Snoozefest if there ever was...
Shanghai McCoy
Fontana/ Auto Club Speedway, or whatever it's called these days, has
been the most pathetic GD excuse for a race I've ever seen. F1 without
the drama. It's a sorry combination of the tracks, the cars, and the
tires. NASCAR needs to go racing again instead of trying to provide
'entertainment'.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>I've been a NASCAR fan for over 40 years, and I can honestly say that
>Fontana/ Auto Club Speedway, or whatever it's called these days, has
>been the most pathetic GD excuse for a race I've ever seen. F1 without
>the drama. It's a sorry combination of the tracks, the cars, and the
>tires.
Let's go back to the good old days, shall we?
"Johnny Mantz's first and only Nascar victory came in the inaugural 1950
Darlington Southern 500 that carried a stock-car record purse of $25,000. Over
80 cars showed up and it took two weeks to get them all qualified. After filling
all 9,000 seats fans were directed to the infield where a sea of over 6,000
people watched the race. The race started with a 75 car field aligned in 25
rows, three abreast, and Mantz was the slowest in the field.
"Californian Johnny Mantz drove a 1950 Plymouth owned by France, Westmoreland,
and a couple more guys and took more than six hours to cover the full 500.
Johnny won by nine laps (!) over Fireball Roberts with an average speed of
75.250 mph. The Southern 500 was NASCAR's only paved track event in 1950."
http://www.legendsofnascar.com/Johnny_Mantz.htm
The good ol' days weren't all that good; today's racin' ain't
all that bad.
I enjoyed all of the races within the race: for the win;
for the Chase; for the top 35; CE vs. KyBu.
Sometimes one team does something vastly better than
all the other teams. It happened at the first Southern
500; it happened on Sunday. <shrug>
> NASCAR needs to go racing again instead of trying to provide
>'entertainment'.
When you say NASCAR is "F1 without the drama," you're applying
an entertainment standard to the races and reporting that
you are not being entertained the way you want to be entertained.
For me, JJ's dominance was entertaining. What has HMS got
that the other teams haven't? Why did his car work so well?
Biffle got out in front twice in the last 100 laps due to
strategy (2 tires) and a great pit stop. Often that's
enough to secure a win. JJ got back to the front without
any difficulty. If he and HMS can get a car that can
pass other cars, they've done something excellent with
the CoT and the tires--and not just compared to the
other marques but compared to his own teammates, too.
1 - JJ
11 - Jr.
15 - JG
26 - CM
Average: 13.25
David Ragan's up-and-down night was entertaining to me.
Look at the Roushketeers:
2 - GB
5 - MK
6 - CE
13 - DR
26 - JMc
Average: 10.4
JJ's dominance put everyone on notice that he is a
contender. On a night when he badly wanted to win,
JG came in 15th. What's up with that?
Chase standings this week:
Toyota -- JGR
1 -- Kyle Busch 3755 Leader
8 -2 Tony Stewart 3110 -645
11 -- Denny Hamlin 3065 -690
Ford -- Roush
2 -- Carl Edwards 3547 -208
6 +1 Greg Biffle 3159 -596
9 +1 Matt Kenseth 3081 -674
Chevrolet -- HMS & RCR
3 +1 Jimmie Johnson 3386 -369
4 -1 Dale Earnhardt Jr. 3323 -432
10 -1 Jeff Gordon 3074 -681
5 -- Jeff Burton 3234 -521
7 +1 Kevin Harvick 3132 -623
12 -- Clint Bowyer 2989 -766
The top 3 for the Chase are set. No one can
catch these three next week:
KyBu - +80
CE - +50
JJ - +30
One of these three could add 10 Chase points next week
by winning, of course--but it's still going to be
these three, in this order, two weeks from now.
I wanted to see GB beat JJ. GB got lots of air
time, which is a Moral Victory.
Bottom line: I felt entertained and don't see that
we need any major fixes in the formula.
Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.
Nancy2
wrote:
I was very disappointed that Letarte didn't do a 2-tire stop either
last or next to last pit stop. JG maintained that 15th position for a
long time, it seemed to me, and if he'd been in the top 10 after a pit
stop, I think he could have stayed there.
I hope Letarte is starting to pack his bags. He's had enough chances
already.
N.
Tom Duwe
"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mol...@canisius.edu> wrote in message
news:<fYadncf3d-f91CDV...@supernews.com>...
<snip>
> Let's go back to the good old days, shall we?
>
> "Johnny Mantz's first and only Nascar victory came in the inaugural 1950
> Darlington Southern 500 that carried a stock-car record purse of $25,000. Over
> 80 cars showed up and it took two weeks to get them all qualified. After filling
> all 9,000 seats fans were directed to the infield where a sea of over 6,000
> people watched the race. The race started with a 75 car field aligned in 25
> rows, three abreast, and Mantz was the slowest in the field.
>
> "Californian Johnny Mantz drove a 1950 Plymouth owned by France, Westmoreland,
> and a couple more guys and took more than six hours to cover the full 500.
> Johnny won by nine laps (!) over Fireball Roberts with an average speed of
> 75.250 mph. The Southern 500 was NASCAR's only paved track event in 1950."
>
> http://www.legendsofnascar.com/Johnny_Mantz.htm
Side note to the Mantz win...the car was co-owned by Big Bill and Westmoreland,
who was the Chief Starter for NASCAR that day. On the way to the track, Big Bill
had them stop and purchase *truck tires* for that '50 Plymouth, with which Mantz
was able to run *far* more laps without pitting.
> For me, JJ's dominance was entertaining. What has HMS got
> that the other teams haven't? Why did his car work so well?
> Biffle got out in front twice in the last 100 laps due to
> strategy (2 tires) and a great pit stop. Often that's
> enough to secure a win. JJ got back to the front without
> any difficulty. If he and HMS can get a car that can
> pass other cars, they've done something excellent with
> the CoT and the tires--and not just compared to the
> other marques but compared to his own teammates, too.
Other interesting items from the 'boring' race Sun...Ever see cautions due to
falling Caution lights?? Twice?? JJ told his crew he could see it flapping
around before it came apart and ESPN dun good to catch it in the air in re-play.
Also, during the last caution, on the 'one lap to green when ya get here' lap,
Carl's crew told him to check out the 'big brawl in front of the
grandstand...about 15 people involved'...followed by 'well, they're breaking it up
now'.
--
Tom in Bristol ...continuing to enjoy Hot Pass!
John McCoy
> Let's go back to the good old days, shall we?
>
> "Johnny Mantz's first and only Nascar victory came in the inaugural
> 1950 Darlington Southern 500 that carried a stock-car record purse of
> $25,000. Over 80 cars showed up and it took two weeks to get them all
> qualified. After filling all 9,000 seats fans were directed to the
> infield where a sea of over 6,000 people watched the race. The race
> started with a 75 car field aligned in 25 rows, three abreast, and
> Mantz was the slowest in the field.
>
> "Californian Johnny Mantz drove a 1950 Plymouth owned by France,
> Westmoreland, and a couple more guys and took more than six hours to
> cover the full 500. Johnny won by nine laps (!) over Fireball Roberts
> with an average speed of 75.250 mph. The Southern 500 was NASCAR's
> only paved track event in 1950."
>
> http://www.legendsofnascar.com/Johnny_Mantz.htm
>
> The good ol' days weren't all that good; today's racin' ain't
> all that bad.
Just to play devil's advocate:
Then - attendance of 167% of capacity. Now - attendance of 67% of
capacity.
Then - winner starts from middle of the field (Mantz started 43rd
of 75 cars) and raced to the front. Now - winner started on pole,
stayed in front all race except for pit stops.
Then - several drivers contested the lead in the early stages, and
thruout the race there were cars running faster than the leader
and gaining time on him (only to loose it in the pits). Now - no
driver gained on the leader on-track.
Then - outcome of the race was in suspense until the end, due to
various potential failures. Now - TV annoucers had awarded the win
with nearly half the race yet to run.
Then - the winning car did so because the owner/crew chief applied
better thinking and out-smarted the competition. Now - the winning
crew chief declares "NASCAR has killed innovation".
Are you sure you want to suggest today's racing isn't "all that
bad" in comparison?
John
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>Are you sure you want to suggest today's racing isn't "all that
>bad" in comparison?
Yes, I do. :o)
75 mph isn't as much fun as 200+.
Once he had the field down 2 laps, it was all
over.
Just like JJ, he had to finish the race without
blowing up.
There was a lot more happening inside Sunday's
race (Chase, top-35) than in the first Southern
500.
6+ hrs vs. ~3+.
No live TV coverage back then.
All-you-can-stand coverage now (TV, radio,
internet).
">G< ©"
Careful or the heads at NASCAR might explode with real facts being
presented...
--
>G< ©
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>Careful or the heads at NASCAR might explode with real facts being
>presented...
They may have some "real facts" of their own.
* Number of viewers of the race (live and on TV).
* Number of dollars distributed in the purse.
* Amount of money earned by teams through sponsorship.
* Amount of money earned by the track.
* Amount of money earned by NASCAR that weekend.
* Number of people earning a living from NASCAR
nowadays compared to the number in the good ol'
days (owners, drivers, crew, commentators,
journalists, marketers [onsite and off],
advertisers, press reps, builders, engineers,
etc.).
I don't have the "real facts" myself. At a guess,
the multiplier for most of these categories is
pretty big.
SG
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 07:21:48 CST, ">G< ©" <jimmy...@gmail.com> wrote in <g9lvga$ac1o$1...@usenet.osg.ufl.edu>:
>
>> Careful or the heads at NASCAR might explode with real facts being
>> presented...
>
> They may have some "real facts" of their own.
>
> * Number of viewers of the race (live and on TV).
>
> * Number of dollars distributed in the purse.
>
> * Amount of money earned by teams through sponsorship.
>
> * Amount of money earned by the track.
>
> * Amount of money earned by NASCAR that weekend.
>
> * Number of people earning a living from NASCAR
> nowadays compared to the number in the good ol'
> days (owners, drivers, crew, commentators,
> journalists, marketers [onsite and off],
> advertisers, press reps, builders, engineers,
> etc.).
>
> I don't have the "real facts" myself. At a guess,
> the multiplier for most of these categories is
> pretty big.
>
> Marty
>
here's a (possible) fact to consider:
Tom Duwe
"SG" <spaamt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<86adnS3ARb1aBSPV...@comcast.com>...
<snip>
> here's a (possible) fact to consider:
>
> http://www.autoextremist.com/fumes1/
Great link...for the RainX memoir!
--
Tom in Bristol...and a reminder of Denise's wonderful work. The France stuff is
just sos.
Chuck Steak
>"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mol...@canisius.edu> wrote in
>> Let's go back to the good old days, shall we?
>> "Californian Johnny Mantz drove a 1950 Plymouth owned by France,
>> Westmoreland, and a couple more guys and took more than six hours to
>> cover the full 500. Johnny won by nine laps (!) over Fireball Roberts
>> The good ol' days weren't all that good; today's racin' ain't
>> all that bad.
>Just to play devil's advocate:
>Then - attendance of 167% of capacity. Now - attendance of 67% of
>capacity.
>Then - winner starts from middle of the field (Mantz started 43rd
>of 75 cars) and raced to the front. Now - winner started on pole,
>stayed in front all race except for pit stops.
to play devil's, devils' advocate..
In 1973, Cale Yarborough led EVERY lap, 500 laps, at Bristol.
In 1978, Cale Yarborough led EVERY lap, 420 laps, at Nashville...
>Then - outcome of the race was in suspense until the end, due to
>various potential failures.
But honestly, I never liked that aspect in those days.
I hated to see a guy doing really well, and then blow an engine..
which was pretty frequent...
(I still hate it, but it rarely happens anymore)
>Are you sure you want to suggest today's racing isn't "all that
>bad" in comparison?
>
>John
just sayin'...
then... there were some really good ones.
and stinkers.
today... there are some really good ones.
and stinkers.
Dan
****************************************
It's hard to understand how a funeral home can raise it's prices,
and blame it on the cost of living....
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>here's a (possible) fact to consider:
>http://www.autoextremist.com/fumes1/
I notice that the autoextremist is earning money from
Google ads on the sidebar.
And he has a product-placement piece for RainX right
after his bitter screed about the evil of people
selling out to the highest bidder.
I feel no sympathy whatsoever for the Kentucky folks
or Bruton Smith. I hope NASCAR wins all the court
battles on that score. "We have built a track
good enough for NASCAR; therefore NASCAR owes us
a date" doesn't seem like a reasonable argument
to me.
I am not more bothered by the ISC's bid to run the
casino than I am by the spread of casinos in general
(I'm moderately anti-gambling, sort of). I buy
the ISC argument that since they (and others) have
been allowed to move race dates that they already
"own" from one track to another, the likelihood is
that if they get the contract to run the casino,
they will be able to get some extra events into
the neighborhood of the casino.
If the Kansas folks aren't interested in getting
bigger crowds in to the casino, then what are they
doing setting up a casino in the first place?
Money talks. A rational business seeks to lower
costs and raise revenues. I am not scandalized
that the France family is conducting their business
in a rational fashion.
izabarber
Sorry Fellas I have to agree Shanghai on this one. Although you all
have valid come backs as to why today's, Sprint, Nextel, Nascar is
wonderful. Lets look at a few facts dealing with the "older fans"
First and foremost is will I spend upwards of 400.00 to 600.00 to take
the family to see something I can watch at home, And not have some one
standing in front of me for 3+ hours. Makes you wonder why track
attendance is down? The drivers are the best there are bar none. Like
them or hate them it is a fact. Keep the current format. I need the
nap between the start and finish after being at the local dirt track
the night before. Where for 20.00 bucks a head and seats where I
didn't have to trade elbows with the fella next to me. Or stare at the
back of some ones head. Also at the local track anyone especially the
youngsters. (Read as to the future of any venue) Can get close enough
to see the cars, Drivers and crews. P.S. I am fortunate enough to live
in an area where on any given night at any of the three tracks close
to me I can watch, Kahne, Smoke, Blaney to name a few make a race or
two. I am not trying to be argumentative or disrespectful to anyone.
Just a few of the facts from a different point of view. I wager in the
future you will see as we have in the last few years Nascar go
backwards even faster. As far as the cars go, Safer is better no doubt
there. Why not give them go-karts and make the track smaller? Just
imagine how many more seats they could sell?
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
> ... just sayin'...
>then... there were some really good ones.
>and stinkers.
>today... there are some really good ones.
>and stinkers.
Agreed 100%.
I think we each have a few of the "really good
ones" stuck in our heads as the standard by which
we measure all the rest.
They can't all be as good as those Hall of Fame
races.
Like most things in life, if we could figure out
some metrics for measuring what a "really good
one" is, we'd probably get bell curves for each
season: very few that are outrageously excellent,
most that are mediocre, a few that are unbelievably
bad.
This year's Indy 500 probably set a Hall of Fame
low point. :o)
I'm glad I watched the night Bristol. It sure
looked like it was gonna be a runaway until the
very end. Then it got interesting. I'd put it
up toward the high end of my scale.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<e330177a-f78b-4ff8...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>:
> ... will I spend upwards of 400.00 to 600.00 to take
>the family to see something I can watch at home ...
We didn't have that choice in the old days.
For a long time, it was tape delayed and abridged (if it
was on at all).
Then a few races on the air and some others on cable.
They were a little hard to find.
Now the whole series is covered (still a combo, of
course, between broadcast and cablecast) and you can,
if you wish, get some internet access to it. (I'm
still thinking about XM/Sirius radio just to plug
a few gaps in my schedule.)
I don't want to go back to when I came in (the 1980s).
I'm delighted with my access choices.
> ... I wager in the
>future you will see as we have in the last few years Nascar go
>backwards even faster.
Business run in cycles. I don't think it's going
to roll back to the 80s.
>As far as the cars go, Safer is better no doubt
>there. Why not give them go-karts and make the track smaller? Just
>imagine how many more seats they could sell?
You can't put big enough ads on go-karts (or IRL or F1). :-P
John McCoy
> I feel no sympathy whatsoever for the Kentucky folks
> or Bruton Smith. I hope NASCAR wins all the court
> battles on that score. "We have built a track
> good enough for NASCAR; therefore NASCAR owes us
> a date" doesn't seem like a reasonable argument
> to me.
I feel plenty of sympathy for them, and hope they win. The conflict
of interest between the same people running the sport and owning
many of the stadia bothers me, and I'd be plenty happy to see that
change.
> I am not more bothered by the ISC's bid to run the
> casino than I am by the spread of casinos in general
> (I'm moderately anti-gambling, sort of).
I'm not bothered by that in and of itself. I'm bothered by the
fact that the decision on whether Kansas should have two races
will be made not on it's merits, but on the fact that the owner
of the track is sister to the chief of NASCAR.
John
John McCoy
@trnddc03:
> In article John McCoy <igo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>Then - outcome of the race was in suspense until the end, due to
>>various potential failures.
>
> But honestly, I never liked that aspect in those days.
> I hated to see a guy doing really well, and then blow an engine..
> which was pretty frequent...
> (I still hate it, but it rarely happens anymore)
Yeah, that's one of those good/bad sort of things. You hate it for
the guy involved, that worked so hard and maybe ran so well, and
then it all goes up in a puff of smoke. But on the other hand,
just the possibility that it might added some suspense to the race,
which really isn't there today. I can remember a lot of races back
in the 70's when I'd watch to the end, either hoping the leader
would blow so my guy could catch up & win, or conversely hoping
my guy wouldn't blow, so the other guy (usually Petty) wouldn't
be able to catch up.
> then... there were some really good ones.
> and stinkers.
> today... there are some really good ones.
> and stinkers.
Yeah - but it seems like the proportion of "really good ones" isn't
as high as it used to be.
And, I think part of the reason for that is we've moved away from
tracks that tended to produce really good ones, like Darlington
and the Rock.
John
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
> ... The conflict
>of interest between the same people running the sport and owning
>many of the stadia bothers me, and I'd be plenty happy to see that
>change.
They don't "run the sport."
They run one part of stock-car racing.
There are lots of other sanctioning bodies and
lots of other versions of motor racing.
>> I am not more bothered by the ISC's bid to run the
>> casino than I am by the spread of casinos in general
>> (I'm moderately anti-gambling, sort of).
>I'm not bothered by that in and of itself. I'm bothered by the
>fact that the decision on whether Kansas should have two races
>will be made not on its merits, but on the fact that the owner
>of the track is sister to the chief of NASCAR.
That's part of the calculation of "merits," I'd say. ;o)
brushfire
<mol...@canisius.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 10:30:17 CST, Shanghai McCoy <MTWi...@netscape.net> wrote in <zOJuk.4353$676....@newsfe01.iad>:
>
>>I've been a NASCAR fan for over 40 years, and I can honestly say that
>>Fontana/ Auto Club Speedway, or whatever it's called these days, has
>>been the most pathetic GD excuse for a race I've ever seen. F1 without
>>the drama. It's a sorry combination of the tracks, the cars, and the
>>tires.
>
>Let's go back to the good old days, shall we?
>
I'm a newbie NASCAR fan who just picked up the sport in the past
couple of years, so I can't reminisce about the good ole' days. But I
agree with you that today's races are exciting, including the Fontana
race. There was plenty of suspense when JJ didn't come out of the
pits first. Did the other teams tweak their cars enough to be
competitive? Did JJ's team make their car worse? Would the 48 get
caught in a wreck?
The answers this time were all No, but it's not always like that. Many
times a car will come out of the pits with completely different
performance than when it came in. This seems especially true for Jeff
Gordon this year. He usually qualifies well, but seems to get
progressively worse with each pit stop. Then there are the cars that
are good early but not late, and vice versa. Adds variability and
excitement.
You want a snoozefest? Did anyone catch the IRL race at Sonoma a
couple of weeks ago? I watched for 45 minutes and I don't think the
cameras caught a pass from any car anywhere in the field the entire
time.
The CoT is a temperamental little baby and it appears the 18, 99 and
maybe the 48 have figured out its temper tantrums for now. But that
probably won't last.
Chuck Steak
>You want a snoozefest? Did anyone catch the IRL race at Sonoma a
>couple of weeks ago?
that's because they belong on ovals...
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
> ... You want a snoozefest? Did anyone catch the IRL race at Sonoma a
>couple of weeks ago? I watched for 45 minutes and I don't think the
>cameras caught a pass from any car anywhere in the field the entire
>time.
I missed that one.
I did half-listen to the IRL race on the radio
last Sunday afternoon. I like Helio and wanted
to hear how he did.
I was asleep when he got penalized for blocking.
I was PLANNING to nap during the race, so it wasn't
all the IRL's fault.
>The CoT is a temperamental little baby and it appears the 18, 99 and
>maybe the 48 have figured out its temper tantrums for now. But that
>probably won't last.
Agreed.
I love the safety enhancements. I'm sure they'll
figure out the other stuff as time goes on.
John McCoy
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 18:59:43 CST, John McCoy <igo...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote in <Xns9B0ECB8B74A...@216.168.3.30>:
>
>> ... The conflict
>>of interest between the same people running the sport and owning
>>many of the stadia bothers me, and I'd be plenty happy to see that
>>change.
>
> They don't "run the sport."
>
> They run one part of stock-car racing.
>
> There are lots of other sanctioning bodies and
> lots of other versions of motor racing.
You're really really stretching there, Marty. That's like saying
that because the Arena league exists, the NFL doesn't control
pro football. It borders on the absurd.
>>I'm not bothered by that in and of itself. I'm bothered by the
>>fact that the decision on whether Kansas should have two races
>>will be made not on its merits, but on the fact that the owner
>>of the track is sister to the chief of NASCAR.
>
> That's part of the calculation of "merits," I'd say. ;o)
Sometimes you mystify me...you are a man of religion, and thus
I'd have thought particularly sensitive to morals and ethics.
And, papal nephews notwithstanding, nepotism is usually held
to be unethical. Yet here you seem to be approving it as a
factor in making corporate decisions.
John
John McCoy
news:Wv-dnaEo1_qfzF3V...@supernews.com:
> I did half-listen to the IRL race on the radio
> last Sunday afternoon. I like Helio and wanted
> to hear how he did.
>
> I was asleep when he got penalized for blocking.
> I was PLANNING to nap during the race, so it wasn't
> all the IRL's fault.
That was a BS call to my mind, and I lost a lot of respect for
the IRL folks over it - they seem to have been taking lessons
from the NASCAR guys, who aren't what I'd call a good example.
I don't think you can call blocking on the leader unless he's
clearly slower than the guy trying to pass. To me, it appeared
Helio was getting on the gas too hard, and spinning the tires
coming off the corners, for several corners in a row, which
made him slower than Wilson. But then he seemed to get a handle
on it, and pulled away from Wilson.
It seems to me that if you're going to call blocking on the
leader, it needs to be for a lap or more, not just a few corners.
(and to Dan's point, if they'd have been on an oval where they
belonged, it never would have been an issue)
John
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>> They don't "run the sport."
>> They run one part of stock-car racing.
>> There are lots of other sanctioning bodies and
>> lots of other versions of motor racing.
>You're really really stretching there, Marty. That's like saying
>that because the Arena league exists, the NFL doesn't control
>pro football. It borders on the absurd.
For me, it's a perfect parallel.
The NFL doesn't control pro football. It controls
its version of it. The AFL competed, then joined.
The World Football League competed, then folded.
>>>I'm not bothered by that in and of itself. I'm bothered by the
>>>fact that the decision on whether Kansas should have two races
>>>will be made not on its merits, but on the fact that the owner
>>>of the track is sister to the chief of NASCAR.
>> That's part of the calculation of "merits," I'd say. ;o)
>Sometimes you mystify me...you are a man of religion, and thus
>I'd have thought particularly sensitive to morals and ethics.
>And, papal nephews notwithstanding, nepotism is usually held
>to be unethical. Yet here you seem to be approving it as a
>factor in making corporate decisions.
There is nothing intrinsically evil in corporations seeking
to maximize profits.
There is nothing intrinsically evil in family's cooperating
to enrich family members.
NASCAR, the ISC, and the casino are not organizations like
the civil service or the magisterium.
I'm opposed (on religious and philosophical grounds) to
making up rules that aren't rules. NASCAR is not a church.
It's not a charitable purposes organization. It puts on
a show. I think it has the right to organize the show
according to its own taste. I think the courts don't
belong in that equation.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>I don't think you can call blocking on the leader unless he's
>clearly slower than the guy trying to pass. To me, it appeared
>Helio was getting on the gas too hard, and spinning the tires
>coming off the corners, for several corners in a row, which
>made him slower than Wilson. But then he seemed to get a handle
>on it, and pulled away from Wilson.
As I understand it, Wilson drove away from Helio after the
officials forced the pass.
That suggests that he may, in fact, have had a faster car.
I don't know whether it was a good call or not. I heard
on the radio that there were three incidents on one lap.
Dunno how it looked in the replay.
Mike Simmons
"John McCoy" <igo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B0FC360339...@216.168.3.30...
John:
While I agree that nepotism isn't always the best business philosophy, since
NASCAR is privately held it seems to me that they can do whatever they want
with the company, no? ISC on the other hand is a public corporation and
thus subject to the direction of the board and shareholders, but if the
shareholders and board agree that nepostism is OK, then I really don't see
anything unethical about it.
Nepotism is OK as long as you keep it in the family...
;^)
Mike
>
DAVe
wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 20:17:40 CST, John McCoy <igop...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in <Xns9B0FC2B618A89pogosupern...@216.168.3.30>:
>
> >I don't think you can call blocking on the leader unless he's
> >clearly slower than the guy trying to pass. To me, it appeared
> >Helio was getting on the gas too hard, and spinning the tires
> >coming off the corners, for several corners in a row, which
> >made him slower than Wilson. But then he seemed to get a handle
> >on it, and pulled away from Wilson.
>
> As I understand it, Wilson drove away from Helio after the
> officials forced the pass.
>
> That suggests that he may, in fact, have had a faster car.
>
> I don't know whether it was a good call or not. I heard
> on the radio that there were three incidents on one lap.
> Dunno how it looked in the replay.
I watched it (multiple times w/ Tivo) and he. But I thought it was a
cheesy call and a cheesy rule. Part of what's still wrong with the
training series IRL.
John McCoy
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 20:17:40 CST, John McCoy <igo...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote in <Xns9B0FC2B618A...@216.168.3.30>:
>
>>I don't think you can call blocking on the leader unless he's
>>clearly slower than the guy trying to pass. To me, it appeared
>>Helio was getting on the gas too hard, and spinning the tires
>>coming off the corners, for several corners in a row, which
>>made him slower than Wilson. But then he seemed to get a handle
>>on it, and pulled away from Wilson.
>
> As I understand it, Wilson drove away from Helio after the
> officials forced the pass.
>
> That suggests that he may, in fact, have had a faster car.
Or, that all else being equal the guy in front, in clean air,
on a road course, has an advantage.
> I don't know whether it was a good call or not. I heard
> on the radio that there were three incidents on one lap.
> Dunno how it looked in the replay.
In my opinion, not.
I have no idea if the IRL guys use replay, or if they make
their calls on the fly. Altho I can't really see making that
sort of call without using replay.
John
Mike Marlow
"Nancy2" <nancy-...@uiowa.edu> wrote in message
news:c7ecdc44-def3-4bf6...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> I was very disappointed that Letarte didn't do a 2-tire stop either
> last or next to last pit stop. JG maintained that 15th position for a
> long time, it seemed to me, and if he'd been in the top 10 after a pit
> stop, I think he could have stayed there.
>
They tried a two tire stop at the beginning of the race. Dismal failure -
the car marched backward with a conviction. Why do it again at the end of
the race, knowing the effect it's going to have?
> I hope Letarte is starting to pack his bags. He's had enough chances
> already.
>
He sure does not seem to be the kind of leading edge crew chief one would
expect from a team like the 24, but then again, it does not seem that the 24
team no longer has a leading edge driver in the cockpit either.
--
-Mike-
mmarlo...@alltel.net
Mike Simmons
"Mike Marlow" <mmarlo...@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:def01$48c8f783$6215af92$5...@ALLTEL.NET...
Good point, Mike! I too have wondered about that. As you age, you tend to
be a tad more cautious than you once were when you were a pup. That coupled
with JG's family responsibilities "may" have slowed him down somewhat...
food for thought...
Mike
Megan Zurawicz
in them at that level---not as the best at that level, but 20 years period.
When it was pointed out to him that "back in the day the guys ran till they
were 50" (and some still do, of course), he replied that back in the day,
they got into cup level at 30, too, not at 18 or 20.
He's also said that if he's still driving a race car at 50, as far as he's
concerned, he's a failure, and that he wants to spend some time doing stuff
like driving his kids to school.
All in all, sounds like he's mentally winding down, just trying to pick out
*when* to retire. I'd be surprised if he gives it more than five more
years, max, and not surprised if it's more like two.
--pig
On 9/11/08 3:56 PM, in article CfadnZskCukq9FTV...@posted.yhti,
John McCoy
news:C4EF0A8A.61DD5%lis...@sbcglobal.net:
> All in all, sounds like he's mentally winding down, just trying to
> pick out *when* to retire. I'd be surprised if he gives it more than
> five more years, max, and not surprised if it's more like two.
Thought he'd already said that his plan was 4 more years?
BTW, and not to start a war or anything, but it would be a little
easier to read your posts if you bottom-posted instead of top.
John