Daytona 500: Random Thoughts and Opinions

I feel like every time I write about NASCAR I have to start by convincing people that I'm not some kind of racing hipster that hates on NASCAR because it's not "sophisticated" racing like Formula 1.  My story (and I'm sticking to it) is that I like NASCAR, but I don't love NASCAR.  Regardless of what you think about NASCAR however, the Daytona 500 is the Daytona 500.  This race is probably the second most famous race in the United States, and definitely in the top ten most famous races world wide.  So, you can imagine that I was excited for the first race of the NASCAR season, and I thought that deserved a write up.

I'll be honest, after watching both the the Xfinity series race, and the Sprint series race, I wasn't sure what there was for me to write about.  Yes, there were a couple of big wrecks, including Kyle Busch's broken leg.  Surprisingly, I think my favorite moment of the weekend didn't come from the 500 at all, but from the Xfinity race on Saturday when rookie Daniel Suarez, who was two laps down at the time, began leading a third line on the outside of the track, around the leaders.  I'm not sure what his plan was, but he definitely wasn't following the usual script, and you knew things weren't going to end well.  Of course, the three wide racing for the last sixteen laps of the 500 was a thing of beauty to watch.  I get nervous in rush hour traffic like this, and these guys were doing it at 200 MPH.  You kept asking yourself if how long could they keep this up before one guy took out half the field.  Answer?  A lot longer then I thought, but it still ended in a pile of twisted sheet metal and ruined cars.

As I sit back and reflect on the racing at Daytona, the quality of racing last weekend was actually better then I originally gave it credit for.  I do have one complaint about the Daytona 500, and this is really more of a problem with restrictor plate racing as opposed to just a Daytona problem.  Drafting plays an important role in all NASCAR racing, but at the restrictor plate races, the importance of drafting is elevated to a stupid level.  As a result, it sometimes feels like the winner of the race isn't the most skilled racer, but the guy whose at the right place in line when the checkered flag waves.

That being said, it often seems like the fast cars are at the front of the pack, while the slow cars are at the back, which is as things should be.  Racing always has a little bit of randomness to it, which is also as things should be, so I probably shouldn't complain too much just because one guy has a good drafting partner and another guy doesn't.  If I had unlimited power over NASCAR though (and was smart enough to figure out how to do this), I'd like to see the cars at the restrictor plate tracks a little less aero dependent and be a little more engine dependent.  That way, guys are better able to drive around each other with less drafting help.  Of course, if NASCAR ever did this I would probably complain that the bigger teams can afford to develop stronger engines which ruins the quality of the racing.

You know what NASCAR, just keeping doing what your doing, you're fine as is.

Nice try NASCAR

Although NASCAR was the series that first got me interested in racing, I'm not the world's largest NASCAR fan.  NASCAR is a fine racing, and if you don't like the night race at Bristol, please leave right now, but I prefer IndyCar and Sportscar racing.  Pure personal preference.  That being said, I probably watch more NASCAR during the course of the year then any other form of racing, which isn't hard considering the shear volume of NASCAR racing available.  Hint, hint, IndyCar.

Anyway, it's the Daytona 500 weekend right now, which mean's the racing world turns it's attention to NASCAR.  I plan on writing more about the 500 in the days to come, but I'd like to start with a discussion on the current NASCAR qualifying mess.  The Daytona 500 group qualifying fiasco was over a week ago, but better late then never.  Right?

I'm going to assume that most of you are aware of what happened, because I'm probably the only person in the world still trying to write about Daytona qualifying, but I've got column space to fill, so let's recap real fast.  NASCAR tried group qualifying at Daytona for the first time this year, and the results were...not good.  I normally don't watch race qualifying on TV (I may be The Racing Nerd, but I'm not The Racing Nerd Who Has Nothing Better To Do with His Life), so I won't pretend to be an expert on how group qualifying for NASCAR worked at every track last year, but from what I understand, the problems with group qualifying at Daytona has everything to do with the draft.  At Daytona, if you want to be the fast guy, you want to be the guy at the back of the line, letting someone else punch a hole in the air for you.  That means the first guy out of the pit is like the first guy off the boat in Saving Private Ryan, it just doesn't end well for him.  So, if your clever, you leave the pit's last.  Unfortunately, everyone else has the same idea, so everyone waits for someone else to leave first.  Basically everyone is sitting around going "you leave first."

"No, you leave first."

"No you leave first."

It reminded me of a really annoying couple I knew in highschool who turned hanging up the phone into a three act play.

Back on topic.  So, everyone leaves the pit at the same time and is trying to qualify in a pack.  We've all watched restrictor plate races before, and we know what happens when guys are pushing hard in a pack?  If you answered "wrecks," give yourself a cookie because that's exactly what happened at Daytona.  Needless to say, drivers weren't happy when their primary car was wrecked by someone else's stupidity.

Honestly, I don't blame NASCAR for trying group qualifying.  Ultimately, any racing series is a business, and NASCAR needs to find ways to make money, and trying to add excitement with group qualifying (which makes it a more attractive product for TV), as opposed to single car qualifying, seemed like some awfully easy, low hanging fruit.  Too bad the idea didn't work.  Single car qualifying may not have the excitement of wheel-to-wheel racing, but at least you're guaranteed to see stuff on the track, as opposed to group qualifying where you see a traffic jam on pit road followed by everyone trying to cram in a flying lap at the last possible second.

What I find surprising is that NASCAR didn't see this coming.  From what I understand, the same thing happened at Talladega last year.  Heck, I personally saw the same thing happen at Texas last year when the NASCAR trucks tried group qualifying for the first time.  Did NASCAR seriously think that the teams wouldn't try and draft to gain a qualifying advantage?

View of the pit road during NASCAR truck qualify at Texas Motor Speedway in July 2014.  Like Yogi Bera said, it's deja vu all over again.

In any kind of group qualifying, track position is important, but doubly so on a speedway where a guy can get a tow to gain speed.  NASCAR has already tweaked the group qualifying format to try and prevent a repeat of the qualifying we saw last week, but I have a simpler solution.  Go back to single car qualifying.  I just don't think group qualifying can be made to work on ovals.

Nothing Stock about a Stock Car

As I was writing up my thoughts about spec series versus open development (and basically concluding that Spec Racer Ford should be the best racing in the world), I was thinking about some of my other favorite auto racing internet straw man arguments.  Originally this article was going to be about the idea that racing "improves the breed" (i.e., technology developed for the track finds its way onto the cars you and I drive), but as I started writing it kind of morphed into a discussion of purpose built race cars with no conniption to streetcars, versus streetcars pushed into racing duties.  This is a variation on the old "win on Sunday sell on Monday" argument.  In other words, people want to buy the best cars they can, so they want to buy the cars they see winning races on TV.  What I want to talk about is whether there is any truth in this idea, as well as the merits of production based car racing versus in-name-only stock car racing.  So let's start at the beginning.

Does a racing Boss 302 make you want to run out and buy a Mustang?

The story goes that back in the 50's and 60's manufacturers tested their cars in the crucible of motor sport (and if you got the Top Gear joke, give yourself a cookie).  Let's forget for a second that the Detroit Big Three shunned official involvement in racing until the mid 60's, because that's a different can of worms that I won't open here.  From the forge that is racing, some ideas did well, and were adapted for street car use, while other ideas did poorly and were resigned to the dust bin of history.  Plus we got crazy looking Dodge Chargers and Plymouth Superbirds with massive wings.  The general motoring public saw which manufacturers did well on the track, and used this information to help sway their buying decisions.

But these happy times did not last.  From the purity of the stock cars of the 1950's and 1960's, the cars began to evolve into purpose built tube framed racers that have no relation to their counterparts on the show room floor.  For example, try going into your local Toyota dealer and ask for a Camry with a four speed manual and a pushrod V8.  The sales guy is either going to laugh at you or look at you like you just escaped from psychiatric ward, but that is the car that Toyota races in NASCAR and claims in representative of their "stock" cars.

Now enter the Internet commenters.  The comment I keep reading is that stock car racing should go back to it's roots and actually race cars that are representative of what the manufacturers actually make, because that's the way it should be.  If you're one of those people, I have a simple question for you.  Do you watch Continental Tire Sportscar Challenge?  Because that's basically the series that you're talking about.

A GS Camaro leads a ST Honda through the Horse Shoe at Daytona

I'll be honest, I don't watch as much CTSC as I should, but it is probably the closest thing I can think of in terms of true "stock car" racing (plus it's pretty good racing).  By that I mean, CTSC cars are not purpose built racing machines, but street cars that have been racing modified.  I mean just look at these cars, they don't look like the steroid fueled monsters you see in GTLM, they look like production cars with racing slicks, a roll cage and some decals.  Which is kind of the point.

I'm probably getting ahead of myself a little.  For those of you who don't follow the Continental Tire Sportscar Challenge (and until recently, that included me), here's a basic background.  CTSC is sponsored by IMSA, just like the Turdor United Sportscar Challenge (i.e., big boy american sportscar racing).  CTSC is divided into two classes, the faster of the two being Grand Sport (GS) and containing cars like Mustangs, Camaros, Aston Martin Vantages, Nissan 370Z's and Porsche 911's.  Grand Sport cars make "around" 400 HP, and top out around 160 MPH.  The slower class is Sport Tuner (ST) and contains  cars like the Mazda Miata, the Honda Civic Si, The BMW 1 series and the Porsche Caymen.  Engines make around 200 HP and the cars go around 135 MPH.  Looking at the numbers, I think it's pretty clear that these cars have more in common with production sports cars then actual race cars, and that's the point.  Both GS and ST cars start out life like any other example of the model that you buy from the dealer, and have only minor racing modifications.  The GS cars are allowed to swap out more of their stock parts for race parts then their ST counterparts.  Even for the GS car however, the purpose of the modifications is not to improve the performance of the car per se, but to allow the car's to work better in a racing environment.

An example of a GS car, a Nissan 370Z.

An example of an ST car, a Porsche Caymen.

So, you're asking, what does a second tier North American sportscar series have to do with the evolution of NASCAR from racing production cars to tube framed cars?  For purposes of what we're talking about, it all circles back to win on Sunday, sell on Monday.  The kind of production car based racing that certain Internet commenters are wanting (and claim is the way things should be) does exist, at least at semi-professional level, but you don't hear Ford and Chevrolet bragging about how well their doing in CTSC.  I'll concede the point that maybe the problem is that CTSC just doesn't have enough exposure to make the manufactures care, but if racing "stock" cars on sunday really helped sell on Monday, you'd think this kind of racing would have more factory backing then it does.

And herein lies the main issue with racing show room cars, no one really cares.  Obviously, the manufacturers feel there is some benefit to motorsport or they wouldn't support it, but I think if you asked the guys in the corner offices Detroit, it doesn't matter if the car on the track looks anything like what's for sale at the Ford dealership, as long as the car says Ford on it.  It's all about generating buzz and headlines, not showcasing the superiority of specific models or technology, and that's because people don't judge cars based on racing performance.  The general buying public doesn't have enough awareness to make this kind of analysis, and the enthusiasts understand that a car prepped by a good race shop (even if the car is production based) is a far cry from the car you buy from the showroom.

So for the manufacturers, it's not about generating buzz for specific models, it's about generating buzz for the entire brand, which means supporting the most popular forms of racing.  Which means supporting forms of racing that has appeal to casual race fans, not just racing enthusiasts.  Like it or not, series like NASCAR are the most popular because they appeal to a non-enthusiast audience.  With this in mind, the manufactures have no reason to put added support behind CTSC.

Likewise, the sanctioning bodies don't car.  Deep down, race promoters don't care about racing, they car about making money.  The promoters are running a business, which means they need to produce a product the appeals to the largest audience.  Again, the casual audience seems to prefer the pack racing, tube framed, purpose built, cars of NASCAR, so that's what the race organizers give them.  It's not personal, it's business.

That doesn't mean there isn't an enthusiast argument that racing production based cars is a great idea because it's just plain cool, but cool ideas by themselves don't sell tickets to the race, or get the manufacturers excited.  So, if your argument for racing true production based cars is that it's somehow "purer," I wouldn't spend too much time sitting by the phone, waiting for NASCAR to answer your letters.  In the meantime, why aren't you watching CTSC?

So, does winning on Sunday help to sell on Monday?  To the extent that generating positive headlines  help to sell cars, yes, but I think the benefit of auto racing as a vehicle to drive sales is somewhat overrated in the todays market.  What doesn't matter is whether the car is a production based Boss Ford Mustang, or a tube framed NASCAR prepped Ford Fusion, they both generate sales for the brand.  Let's say we stop arguing about how much better stock car racing was in the good old days, and just enjoy the racing.