New Start N Park Rule

http://www.scenedaily.com/news/artic...ecked_car.html

"LAS VEGAS – NASCAR has instituted a new postrace inspection policy for Sprint Cup races in which the first car out of the race that is not involved in an accident will be held for teardown, much like the cars that currently finish in the top five."............more at the link........

So, a team that can barely afford to even get to a racetrack now gets their car taken away and their motor gets torn down forcing (according to the article) at least a $30,000 rebuild.

Way to go NASCAR. You've just made making a race even more expensive for the teams that can least afford it. Now how exactly are you planning to fill the field to satisfy your TV contracts that probably call for 43 cars? Back to tow money?

Maybe someone can tell me this......How does (in effect) charging the last place car $30,000 improve the quality of racing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 71Fan

http://www.scenedaily.com/news/artic...ecked_car.html

"LAS VEGAS – NASCAR has instituted a new postrace inspection policy for Sprint Cup races in which the first car out of the race that is not involved in an accident will be held for teardown, much like the cars that currently finish in the top five."............more at the link........

So, a team that can barely afford to even get to a racetrack now gets their car taken away and their motor gets torn down forcing (according to the article) at least a $30,000 rebuild.

Way to go NASCAR. You've just made making a race even more expensive for the teams that can least afford it. Now how exactly are you planning to fill the field to satisfy your TV contracts that probably call for 43 cars? Back to tow money?

---

Interesting....I guess at $1800 a pop for tires teams may find it cheaper to run more laps than risk an engine tear down. And I would be all for that, intead f a car pulling off the track after 3 laps

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 71Fan

Maybe someone can tell me this......How does (in effect) charging the last place car $30,000 improve the quality of racing?

---

This is one of the dumbest things they could do. Those crappy little start and park efforts can evolve into real racing teams with a sponsor. Killing them or making them spend more money to stick around just makes their existence more precarious.

Should have left things alone...

Thanks Nascar for another stupid and idiotic rule :rolleyes:

Great! Finally a proper negative consequence for taking up one of 43 sought-after grid slots without actually attempting to compete in the race.

Start-and-parkers are abusing NASCAR's generous pay-outs for finishing last, and I support any attempt to make that money go to the team that actually finishes the race in the last position, rather than the one who chooses to end it first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 71Fan

Now how exactly are you planning to fill the field to satisfy your TV contracts that probably call for 43 cars?

---

The TV contracts don't call for 43 cars.

Still, it's a stupid rule.

I can just see it now: a S&P team starts the race, pulls in after 20 laps. 30 laps later, another team pulls out of the race with a genuine mechanical issue, the S&P team get the car back out for 31 more laps to avoid the tear-down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Copse

Great! Finally a proper negative consequence for taking up one of 43 sought-after grid slots without actually attempting to compete in the race.

Start-and-parkers are abusing NASCAR's generous pay-outs for finishing last, and I support any attempt to make that money go to the team that actually finishes the race in the last position, rather than the one who chooses to end it first.

---

Look, when a team enters a race, they have no contractual obligation to FINISH the race. They get an entry. IF they choose to park after 10 laps, that is their business. The money for a 43rd finish will pay the bills and keep the team alive for another week. It isn't however a recipe for getting rich. NASCAR mandates they have to do the tire deal with Goodyear, they have to have a real pit suite, and have a pit crew at the track. All of that costs money. The cars have to pass all the regs and are not cheap. So no team is going to do ALL of that, and then pull over after 10 laps if they had the resources to do more. Just to qualify means you have to be fast enough to out run the other no hope teams because theres is often guys going home after qualfying. Imagine the tire bill, wear and tear, cost of people working on the car and the "pitcrew" and war wagon, plus travel, hotel and the rest...and tell me how rich a Start and Park team is getting? Not much...if at all.

The reality is, most of these teams are only doing this to stay alive. If NASCAR makes their costs go up to preserve the myth that these teams are out there to win (with a sponsor they would be believe me); then it will be less likely that these teams will survive. If they DON'T survive, where will the new teams of the future come from? Where is there new blood in the sport? Richard Childress once was a a start and park style independent. Guys like Rick Hendrick had no sponsors and had to survive. IF times got tough, I am sure he would have start and parked in his early days.

The reality is these small indpendent teams in good times get sponsors by being at the track and making the show. Then they can race. If they don't get the local sponsors, then they maybe stop after 10. It shouldn't however be misconstrued that this was their goal. It wasn't. You cant be in the racing business and not want to win. However, if you saved your team to survive until a good sponsor comes along, then it justifies it. NASCAR telling these teams to waste more money for NASCAR to have the vanity and illusion of everyone being competitive is a farce, and the same goal would be served by merely cutting back the purse. OH wait at minute...they did...cut purses 10%. Again, show me where the millionaires are owning start and park teams and then this is justified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cgs

I can just see it now: a S&P team starts the race, pulls in after 20 laps. 30 laps later, another team pulls out of the race with a genuine mechanical issue, the S&P team get the car back out for 31 more laps to avoid the tear-down.

---

Oh ya....exactly. You see it now actually, if there is a wreck in the first 10 laps some S and P guys may head to the first fuel stop if for no other reason than the increase in purse for 3 extra spots might be more than the cost of the tires and wear and tear. I cant imagine the drivers or the team owners like playing this game, but it is a business. Business dictates you pay the bills every week....

Having followed Ol Wingtips for decades, I can tell you that life mid-pack and back is not easy. Dave worked his tail off make races, and to simply survive doing the only thing he knew how. The old guy never was a start n parker, but if he happened to be the first car out of the race next Sunday, that $30G's would kill him. I mean dang, years back one of his crew members slept under the car on an open trailer to get to the race at Riverside. And another time, he pulled his race motor out of the car in a grocery store parking lot to put it in his truck so he could get to the track.

This new rule is indeed going to make it harder on small teams to even make races, and it will solidify the stranglehold that the mega-teams have on the sport.

Take Kirk and his Racing For Jesus thing. Everything about his operation is on the cheap. From vollunteer crew members to pounded out and puddied up bodies. Here's a guy who if he happens to finish last simply won't won't have the money to have his motor rebuilt. Nope, he and his friends will probably just put it back together as is. And for the next race? My guess is that he'll pull out another used and abused car and motor to try to make the show.

Thing about shoestrings is this....They break. And you can only tie knots in them for so long before ya just gotta throw them away. Does a guy like Kirk (and the kids he brings with him) deserve to be forced out for making do with what they got? Not in my opinion.

But as always, your mileage and opinions may vary :-)

Well that is it. What Marcis did isn't doable now. The sport is too big, but in a sense, he would have been just as well off if not better off by starting and parking. The fact he didn't is to his credit, but in this era a Dave Marcis would be starting and parking or he wouldn't be there sponsorless. The cost of just showing up is high enough. If NASCAR wants these guys to race, up the purse. You put a gun to their heads, they wont go. It wont make sense, and the sport will lose.

Start and Park isnt' what people set out to do, it is what economic necessity dictates.

Going to be really interesting when NASCAR doesn't have 43 cars trying to qualify. So much for full fields.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beachgirl

Going to be really interesting when NASCAR doesn't have 43 cars trying to qualify. So much for full fields.

---

outside some big races, there maybe are 45-46 entrants,

and 9 of those are start and parks. Nascar put themselves in a bad position, as like Mark said, they don;t have the sponsors to survive the whole race, otherwise they could, they dont have the money to buy tires and fuel and a crew for a full race.

this might just officially kill off 43 car fields, might start going down to 38-40 cars

If a team has the funds to pay the entry fee and get their equipment to the track they have every right to race. If they don't have at least some TV coverage they have no chance of ever getting a sponsor. NASCAR's new rule will probably put most of them out of business by adding a possible expense that they can't afford to chance. Just another dumb rule from the powers-that-be. Ugh.

The thing is, it isn't the 43 cars I care about. 43 is just a number ( a great number if you are driving the car with it ) but the fact is those teams cant get traction if they cannot afford to even show up. AT some point, all this talk about controlling the large teams and to encourage new investors falls apart. TRG last year was start and park until mid season. They had no owners points, but they saw an opportunity by contraction and jumped into Cup racing. By the end of the season, they had sponsors and the services of Bobby Labonte. Tell me how they could do that under the current climate. TRG could be 10 years from now be where Roush or RCR will be, because lets face it, Roush, Gibbs and Childress are all run by men in their 60's. They wont be there maybe in 10 years. New teams have to be able to get on that first rung. I could care less about the 43 guarnteed cars in the field, I care about the reality about new teams getting into the sport and coming forward to fill the void when the current top dogs fade away or get broken up.

So coming in first or last results in a $30,000 bill? Umm ya that makes a lot of sense.

Mark....on the topic of local sponsorship......

Out at Riverside one year, Dave had a local sponsor on the quarterpanel of his Chevrolet.

Warren-Anderson Ford.

And one of the things Dave's wife always told him...paraphrased...You start losing money at it, and you're done.

Let's be honest.....life at the back is break even at best. Adding 30G's a race to the cost WILL disable more than a few teams. Shucks, just the extra set of tires needed to run another 10 laps so ya won't be the last place car might put some of these teams over the edge.

And, there is no way this side of Cucamonga that this will in any way improve the racing. And, since there won't be a 43rd place car, the 30G's will be charged to the 42nd. And so on and so on untill it starts eating up the budgets of teams that are not, and never will be, considered start n parkers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 71Fan

Mark....on the topic of local sponsorship......

Out at Riverside one year, Dave had a local sponsor on the quarterpanel of his Chevrolet.

Warren-Anderson Ford.

And one of the things Dave's wife always told him...paraphrased...You start losing money at it, and you're done.

Let's be honest.....life at the back is break even at best. Adding 30G's a race to the cost WILL disable more than a few teams. Shucks, just the extra set of tires needed to run another 10 laps so ya won't be the last place car might put some of these teams over the edge.

And, there is no way this side of Cucamonga that this will in any way improve the racing. And, since there won't be a 43rd place car, the 30G's will be charged to the 42nd. And so on and so on untill it starts eating up the budgets of teams that are not, and never will be, considered start n parkers.

---

I agree. I used to think NASCAR management was doing a good job, but they are listening to the wrong people on this one. Many fans hate the start and park thing, but the fans don't see the business side of this. NASCAR should...

Yea.....If only they would play by rules, none of this would've ever happened. Oh yea, my rules are simple.


1. Run what ya brung. (as long as your car passes a safety inspection)
2. Go fast or go home.
3. If you are lapped, you re-start in the back.
4. No yellow flag pit stops.
5. Races are for the designated distance. No exceptions.
6. Seatbelts, helmets, HANS Devices, all other designated safety devices, and a spotter are mandatory.
7. There will be no stopping of races due to rain or darkness. (see rule #5)
8. Speeding on Pit Road will be a 2 lap penalty.
9. Intentionally hitting another car on Pit Road will result in a last place finish and a 1 race suspension.
10. All driver disputes will be settled with 16 ounce gloves and headgear.

Yup, think that about covers it.....Let's go racin' boys!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 71Fan

Yea.....If only they would play by rules, none of this would've ever happened. Oh yea, my rules are simple.


1. Run what ya brung. (as long as your car passes a safety inspection)
2. Go fast or go home.
3. If you are lapped, you re-start in the back.
4. No yellow flag pit stops.
5. Races are for the designated distance. No exceptions.
6. Seatbelts, helmets, HANS Devices, all other designated safety devices, and a spotter are mandatory.
7. There will be no stopping of races due to rain or darkness. (see rule #5)
8. Speeding on Pit Road will be a 2 lap penalty.
9. Intentionally hitting another car on Pit Road will result in a last place finish and a 1 race suspension.
10. All driver disputes will be settled with 16 ounce gloves and headgear.

Yup, think that about covers it.....Let's go racin' boys!

---

Works for me :up: except rule 7....oval racing in the rain wouldn't be much fun

Relative NASCAR newbie here, been watching on-and-off for a few years due to intermittent terrestrial TV coverage in the UK.

I'm with Mark on this one, although I do completely see the point of those that disagree.

However, as someone who's watched Formula 1 narrowly avoid disaster many times in recent years I think the key is this: the health of your series isn't determined by who's at the front, but who's at the back. F1 unwisely cut most of the small teams out in the early-mid Nineties by instigating a 107% qualifying rule to get on the grid, which culled the field from 40 cars trying to qualify to race in 1991 to twenty cars just five years later. But then with 20 cars on the grid, you start to find that manufacturer or big-spending teams are pretty near the back or indeed at the back - and they don't like that as its a major embarrassment. If there's a Minardi or someone behind you, that's not so bad. With the current downturn the manufacturers have bailed, so this year's move to help new independent teams in HAD to be done, otherwise F1 would've had a 14-car grid or something which is perilously close to death-time for any racing series. Small teams should be at the back - if big ones are you're very close to disaster.

The same must be true of NASCAR in terms of who's at the back, even though the grid size is much healthier. If well-funded teams are sitting at the back of a (reduced) 35 car field, sponsors might bail out. With (say) eight admittedly underfunded efforts behind, that's less of a problem. And they can make the jump out into full running - surely it brought a smile to see Dave Blaney run the full race this time?

It's certainly not ideal for them to not be able to afford to run the full show, but they're hardly getting in the way and these are hard times for everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JasonD

So coming in first or last results in a $30,000 bill? Umm ya that makes a lot of sense.

---

You figure it out, yes that is a number that likely makes sense. Everyone has to bring their car in a hauler, and bring enough spares to service it. Everyone HAS to have a pit crew, so you are paying to bring 6 over the wall guys, plus a couple behind the wall, plus your crew chief and car chief. You might have more but that is bare minimum. You have to lease a minimum amount of tires, and you have to have the equipment to show up and a pit suite. If you start actually racing, then the cost goes up with wear and tear, plus tires and gas. So if you have a sponsor, you make laps and try to win if you have everything going your way. If you had no sponsor, you lose money if you race past the first pit stop. If NASCAR does what is proposed, they just cost these teams MORE money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by patnicholls

Relative NASCAR newbie here, been watching on-and-off for a few years due to intermittent terrestrial TV coverage in the UK.

I'm with Mark on this one, although I do completely see the point of those that disagree.

However, as someone who's watched Formula 1 narrowly avoid disaster many times in recent years I think the key is this: the health of your series isn't determined by who's at the front, but who's at the back. F1 unwisely cut most of the small teams out in the early-mid Nineties by instigating a 107% qualifying rule to get on the grid, which culled the field from 40 cars trying to qualify to race in 1991 to twenty cars just five years later. But then with 20 cars on the grid, you start to find that manufacturer or big-spending teams are pretty near the back or indeed at the back - and they don't like that as its a major embarrassment. If there's a Minardi or someone behind you, that's not so bad. With the current downturn the manufacturers have bailed, so this year's move to help new independent teams in HAD to be done, otherwise F1 would've had a 14-car grid or something which is perilously close to death-time for any racing series. Small teams should be at the back - if big ones are you're very close to disaster.

The same must be true of NASCAR in terms of who's at the back, even though the grid size is much healthier. If well-funded teams are sitting at the back of a (reduced) 35 car field, sponsors might bail out. With (say) eight admittedly underfunded efforts behind, that's less of a problem. And they can make the jump out into full running - surely it brought a smile to see Dave Blaney run the full race this time?

It's certainly not ideal for them to not be able to afford to run the full show, but they're hardly getting in the way and these are hard times for everyone.

---

I think the nature of NASCAR will dictate someone will show up but I suspect many teams will not make the bell every race now....

I just fail to see why they are doing what they doing at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

I just fail to see why they are doing what they doing at this point.

---

Maybe they are tired of paying these teams good money each week, to show up and not race?

This is supposed to be a top rung, professional racing series. I don't blame them for wanting 43 cars in their races every week, who are there to actually RACE.

Now do they have 43 cars that can show up and financially make it work? I guess, we'll see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by patnicholls

Relative NASCAR newbie here, been watching on-and-off for a few years due to intermittent terrestrial TV coverage in the UK.

I'm with Mark on this one, although I do completely see the point of those that disagree.

However, as someone who's watched Formula 1 narrowly avoid disaster many times in recent years I think the key is this: the health of your series isn't determined by who's at the front, but who's at the back. F1 unwisely cut most of the small teams out in the early-mid Nineties by instigating a 107% qualifying rule to get on the grid, which culled the field from 40 cars trying to qualify to race in 1991 to twenty cars just five years later. But then with 20 cars on the grid, you start to find that manufacturer or big-spending teams are pretty near the back or indeed at the back - and they don't like that as its a major embarrassment. If there's a Minardi or someone behind you, that's not so bad. With the current downturn the manufacturers have bailed, so this year's move to help new independent teams in HAD to be done, otherwise F1 would've had a 14-car grid or something which is perilously close to death-time for any racing series. Small teams should be at the back - if big ones are you're very close to disaster.

The same must be true of NASCAR in terms of who's at the back, even though the grid size is much healthier. If well-funded teams are sitting at the back of a (reduced) 35 car field, sponsors might bail out. With (say) eight admittedly underfunded efforts behind, that's less of a problem. And they can make the jump out into full running - surely it brought a smile to see Dave Blaney run the full race this time?

It's certainly not ideal for them to not be able to afford to run the full show, but they're hardly getting in the way and these are hard times for everyone.

---

You have a very valid point. I never quite thought of it that way, however, I don't really believe its quite the same as the 107% rule in F1. Nascar isn't trying to cull out the under-performing teams, as much as it is trying to curb the rash of teams who show up and put some kind of all out qually set up in the car, make the race, then park it 10 laps into the race. Sometimes,they even out qualify (and therefore send home) a team that is better funded and would have run the whole race, and who is in it for the long haul. It would be like USF1 actually showing up to Bahrain (a big laugher there) going fast enough to make the show (if F1 had knock out quals instead of guaranteed spots) and a Force India car had to go home, then Windsor keys up the radio and tells the driver to park it.

In the past,since that car was finishing last,they would just leave the track and go home before the race is over with no post race inspection. What would stop one of them from bringing an oversize motor,for instance? I think Dave Blaney's Q-lap at California really raised some suspicions in Nascar's tech dept. I mean here is a car that can barely get out of its own way qualifying in the top 10, out qualifying Kevin Harvick, Jimmie Johnson, Mark Martin, and Kyle Busch, on a highspeed, high downforce track like Cali (?) That would be like someone taking a mindardi and out pacing Shumacher, Alonzo and Raikkonen back in the day. Things that make ya go hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

Still. it doesn't take a tear-down to determine cubic inches or compression ratios. And other than cubic inches and compression ratio what else is there? A lighter piston or rod? Shucks, I doubt they could get the dern things any lighter than they already are.

As for somebody suddenly turning a hotter lap than usual, throw minimum weight oils and greases at a car and full seconds being taken off a lap time imo would not be out of the question.

No peeps, this has nothing to do at all with all they guys at the back getting a fair shake. This has to do with NASCAR (one) not wanting to pay start n parkers and (two) NASCAR not wanting to look like some kind of fool for doing so.

But again, this is also going to hurt those teams that are there to race, Even if it's only for 38th place because if something goes wrong and they finish last, they might not have the money to continue

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slorydn1

In the past,since that car was finishing last,they would just leave the track and go home before the race is over with no post race inspection. What would stop one of them from bringing an oversize motor,for instance? I think Dave Blaney's Q-lap at California really raised some suspicions in Nascar's tech dept. I mean here is a car that can barely get out of its own way qualifying in the top 10, out qualifying Kevin Harvick, Jimmie Johnson, Mark Martin, and Kyle Busch, on a highspeed, high downforce track like Cali (?) That would be like someone taking a mindardi and out pacing Shumacher, Alonzo and Raikkonen back in the day. Things that make ya go hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

---

UK viewers don't have the luxury of quali coverage but from memory I think Blaney was also well up in qualifying at one of the short tracks last year (maybe Bristol? or Martinsville) - something like 4th in the starting lineup and then basically got out of the way cos he knew he'd be s&p-ing although didn't elect to start from the back. I guess it's an equivalent of F1 teams (sorry to draw a parallel again) who throw it all into a quali strategy to get some TV time knowing that they'll fall back during the race, or indeed teams running very light through winter testing to try and get sponsorship by posting amazing times. Obviously the difference being that testing is one thing and the races themselves are quite different...

Am I right in thinking that the number of s&p-ers we're dealing with this year is either four or five at present (Said, Almirola, McDowell, Nemechek, and Blaney who's run one and s&p-ed one)?

Back in the day, Nascar always had "strokers" who would ride around and try to not tear up their car and bring home a check(JD McDuffie, Buddy Arrington, Jimmy Means). I don't see it as that much different, but what has changed is the way Nascar structures their purses. Purses today are much flatter in terms of payout.

Look at these examples from 1982: (picking drivers who were on the same type of "plan"

Rockingham II

Lake Speed 32nd ............$1700
Buddy Arrington 23rd .......$2800 64% increase

Daytona 500

Ricky Rudd 35th..........$6050
Dave Marcis 24th........$8905 47% increase

and from 2009:

Bristol I

Joe Nemechek 41st $83,475
David Ragan 27th $96,450 15% increase

Daytona 500

Jeremy Mayfield 40th $265,238
Terry Labonte 24th $273,963 3% increase

I am wondering if the flattening of the purses coupled with the increased reliability of the cars today make it not worth the risk to run all day for these backmarker teams for whatever few positions they might be able to pick up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by patnicholls

UK viewers don't have the luxury of quali coverage but from memory I think Blaney was also well up in qualifying at one of the short tracks last year (maybe Bristol? or Martinsville) - something like 4th in the starting lineup and then basically got out of the way cos he knew he'd be s&p-ing although didn't elect to start from the back. I guess it's an equivalent of F1 teams (sorry to draw a parallel again) who throw it all into a quali strategy to get some TV time knowing that they'll fall back during the race, or indeed teams running very light through winter testing to try and get sponsorship by posting amazing times. Obviously the difference being that testing is one thing and the races themselves are quite different...

Am I right in thinking that the number of s&p-ers we're dealing with this year is either four or five at present (Said, Almirola, McDowell, Nemechek, and Blaney who's run one and s&p-ed one)?

---

Short tracks like Bristol and Martinsville are a different animal, the driver skill really comes to the front at those tracks because aero really doesn't mean much.Blaney is a very good driver who cant seem to catch a break in his career and latch on long term with a good team. So quite often a back marker team will qualify well at those venue's. You can add 3 of the 4 restrictor plate races to that mix as they are impound races. For those that are not familiar with the impound rules, you pretty much qualify what your gonna race (exactly like f1 actually). So the top-35 teams that are locked in don't put any kind of special qualifying setups or oils or anything like that because they are locked in the show, and it really doesn't matter where you start a plate race, you'll be at the front within 10 laps with enough friends to push you. The Go or Go Homers will add the lightweight oil, put in a qualifying gear, even resort to an old fashioned qualifying motor that wouldn't last a 500 mile race. It is not uncommon for some of those guys to qualify in the top 10 there (Boris Said ALMOST sat on the pole the Coke Zero 400 back in 2007, had it not rained keeping the last 4 cars from setting a time which scrubbed qualifying, and Said went from the Pole to the truck as he was sent home with no owner points).

But the 1.5-2.5 mile high speed, high downforce tracks require the best of everything to run and stay at the front,and when a team like Blaney's Q's in the top 10, eyebrows are raised. Turns out his car was legal, good on them.

71 Fan was correct. They have ways of determining the CID of the engine without having to completely tearing it down, but the only way to determine if every part of that engine is legal is to tear it down and look at every part. I would like to see nascar pay the $$$ to rebuild the engine's they tear down, but that's never going to happen.

As for your other question about the S & P's look at the Cup Series points standings thru Vegas....
http://racing-reference.info/yeardet?yr=2010&series=W

Just eye balling it, it looks like the drivers in positions 36 -42 are start and parkers. Michael Waltrip is retiring and will only run at most 1 other race this year, Bill Elliot is part time with 21 Wood Bros team (they don't attempt all the races, so that they have the money to RACE in the one's they do attempt), and the Bottom 3 have missed races due to S & P's outqualifying them, they would have run the whole race if they had made it.

Sorry I got so long winded, I hope it helped :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scotty G.

Maybe they are tired of paying these teams good money each week, to show up and not race?

This is supposed to be a top rung, professional racing series. I don't blame them for wanting 43 cars in their races every week, who are there to actually RACE.

Now do they have 43 cars that can show up and financially make it work? I guess, we'll see.

---

Scotty, like all your conspiracy theories you ignore the reality. I have stated it before, NASCAR cannot dictate to a team that they have to compete. You sign up, your pay our entry, you make the race, and you race. OR not. If you want the poor teams who would lose money actually racing without sponsors to actually run the distance, you better up the purse, or have them not show up. If they don't show up, when Jack Roush or Richard Childress decide to shrug this mortal coil or retire (hopefully retire), you have no new teams. You have no institutional successors. Start and Park is a symptom of the poor economy. If the poor team has a sponsor they race.

Listen, NASCAR can do what they like, they are their own organziation, but anyone who has listened to people from Larry Mac, to Dave Moody on Sirius Speedway talk about this all say the same mantra. The teams have NO choice but do this start and park thing, and all large team owners now were faced with similar pressures starting up. Richard Childress basically start and parked when he was still driving more than once. It is how poor or new teams on limited budgets survive until better budgets allow more sponsors, or the right people come along.

The best example of this growth is TRG. Last year they were start and park at times in the spring. Mid summer, they get some sponsors, and Bobby Labonte became available to help them out. He attracts sponsors and boom, they are now a legit team. You run guys like that off, and then soon you are looking at not making 35 cars a race....and THAT isn't something NASCAR wants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slorydn1

Works for me :up: except rule 7....oval racing in the rain wouldn't be much fun

---

I've found a few circumstances where it will work, but that's a thread for another day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 71Fan

Still. it doesn't take a tear-down to determine cubic inches or compression ratios. And other than cubic inches and compression ratio what else is there? A lighter piston or rod? Shucks, I doubt they could get the dern things any lighter than they already are.

---

Pistons and connecting rods have minimum weights now.

It's actually easier to measure displacement and compression ratio before you tear down the engine.