season.

Also necessary is to count net laps led into the point race – the five-point
bonus should count leading the race, then five more points for leading the most
laps per quarter of the race, and fifteen bonus points for leading the most laps
total in the race. 100 bonus points should be awarded for the leader of net laps
led every ten races and 150 to the net lap leader of the season.

Qualifying should NEVER count to anything. The "effort and daring to win
the pole" is misguided to start with – teams should not be using anything
but a race setup no matter when they run, and where they start should be the
only criteria for qualifying – in that vein, Spencer discusses how a new point
system can allow NASCAR to eliminate or limit provisional starting spots;
provisionals should be "limited," by expanding the starting field to
50, so teams are under no or reduced pressure to qualify. The pole should award
nothing, because it is not relevant to the race’s outcome.

And cutting off points after 25 finishing spots is – pun warning – pointless.
It acts as if the bottom ten finishers weren’t making a similar effort as the
top ten. All entries in the race’s starting field should get something in the
points race for their efforts. And while consistency has become far too
important in the point race, it still should count for something.

The criteria for the champion needs to be performance – wins, strong runs,
high finishes, laps led. The present system does not reward performance, and
needs to change accordingly.

No doubt we all have a lot of questions as we close on the season. Jeff
Owens’ ten pre-season questions are as good a place as any to start ²
–

1 – How good will GM’s new cars be? I’d say about as good as last year’s
cars. The Chevy’s new nose is the most striking aspect of the Monte Carlo,
while the Pontiac has the most radical nose of all. Owens notes that
Pontiac’s fleet has three drivers – Ricky Craven, Johnny Benson, and Jerry
Nadeau – with only three wins between them; "will the new car boost
their fortunes, or will they make it look inferior to its GM sister?"
That’s the wrong question – the right question is, "Will GM spend some
real money on Pontiac for a change?"
Will common templates make a difference? Probably not that much. We’re
already seeing that common templates do not mean common racecars.
How will Rusty Wallace and Ryan Newman do in Dodges? As well as they’ve
done in Fords – Dodge got them for Penske’s engineering empire.
Who will win out in the Rudd-Sadler trade? This may be a wash, for Yates
Racing suffered in the Rudd-Sadler soap opera, while the Wood Brothers team,
a good team, nonetheless does not have the resources of a Yates.
Can Gordon bounce back? He’ll never win ten races a year again, and the
rise of Herb Fishel protégé Jimmie Johnson means an inevitable switch in
GM’s designated champion.
Is Sterling Marlin healthy? Yes.
Can Mark Martin make one more title run? Doubtful – Matt Kenseth and Kurt
Busch are the dominators at Roush, and Greg Biffle is the up-and-comer.
Can the veterans keep up with the young guns? Doubtful. The young guns are
getting the best racecars and all the engineering help.
Can Tony Stewart act his age? He will if the sport makes him mature.
Pampering him with attention will not help him mature.
Can Dale Earnhardt Jr. finally live up to his reputation? Wrong question –
should he be expected to "live up to his reputation?" Why should
we expect him to follow in his father’s footsteps? If he never contends for
the championship, so what? The hype was hype.