I don't really know what to call this rant!

[2002p51]

It's sometimes funny to me to hear people whine about all the cars in NASCAR being the same. One of the most popular and exciting race series back in the '80s was the IROC (International Race of Champions) which had as it's main feature IDENTICAL cars! People loved it but claim to not like NASCAR because all the cars are identical.

But whose to blame for NASCAR going with the cars all being the same? Mostly, it's the race teams themselves. And again, you have to go back to the '80s when NASCAR race cars used different but stock appearing bodies for each brand. The Pontiac teams complained that their short deck lid made their car less stable than the Fords and Chevys with their longer decks. So NASCAR let them lengthen the deck. Then somebody else whined and they got a taller spoiler. Then somebody else whined and so THEY got a different front valence height. And on and on. Before you knew it, each brand had a different spoiler height, different front valence, and other variables. It was a tech inspection nightmare.

Gradually, over a few years NASCAR started to standardize more and more of the templates. In the last year or two before the COT, of the 29 or so templates that NASCAR used to measure the car's shape, 17 of them, more than half, were the same for all brands.

NASCAR was simply trying to stop the whining and get everybody on the same plane.

[highway]

Does anybody realize that Jaguar actually WON a race in Nascar ??? Check the records, I believe it was 1952, Watkins Glen........Big Bill France didn't have a problem with "ferin" cars back then.

I'd never heard of that, but I'm not doubting it either, because I believe one time I heard MG also mentioned as another one of them "ferin" cars that raced in the early days of NASCAR.

[Guest Johnny]

And there's nothing "Toyota" in a NASCAR race car.

Even the Toyota engine was designed using the best of all of the Big Three designs!

Yes they are made here and they employ a few thousand Americans, but the profits still go back to Japan!

If you go digging you will find that the only reason they build some of their cars here has to do with deals cut with those in power in DC! In other words in was financially benificial to them!

[2002p51]

For newer fans, the identical (or nearly identical) cars is the only NASCAR they've ever known, so they don't contrast and compare to the type of cars that ran in NASCAR 20-30-40 years ago, the way many older and long-time fans can't help but do.

Well Harry, I may be the exception that proves your theory. I've been a NASCAR fan since I first read about the 1961 Daytona 500 in the pages of Motor Trend magazine, so I think that qualifies me as a "long-time" fan.

I still love the sport. But I try not to compare it to the way the sport was because it isn't the same sport it used to be. But name one other sport that is? Football players are bigger and faster than ever before and rules have changed. Same with the NBA, MLB, NHL and almost any other sport you can name. I don't get all whiney about the designated hitter.

I choose to be a positive fan and enjoy the sport of NASCAR racing for what it is today. And believe me, there's plenty there to like if you just look.

It's the easiest thing in the world to get on an internet board and bash NASCAR. It's almost a sport all it's own.

But I'll be there every Sunday. If I can't be at the track, standing next to the wall with camera in hand, I'll be in front of a TV enjoying my favorite sport just like I always have.

[highway]

It's sometimes funny to me to hear people whine about all the cars in NASCAR being the same. One of the most popular and exciting race series back in the '80s was the IROC (International Race of Champions) which had as it's main feature IDENTICAL cars! People loved it but claim to not like NASCAR because all the cars are identical.

But whose to blame for NASCAR going with the cars all being the same? Mostly, it's the race teams themselves. And again, you have to go back to the '80s when NASCAR race cars used different but stock appearing bodies for each brand.

Gradually, over a few years NASCAR started to standardize more and more of the templates.

Drew, at least in my opinion, I don't think it's more about not the cars being the same, but looking the same as well, regardless of brand. I frankly don't care about it myself, but maybe subconsciously I do, because I think the best thing I seen last season was when the Nationwide Series ran their so called COT, and it was quite nice seeing Dodge Challengers and Ford Mustangs on the track. At least they looked more like the stock car than the Fusion or the Charger, and also did have some long lost brand identity.

I also think that might also be the reason for the lack of whining about the IROC cars, other than the fact they didn't race nearly the amount of races NASCAR does. Even though they were the same cars, they still had that critical brand identity. The Camaro looked like the street Camaro and the later Trans Ams looked like the street Trans Am.

[sjordan2]

I think that different situations draw different responses. The IROC series had fans like me because it was unique, and unlike other race series, it was about different drivers behind the wheels of the same cars. But that doesn't mean that everyone wanted to see that kind of set-up in ALL races. NASCAR has evolved to the IROC method, and I don't think that's what fans want to see.

[Harry P.]

It's the easiest thing in the world to get on an internet board and bash NASCAR. It's almost a sport all it's own.

But I'll be there every Sunday. If I can't be at the track, standing next to the wall with camera in hand, I'll be in front of a TV enjoying my favorite sport just like I always have.

Drew, I'm not trying to take NASCAR away from you (or from anyone)... everyone who likes NASCAR, more power to 'em!

I'm just trying to answer your original question, which concerned the "bashing" of NASCAR by many people. IMO, the main reason is due to the fact that NASCAR has completely changed, and like Ken said earlier, it has left many of its long-time fans behind. Sure, NASCAR is bigger than ever, and in that regard NASCAR has been a success, no argument there. But the very nature of the competition is different today than it was 30 years ago. The basic underlying concept has changed. The competition between rival auto makers, which was the draw of NASCAR in the first place, has been removed and now the focus is on the drivers as "celebrities" and marketing stars. Today's NASCAR is a completely different thing than it started out to be, which is not true of other major sports like baseball, football, etc. Yes, their rules have changed over the years, but the basic concept has not changed the way that NASCAR's has.

[2002p51]

Drew, I'm not trying to take NASCAR away from you (or from anyone)... everyone who likes NASCAR, more power to 'em!

I'm just trying to answer your original question, which concerned the "bashing" of NASCAR by many people. IMO, the main reason is due to the fact that NASCAR has completely changed, and like Ken said earlier, it has left many of its long-time fans behind. Sure, NASCAR is bigger than ever, and in that regard NASCAR has been a success, no argument there. But the very nature of the competition is different today than it was 30 years ago. The basic underlying concept has changed. The competition between rival auto makers, which was the draw of NASCAR in the first place, has been removed and now the focus is on the drivers as "celebrities" and marketing stars. Today's NASCAR is a completely different thing than it started out to be, which is not true of other major sports like baseball, football, etc. Yes, their rules have changed over the years, but the basic concept has not changed the way that NASCAR's has.

I never said anybody was trying to take NASCAR away from me, nobody can.

The basic, underlying concept of NASCAR hasn't really changed, Harry. You have to go back to the very beginning of NASCAR. Before it was competition between rival auto makers, it was competition between rival racers, just like it is today. Yes, it's bigger, yes, there's more money, more technology, more rules, and more people. But it's still Tony Stewart trying to beat Kyle Busch to the finish line. Or any of the other race teams trying to beat the other teams to the money. That's the essence of it, and that, along with the supreme technical challenge of doing it is the appeal to me. I see past all the other junk that most of the complainers focus on, and I see a sport that requires the best drivers in the world do something that few others of us can do as well. I see a sport that requires the best technical minds in the world do what it takes to make an overpowered, undertired, heavy car do amazing things.

Too many people focus only on the periphery and miss what's really going on. Look deeper, look past the hype, and you'll find an amazing sport that requires an amazing amount of talent and skill to do well, and I love it!

[Danno]

But of course, NASCAR has homogenized everything to the point where every car is basically identical and labeling a car a "Ford," a "Chevy," or a "Dodge," etc. is meaningless.

No, labeling them is not 'meaningless'. It's very important! After all, if they didn't put big brand-name labels on them, we couldn't tell them apart!

[Harry P.]

Gotta disagree with you, Drew.

In my mind (and as Dennis Miller says, "I could be wrong")... NASCAR traditionally was all about the battle of the brands. The Ford guys and the Chevy guys and the Dodge guys watched NASCAR because they wanted to see "their" car beat the "other" cars. It was all about Dodge beating Chevy, or Ford beating Dodge, etc. It wasn't about "Billy Bob" beating "Billy Joe." The competition between the brands was what set NASCAR apart from say, F1, where the focus was more on the driver, not the car. NASCAR was always about the car... and when the powers that be took away the cars' identity and put all the emphasis on the driver–when they made the driver, not the car, the star of the show–the essence of what NASCAR was all about fundamentally changed.

I agree with you that today's NASCAR is legitimate... it's real racing. But it's a different type of racing than it used to be. The basic underlying concept has changed from competition between cars (and the manufacturer of the car) to competition between drivers. The "car" part of the equation has been removed, and the drivers all drive identical "racing appliances."

Neither concept is "right" or "wrong"... but the basic metamorphosis that NASCAR has undergone is the main reason that so many people feel disinterest with today's version of NASCAR.

Again... there's nothing "wrong" with NASCAR as it is... it's just so very different than what it used to be, and many people don't like the change.

[2002p51]

Gotta disagree with you, Drew.

Then we must agree to disagree.

All you have to do is look at the record book.

In 1954 Junior Johnson drove two different brands in NASCAR races, in '55 he drove 3 different brands, and in '56 he drove 4 different brands of cars.

Fireball Roberts drove 3 brands of car in '50, 3 in '51, 2 in '52 and '53.

And none of those cars were factory supported.

In 1957 when the manufacturers were under their self imposed ban on racing support NASCAR continued on and the fans watched all of the biggest names of the day run 53 total races. For much of that year, all of '58 and '59, there was no official factory support of any race team. It was, quite literally, mano a mano!

It was until the early '60s, nearly fifteen years after the official beginning of NASCAR that the factories began spending major dollars to lure customers into the showrooms on Monday by making sure their brand won on Sunday.

Personally, I have always been a fan of the drivers over the make of cars, and that became even more so as the cars became less and less stock. Today, I don't really give a rat's rear end what the decal on the nose of the car says.

Now, having said all of that I should also report that NASCAR today is under some pressure from the manufacturers to give the cars more unique brand identity. That's the motivation behind the new Nationwide Mustang and Challenger. (Which I think look great, BTW!)

[Harry P.]

Now, having said all of that I should also report that NASCAR today is under some pressure from the manufacturers to give the cars more unique brand identity. That's the motivation behind the new Nationwide Mustang and Challenger. (Which I think look great, BTW!)

There you go! "Brand identity" is the whole point!

Maybe I should clarify... when I talk about NACSAR being all about Chevy vs. Ford vs. Dodge, I'm talking about it from the fan's viewpoint, not NASCAR's viewpoint. Whatever behind the scenes wheeling and dealing goes on, whatever level the factory is involved or not... that stuff is all "inside baseball." I'm talking about the fact that as far as the fans are concerned, their "brand loyalty" has become irrelevant in today's NASCAR... and that brand loyalty is what fueled so many NASCAR fans back in the day. Take away that aspect and you have a whole different ballgame, which is what today's NASCAR is, compared to what it used to be.

[keyser]

...what they started with to build the engine, RESIN!

That switch to TKM really was a poor business choice. Don or Norm would fix it right up.

[Harry P.]

I think you are you off the mark just a tad here, Harry, and here's why ...

In NASCAR's infancy, the overwhelming majority of the cars were Fords, and the reason why was simple _ none of the other makes had an engine that could compete with Ford's flathead V-8. Therefore, there was no "battle of the brands" to speak of in those days. And remember, too, that NASCAR came about as a result of a bunch on moonshine runners competing for bragging rights over who could go the fastest, so, even back then, it was more about the drivers than the cars.

Worth noting, too, is that the "battle of the brands" was largely absent in NASCAR for large portions of the 1960s. Chevy was still observing the self-imposed manufacturers' ban on factory support for racing (although a few privateers like Smokey Yunick did run Chevys) and Ford and ChryCo both found themselves on the sidelines for extended periods due to squabbles over what NASCAR would and wouldn't allow them to run.

I think it's also incorrect to say that the "underlying concept" of NASCAR has changed because the "underlying concept" has always been the first guy to cross the finish line wins. That's one of the few things about NASCAR that HASN'T changed!

I think maybe I'm focusing on a too-small piece of the overall NASCAR story. My interest in NASCAR (such as it was) was because I could see Fords and Chevies and Dodges going head to head, back when NASCAR racers actually were Fords and Chevies and Dodges (more or less). To me at least, NASCAR was about the rivalry between the makers. I guess if you look at the overall history of NASCAR that wasn't always the case... but for many people "of a certain age" it is.

[2002p51]

when I talk about NASCAR being all about Chevy vs. Ford vs. Dodge, I'm talking about it from the fan's viewpoint, not NASCAR's viewpoint.

Then how come you see so many fans at the races walking around in Dale Earnhardt, Jr T-shirts, and Jeff Gordon jackets, and Kyle Busch hats, instead of Chevy, Ford, or Dodge shirts?

[Harry P.]

Then how come you see so many fans at the races walking around in Dale Earnhardt, Jr T-shirts, and Jeff Gordon jackets, and Kyle Busch hats, instead of Chevy, Ford, or Dodge shirts?

Because NASCAR has shifted the entire focus to the drivers! It doesn't make much sense to be a NASCAR "Dodge fan" when your "Dodge" is the same exact car as all the others!

That's my whole point–the focus has been shifted by NASCAR from the cars to the drivers. It was obviously a business decision.

[slantasaurus]

..........I'm SO glad the forum is back up and running so we can all get back to the bickering and drama...............

[revshag]

I'll chime in on this topic as it is pretty interesting.

I grew up going to different races with my dad. We went to dirt tracks to see modifieds and sprints. We went to pocono to see Indy Cars. And we went to the drags too. So I'm no stranger to racing.

I started following NASCAR after Dale Sr. died. My family has been Jeff Gordon fans (say what you want ).

I've started to lose interest with NASCAR for a few reasons.

1. Jimmie Johnson winning five titles. Nothing against Jimmie but when no one seems to be able to challenge him it gets frustrating. Yes, this past season he had to come from behind to win, but it just makes it anti-climatic. It's like the Buffalo Bills going to the Super Bowl 4 years in a row. It gets repetative.

2. Someone mentioned the loss of character of the cars and characters driving them. So many of the drivers are boring. DW had a rant earlier this season (I think it was this season) about the loss of passion amongst the drivers. It's true. The current generation of drivers are nothing more than pitchmen. And it is very uncomfortable to watch a commercial where a driver has no business being in it. And it seems like they only racing for a paycheck.

3. Guys are being given Cup gigs before they have proven themselves in the other series. Even the guys that have been successful in Indy and F1 come over and it has taken them years to learn and they become nothing more than high-priced also-rans. They may have loads of talent but they're not ready for the big show.

4. It's getting to be a bit like professional wrestling. I'd almost be willing to put money on saying that some of these outcomes are predetermined. Ever wonder why Dale Jr. can only win when the race has something to do with honoring his father?

This is just my experience as a fan who is losing interest.

Chris

[Harry P.]

There have been conspiracy theories about fixing the outcomes of races practically ever since there's been a NASCAR. Among fans, it's known as "The Call." Check out this article for more info ...

http://nascarfans.we...ore%3A+The+Call

Seems kind of hard to argue against it...

[highway]

There you go! "Brand identity" is the whole point!

I brought that up, did you guys miss it?

Drew, at least in my opinion, I don't think it's more about not the cars being the same, but looking the same as well, regardless of brand. I frankly don't care about it myself, but maybe subconsciously I do, because I think the best thing I seen last season was when the Nationwide Series ran their so called COT, and it was quite nice seeing Dodge Challengers and Ford Mustangs on the track. At least they looked more like the stock car than the Fusion or the Charger, and also did have some long lost brand identity.

I also think that might also be the reason for the lack of whining about the IROC cars, other than the fact they didn't race nearly the amount of races NASCAR does. Even though they were the same cars, they still had that critical brand identity. The Camaro looked like the street Camaro and the later Trans Ams looked like the street Trans Am.

[MikeMc]

Now, having said all of that I should also report that NASCAR today is under some pressure from the manufacturers to give the cars more unique brand identity. That's the motivation behind the new Nationwide Mustang and Challenger. (Which I think look great, BTW!)

Yeah...they sorta look like stock cars......Aussie V8 Series

[Chuck Most]

Going back to an earlier point- Why not let other foreign makes into NASCAR? I seem to remember seeing vehicles as unlikely as Jaguars running in early NASCAR events. Heck, when Dodge got back into it, weren't they technically a German automaker? I have no idea where the Chevy Impala is built, but the Ford Fusion was built in Mexico. "Foreign" cars in NASCAR are nothing new. Deal with it, kids!

I don't care what country the company is based in, if they want to set up a NASCAR operation and employ Americans, I'm all for it!

[Guest Johnny]

Ummmm, yeah, just like any for-profit enterprise, regardless of national origin! Seriously, what reason would they have done it other than financial benefit?

And yet this is the cavalier attitude that has help lead to the decline of US industry!

But who cares right? We got all this cheap stuff and these cheap cars, oh wait! The cars aren't cheap anymore, are they.

[niteowl7710]

Heck, when Dodge got back into it, weren't they technically a German automaker? I have no idea where the Chevy Impala is built...

The Impala and Charger are both built in Ontario, Canada.

[Chuck Most]

The Impala and Charger are both built in Ontario, Canada.

There ya go... the Charger and Impala are built in Canada, the Fusion and Mexico,and ironically, the hated 'danged furriner' is built in the US. (Last I checked, anyway.)