NASCAR contemplates multiple G-W-C finishes

Printable View

11th February 2010, 02:05
damg75

NASCAR contemplates multiple G-W-C finishes

http://www.nascar.com/2010/news/head...red/index.html

What does everyone think about this?

"Poston said it was too early to know if a set number of attempts would be mandated, but his opinion was it would be a variable number based on the race directors' discretion.
"[The number of attempts] will likely be in the judgment of the tower, in terms of what's happening and what the circumstances are," Poston said. "We have it currently in other series that it's multiple attempts so I doubt that it would have to be necessary to nail down that it would be X number for any one race because that may not be the logical conclusion, depending on what's happening."

HMMM...discuss
11th February 2010, 02:18
slorydn1

Quote:

Originally Posted by damg75

http://www.nascar.com/2010/news/head...red/index.html

What does everyone think about this?

"Poston said it was too early to know if a set number of attempts would be mandated, but his opinion was it would be a variable number based on the race directors' discretion.
"[The number of attempts] will likely be in the judgment of the tower, in terms of what's happening and what the circumstances are," Poston said. "We have it currently in other series that it's multiple attempts so I doubt that it would have to be necessary to nail down that it would be X number for any one race because that may not be the logical conclusion, depending on what's happening."

HMMM...discuss

I'd be all over it EXCEPT for what Poston stated. If it truly is left up to the "race director's discretion" then that would be yet another tool for nascrap to "manage the outcome" of races. SO, what your telling me is, if Jimmie Johnson is in the lead we'll call it good now, but if Harvick or Kyle Busch is in the lead then its gonna be "lets have another go at it." AT least, thats what the fans of the driver who gets screwed that week is going to say.

This would be the absolutely the WORST thing Nascar can do for its already weak credibility, IMHO

:beer:
11th February 2010, 02:18
harvick#1

I firmly believe Nascar is always too fast to pull the trigger on the yellow.

I believe that they should just not count caution laps inside 20 laps-50 laps depending on the track
11th February 2010, 02:27
slorydn1

Quote:

Originally Posted by harvick#1

I firmly believe Nascar is always too fast to pull the trigger on the yellow.

I believe that they should just not count caution laps inside 20 laps-50 laps depending on the track

Although I do agree that Nascar is sometimes a little quick to "PUT IT OUT" as David Hoots says when he calls for the yellow on the radio, especially when one of the Fav's is about to get lapped, I cant agree with caution laps not counting. That would absolutely wreak havoc on fuel strategery and the like. Just my two cents worth, anyway.
11th February 2010, 02:42
NickFalzone

Quote:

Originally Posted by slorydn1

I'd be all over it EXCEPT for what Poston stated. If it truly is left up to the "race director's discretion" then that would be yet another tool for nascrap to "manage the outcome" of races. SO, what your telling me is, if Jimmie Johnson is in the lead we'll call it good now, but if Harvick or Kyle Busch is in the lead then its gonna be "lets have another go at it." AT least, thats what the fans of the driver who gets screwed that week is going to say.

This would be the absolutely the WORST thing Nascar can do for its already weak credibility, IMHO

:beer:

Highlighted and underlined my agreement. I think the answer should be simple, like 2 GWC's instead of 1. Not "as many GWC's as we want". Because while I am not in the camp that believes NASCAR makes it their business to 'script race outcomes', this would make it FAR too easy to accuse them of such. Since the definition of "yellow" changes even within the same race, allowing such discretion would be far less fair than simply allowing 2 GWCs and then calling it a day.
11th February 2010, 02:47
slorydn1

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickFalzone

Highlighted and underlined my agreement. I think the answer should be simple, like 2 GWC's instead of 1. Not "as many GWC's as we want". Because while I am not in the camp that believes NASCAR makes it their business to 'script race outcomes', this would make it FAR too easy to accuse them of such. Since the definition of "yellow" changes even within the same race, allowing such discretion would be far less fair than simply allowing 2 GWCs and then calling it a day.

Yep, that's where I was going. I don't truly believe that they do that, nascar has had a habit the last several years of putting themselves in some tough positions with people because of their enforcement (or lack thereof) for some drivers and the opposite for others. This would give them a whole new headache that they really don't need right now.
11th February 2010, 03:40
71Fan

Old buddy Dave Marcis almost got cheated out of his Richmond rain-shortened win by NASCAR way back in the day.....as Dave himself kinda said in an interview once: I heard race director (forgot his name) say over the headphones NASCAR had given me: "Dave Marcis is not going to win this race.".....if need be I'm sure I can find a link....So they kept trying to dry the track but the rain never let up and Richmond had no lights at the time so they eventually declared Dave the winner right before midnight after tearing his car and motor down looking for violations.

Moving on....I've never understood why NASCAR needs a GWC to begin with except as a way for them to manipulate outcomes. Sure, the claim is that the fans want to see races finish under green but this is one fan that wants to see racing as it unfolds, not as it is choreographed.

As always tho.....Your opinions and mileage may vary
11th February 2010, 04:51
RaceFanStan

Maybe they want to do the G-W-C restarts until their driver choice wins it ...
or maybe they want to squeeze a few more bucks from the fans at the trailers ...
IMO this will be a bad call for nascar, so what else is new ? :p
.
.
(welcome back damg, it is good to see you.) :D
11th February 2010, 06:46
call_me_andrew

One is too many.
11th February 2010, 17:55
Mark in Oshawa

I have always been of the belief the G-W-C policy is wrong, and it is one thing I have never wavered on, because the race ends the way it ends due to the drivers, and that is the only fair way. If on lap 199 there is the "Big one" in the 500...then that is the way it ends. Why make the race 203 laps long to suit some whim of the networks (the real people wanting this policy)? A team who gambled on fuel to run 200 laps is now forced to deal with 3 laps that are not Scheduled? This is nonsense...we don't need multiple G-W-C's we need NO G-W-C's.
11th February 2010, 18:25
71Fan

Has anybody ever seen a poll that backs up Pemberton's claim that GWC is what the fans want?
11th February 2010, 18:45
slorydn1

Quote:

Originally Posted by 71Fan

Has anybody ever seen a poll that backs up Pemberton's claim that GWC is what the fans want?

Yeah, there were several back around the time frame this was all being discussed when Jimmie Johnson was "handed a win" at Talladega back in the 03-04 time frame (the Jr fans went ballastic and almost tore Talladega down) and although I don't know the exact numbers, it was something like 70-30 for GWC versus always ending at scheduled distance. Back ariound that time I railed against it on this board, how it was going to screw up nascar etc etc and was basicly proven wrong. Everything I said about drivers getting screwed all the time and running out of gas during the extra laps have not come to fruition, so the GWC has grown on me over the years. Many of us forget, the Truck Series had multiple gwc's untill the current policy was passed for all 3 series. Teams factored that possibility into their fuel calculations.
What had got me all worked up was the quote of Ramsey Poston that damg75 posted that it should be leftup to race control's discretion that got me worked up (but little brothers are always GREAT at pushing big brother's buttons, arent they?)

Now it looks like there will be 3 attempts, per David Hoots in the drivers meeting.
11th February 2010, 20:17
JasonD

Could this not cause problems with fuel loads? It seams a little to advantageous for the driver that pitted last. Or are teams supposed to just fuel it for X number of laps + 3 now?
11th February 2010, 22:20
71Fan

A guy on another board wrote something like this:

They should keep doing the GWC at Dega till somebody dies.
11th February 2010, 22:43
Mark in Oshawa

Quote:

Originally Posted by slorydn1

Yeah, there were several back around the time frame this was all being discussed when Jimmie Johnson was "handed a win" at Talladega back in the 03-04 time frame (the Jr fans went ballastic and almost tore Talladega down) and although I don't know the exact numbers, it was something like 70-30 for GWC versus always ending at scheduled distance. Back ariound that time I railed against it on this board, how it was going to screw up nascar etc etc and was basicly proven wrong. Everything I said about drivers getting screwed all the time and running out of gas during the extra laps have not come to fruition, so the GWC has grown on me over the years. Many of us forget, the Truck Series had multiple gwc's untill the current policy was passed for all 3 series. Teams factored that possibility into their fuel calculations.
What had got me all worked up was the quote of Ramsey Poston that damg75 posted that it should be leftup to race control's discretion that got me worked up (but little brothers are always GREAT at pushing big brother's buttons, arent they?)

Now it looks like there will be 3 attempts, per David Hoots in the drivers meeting.

Freak show racing. The GWC is just tarting up the ole girl when she isn't that good looking. Sometimes stupidity ensues in the last few laps and you get what you get. They mentioned on the "Duels" broadcast they will do GWC's until the leader of the race gets the white flag....THAT is the true end to the GWC.
12th February 2010, 01:12
damg75

Quote:

Originally Posted by slorydn1

Yeah, there were several back around the time frame this was all being discussed when Jimmie Johnson was "handed a win" at Talladega back in the 03-04 time frame (the Jr fans went ballastic and almost tore Talladega down) and although I don't know the exact numbers, it was something like 70-30 for GWC versus always ending at scheduled distance. Back ariound that time I railed against it on this board, how it was going to screw up nascar etc etc and was basicly proven wrong. Everything I said about drivers getting screwed all the time and running out of gas during the extra laps have not come to fruition, so the GWC has grown on me over the years. Many of us forget, the Truck Series had multiple gwc's untill the current policy was passed for all 3 series. Teams factored that possibility into their fuel calculations.
What had got me all worked up was the quote of Ramsey Poston that damg75 posted that it should be leftup to race control's discretion that got me worked up (but little brothers are always GREAT at pushing big brother's buttons, arent they?)

Now it looks like there will be 3 attempts, per David Hoots in the drivers meeting.

It was Jeff Gordon that got handed the win in '04 at dega when the caution came out with 4 or 5 laps to go...remember the 24 doin' burnouts with the budweiser cans hittin' his car? Ahhh, the good ol' days, lol :p : :D
12th February 2010, 01:15
damg75

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaceFanStan

Maybe they want to do the G-W-C restarts until their driver choice wins it ...
or maybe they want to squeeze a few more bucks from the fans at the trailers ...
IMO this will be a bad call for nascar, so what else is new ? :p
.
.
(welcome back damg, it is good to see you.) :D

Hey Stan! :wave: Hope all is well with you
12th February 2010, 01:21
slorydn1

Quote:

Originally Posted by damg75

It was Jeff Gordon that got handed the win in '04 at dega when the caution came out with 4 or 5 laps to go...remember the 24 doin' burnouts with the budweiser cans hittin' his car? Ahhh, the good ol' days, lol :p : :D

Yeah, I do remember that,that was the race at dega that I recorded from the old Nascar In Demand on cable all from Harvicks car and he ended up p3, and Jeff won the race after being side by side with jr in the middle of 3-4 (don't rememberwhat the yellow was for) and every one went nuts, including me, because Kevin had a run on them and was getting ready to take it 3 wide to the outside when the caution came out. JJ finished p4 in that one actually, looking at it now on racing reference, was the 2004 arrons 499

http://racing-reference.info/race?id=2004-09&series=W
12th February 2010, 03:46
71Fan

Yup sure do....and thanks for the info on the poll stuff. Shucks, I've seen stuff get thrown on track *during* a race. Just a dang shame that folks can't appreciate a race for what it is.
12th February 2010, 04:01
slorydn1

Quote:

Originally Posted by 71Fan

Yup sure do....and thanks for the info on the poll stuff. Shucks, I've seen stuff get thrown on track *during* a race. Just a dang shame that folks can't appreciate a race for what it is.

Amen
13th February 2010, 03:07
71Fan

How about this one

Keep doing the GWC till there's only one car left.
13th February 2010, 05:03
Sparky1329

If they're determined to have multiple G-W-Cs at least they've defined an amount of them that will be used. I don't like anything that gives NASCAR one more opportunity to "manage" a finish. They do enough of that chit as it is.

NASCAR keeps chipping away at the edges of let-them-race without doing the one thing that will shut up a lot of grmubling fans. Drop the stupid Chase. It was a stupid idea that's still stupid.
13th February 2010, 06:42
71Fan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparky1329

. Drop the stupid Chase. It was a stupid idea that's still stupid.

Yup
15th February 2010, 07:23
damg75

So...what was the verdict of the first multiple GWC??? Personally, I don't like it...maybe it'll be better on the unrestricted tracks, but we'll see. Don't like the fuel implications of it, but I'm willing to see it play out over a season.
15th February 2010, 07:33
slorydn1

Quote:

Originally Posted by damg75

So...what was the verdict of the first multiple GWC??? Personally, I don't like it...maybe it'll be better on the unrestricted tracks, but we'll see. Don't like the fuel implications of it, but I'm willing to see it play out over a season.

I guess I should be more pi***d off because Harvick got screwed, but I cant, it is what it is, and everyone knew the rules coming in. I just hate it that Dipwads way back in 30th place can have a say in who wins the race just by wrecking
15th February 2010, 07:39
damg75

Quote:

Originally Posted by slorydn1

I guess I should be more pi***d off because Harvick got screwed, but I cant, it is what it is, and everyone knew the rules coming in. I just hate it that Dipwads way back in 30th place can have a say in who wins the race just by wrecking

Well, wasn't that the reason for the whole multiple GWC in the first place, so if they wrecked on the first GWC, they can fix their car and wreck again on the 2nd one? :rolleyes: ;) :p : :D
15th February 2010, 07:44
slorydn1

Quote:

Originally Posted by damg75

Well, wasn't that the reason for the whole multiple GWC in the first place, so if they wrecked on the first GWC, they can fix their car and wreck again on the 2nd one?

Guess so, Jeffro got it done TWICE, didn't he? :arrowed: :devil: :bomb: :rotflmao:
15th February 2010, 08:59
damg75

Quote:

Originally Posted by slorydn1

Guess so, Jeffro got it done TWICE, didn't he? :arrowed: :devil: :bomb: :rotflmao:

Touche! :p
15th February 2010, 13:18
Mark in Oshawa

Well with the GWC madness, the Daytona 500 was actually a 520 from what I figured yesterday. THAT just flies in the face of the spirit of the rules...but then again with the way guys race the last 10 laps....maybe it is just the way it will be...
15th February 2010, 13:35
wedge

Quote:

Originally Posted by 71Fan

How about this one

Keep doing the GWC till there's only one car left.

Ssshhhhh.....

Stop giving Mike Helton ideas
15th February 2010, 14:05
Lee Roy

Multiple G-W-C's gets a bit "thumbs-down" from me.
15th February 2010, 23:37
harvick#1

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Roy

Multiple G-W-C's gets a bit "thumbs-down" from me.

it is a joke, run the scheduled distance and its over.

whats next, Nascar is gonna have timed races???? lets have the 5 hours of Bristol, dont matter what lap count your on, once the race hits 5 hours, its over
15th February 2010, 23:48
slorydn1

Quote:

Originally Posted by harvick#1

it is a joke, run the scheduled distance and its over.

whats next, Nascar is gonna have timed races???? lets have the 5 hours of Bristol, dont matter what lap count your on, once the race hits 5 hours, its over

There ya go, a new Idea!!!!! The 24 hours at the Glen! 12 hrs of Infineon! It would be huge!!
:up:
16th February 2010, 00:43
Lee Roy

Quote:

Originally Posted by harvick#1

it is a joke, run the scheduled distance and its over.

One G-W-C is okay. But three is way too many.
16th February 2010, 04:20
call_me_andrew

Quote:

Originally Posted by harvick#1

it is a joke, run the scheduled distance and its over.

whats next, Nascar is gonna have timed races???? lets have the 5 hours of Bristol, dont matter what lap count your on, once the race hits 5 hours, its over

Well I have considered making the Bud Shootout a timed race. I hate that segment crap.

And as I said before, the first GWC was totally unnecessary as they could have waited for Biffle to take the white flag before waving the yellow. To be clear, I'm not accusing NASCAR of being biased against Greg Biffle; I'm accusing NASCAR of incompetence.
19th February 2010, 09:36
71Fan

Call me mentally impaired but I've just never understood why anyone would choose a manipulated finish over one that plays out the way it plays out.

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 22:50.