[mitchntx]

After watching a some of the coverage of the Daytona 500 this weekend and hearing a lot of discussion about the costs associated with feilding a competitive team and hearing the gnashing of teeth surrounding the dwindling sponsorships and hearing the concerns about enough cars to field a full grid and seeing Waltrip's wild tumble and seeing that tumble re-played on network after network after network ....

I began to wonder ....

Because it's all about the number of minutes a specific sponsor get's it's name on TV, when will a driver, who is an "also ran", purposely wreck his car, just get gleen a few extra minutes of sponsor coverage?

Is it cost effective to spend a $100,000 race car in order to keep a $10 million sponsor?

NAPA received tons of exposure from networks to local TV stations replaying his wreck. I would hate to see that happen on purpose, but ... it has to be there in someone's mind ...

[Rob Hood]

I think NAPA and Mikey would stand to gain a LOT more by him winning his third 500 in four years, rather than wrecking.

IMO, almost no race promoter is a racer, and vice versa. A promoter is out to make a profit off of his show, whatever that show may be. And the France's are promoters. The one thing they listen to is money. Sure, Big Bill raced early on, but he recognized a way to make a buck, and began laying the foundations of NASCAR.

Did people get away with cheating or "improvising" in the early years? Yup. Was a "call" made to a certain racer (or racers, or manufacturer)? Probably. The small block Chevy (Gen 1) was basically grown and nurtured early on in NASCAR by Smokey Yunick and others. But I highly doubt that any serious management of the race itself is happening today or for that matter, five to 10 years back. There are too many variables, plus NASCAR has probably tripled its checks and balances in the inspection and rule processes that have now made the cars cookie-cutter, regardless of manufacturer. They (NASCAR) are too concerned about how to manage electronics (traction control of various forms is being used by numerous top teams, IMO).

I too would prefer that NASCAR have some more road courses on its schedule, as long as Bruton Smith doesn't own one of the tracks. The roots of NASCAR are steeped in the tradition of moonshine runners evading the "revenuers," and the modfications to those 'shine cars was a strong starting point for racing cars in the South to begin with.

CART vs IRL - Tony George AND Penske/other CART owners are responsible for the death of a good solid open-wheel road racing series in America. CART for jacking up the costs to extreme proportions, and George for saying one thing and doing another.

One more item - get rid of the restrictor plates, period. Run a short track body (more downforce/drag), cut the carburetor in half (850 to 425), and mandate 9:1 CR. That would remove enough power from the car that the speeds would be manageable. (I'm not against speed, but I don't like the "hornets nest" theory of slowing the cars down. At least this year's 500 had the pack broken up due to the different tire Goodyear brought).

Sorry for the long post...