Post-Test Post Preview
Some issues and thoughts early in the
interregnum between the Winston Cup Preview and Speedweeks –
Don’t look now, but we may be seeing the
end of a long-time NASCAR sponsor. Kmart’s bankruptcy will inevitably affect
their racing programs, and Travis Carter may now be in very serious trouble,
with alternative sponsorships far less available now than several years ago.
Kmart first became a NASCAR sponsor when
Carl Haas co-owned Michael Kranefuss’ #37 Fords. The sponsorship, after years
with Carl Haas’ CART team, debuted in NASCAR in 1995 but disappeared when Haas’
interest in the team was sold so Kranefuss could merge it with Penske Racing in
1998. Kmart returned when Haas bought into Travis Carter’s team and hired
Darrell Waltrip as driver in 1999.
NASCAR jumped Marty Snider’s gun. A day
after Snider said on CNN/SI that NASCAR would shave a quarter-inch off the Ford
spoiler for Daytona just before Speedweeks, NASCAR has officially made that
change. Frank Stoddard expressed disappointment, because Ford teams wanted a
half-inch shave. The quarter-inch, though, is enough – Penske South and Yates
ran a 6.25 spoiler at Daytona after the second test and picked up a
quarter-second, and the Fords ran well in the draft, so additional reduction in
drag is unnecessary.
As it is, ANY reduction in drag is
unnecessary. In that same NASCAR-Plus episode the issue of the cars’ inability
to draft and pass in aero-clean configuration was discussed – Earnhardt Junior
repeated the drivers’ jive about it being competitive for them but boring for
the fans, and his body english gave away that he doesn’t believe any of that –
and Snider suggested NASCAR would go to a 29/32 plate instead of the 7/8 plate
being used, ignoring that the 29/32 plate is what was run in 2000; increasing
the size of the plate won’t improve ability to pass, for ability to pass is
entirely dependent on the strength of the draft. This is why the 1971 and ’74
Daytona 500s ran restrictor plates and passing was no less frequent than in
subsequent races like the ’75 Diehard 500 that didn’t run plates – the draft
remained the same. When the draft works, passing is not a problem.
At his All-Waltrip
website Darrell bets that some drivers will come out and say before
Speedweeks, "I wish they’d left the aero package as it was." I suspect
some will as well – and if some do it will make the drivers look like bigger
fools than they in fact already are. They knew going into this test that they
would be unable to race aero-clean.
Waltrip is wrong, though, to suggest that
Daytona needs one set of rules and Talladega another – Daytona is horsepower and
aerodynamics like Talladega; handling becomes an issue only in comparison –
compared, in contrast, to a track like Atlanta, Daytona not a handling track.
The roof spoiler rules worked the same at both Daytona and Talladega, because
they blasted open enough air to make the draft kick in. Daytona and Talladega
should not operate under different rules.
The whole issue of parity in the sport is
taken up by Kirk Shelmerdine in Winston Cup Scene’s January 17 print issue.
Shelmerdine’s headline explains it all – "NASCAR’s Desire For Parity Hurts
The Sport." But as has been the case with previous such criticisms, his
case is wrong.
Shelmerdine writes that a technically
stifling array of rules supposedly "detracts from the quality of the
competition rather than enhancing it." How? "If all the cars were
precisely identical, there would be no reason for one to ever pass another.
Whichever one gets in front stays there."
Now wait a minute. If the cars are
precisely equal they can’t pass? Of course as noted above that depends on the
strength of the draft and the cars’ ability to race in dirty air. This, though,
is not related to to goal of parity – if the cars were precisely equal then
passing would not be that difficult.
Shelmerdine attacks the quality of today’s
competition – "in reality it has never been farther from the back of the
field to the front" – but does so for the wrong reason. It is not the quest
for parity that has hurt – it has been technology, aerodynamics, excessive
power, and a general lack of hunger in drivers, all brought on by "the
elbow room of creativity" that Shelmerdine pines is sorely missed today.
Shelmerdine claims that "a guy like
Richard Childress" could not start at the bottom and succeed in today’s
environment, because the "elbow room of creativity" has been closed.
Today’s rules are not that much more stifling than in the late ’80s or early
1990s, and an owner-driver wound up with the championship, which led to a
mini-renaissance of owner-drivers ultimately swamped under not by NASCAR’s quest
for parity but by the very inequalities that the sport ought to be eliminating.
Shelmerdine asserts that "part of any
driver’s cache of talents should be his proficiency with the car’s technical
aspects. This should be as much a factor in his success or failure and
ultimately whether or not he is considered among the best as his prowess behind
the wheel." Why? Shouldn’t ability to outfight traffic be all that counts
in the end? Cale Yarborough and Buddy Baker were among the sport’s best drivers
and were far less proficient in technical aspects than contemporaries like
Richard Petty and Bobby Allison – why should that count against them?
"The situation with tires, the amount
of grip and down force available, makes the cars too easy to drive. We’re
already seeing that trend (where any kid with a lead foot can jump in a car and
go as fast as the veterans) with the youngsters. Jeff Gordon…turned 30 last
August and is already winning less often…..he should be in his prime…."
Big deal. Shelmerdine’s general argument
about how kids are getting fast cars without having to build them or learn how
to develop them applies with far greater force than he realizes with Gordon.
As for the cars themselves, far from being
too easy to drive, today’s cars are impossible to race. The tires make them
fast, but the cars can’t race in the turns because the tires won’t let them. The
cars have more down force, but they are far too dependant on air to handle; when
Shelmerdine worked with DiGard the cars were not impeded by dirty air; they in
fact ran better in dirty air than in clean air. The cars Shelmerdine won four
titles with (1986-7, 1990-1) were far less raceable in dirty air, and
competition suffered greatly as a result. Today’s cars are even worse in ability
in dirty air – this is why the Daytona test showed how much they need the roof
spoiler to race.
"Experience should be a commodity of
great value." But of far greater value ought to be ability in traffic. If a
driver can’t run well in traffic or pass, then he’s not showing anything. Most
of these kids Shelmerdine deplores are getting fast cars wind up showing their
lack of experience via inability in traffic.
The NFL’s quest for parity has paid off
over the years – from 4-12 in 1998 to Super Bowl champs in 2000 were the St.
Louis Rams; from 5-11 in 2000 to AFC East champs and possible AFC champs for the
Patriots. In NASCAR the quest for parity has made to where almost every team can
win races – the problem has been that the cars are unraceable, and there is
still a haves-have-nots gap.
So Shelmerdine gets it wrong – the quest
for parity has not done anyone a disservice. It needs to be redoubled and
redirected to getting the cars raceable again.
Finally, a speedy recovery is wished for
in regards to David Pook, seriously injured in a Southwest Tour car at Phoenix
during a test session. Despite wearing a HANS collar and using a special seat
built by longtime western racer Carl Joiner, Pook fractured his second cervical
vertebrae in a head-on crash and will have to wear a halo bracket for about
three months.