RAIN OUT ?

The declared "rain-out" of Cup qualifications at Watkins Glen reinforces the notion that either NASCAR is lazy, or that they view maintenance of the status quo as their priority.

Despite the near certainty they could have qualified the Cup cars today (Saturday), NASCAR chose to declare qualifications to be "rained-out" yesterday and assigned starting positions based upon Cup point standings. Smaller teams and road race specialists brought in for races such as this one, drivers/teams who would have to compete for the eight non-guaranteed starting spots under normal conditions, are in the haulers and on the way home today. "Drivers had sponsor appearances to make" is the most often quoted response to the question "why can't you just qualify on Saturday?". Total face fart.

NASCAR finds itself a bit backwards with regard to their approach to qualifications, and would do well in the eyes of race fans to revisit the notion that qualifications are a mere formality leading up to a predetermined showcase of familiar drivers and sponsors competiting for the win in this weeks show.

I believe the common race fan finds this quite distasteful, and would be most satisfied to see NASCAR restore qualifying to its full glory, ... or more (see F1, and how they reinvented qualifications - you think NASCAR couldn't one-up F1 in this regard if they put their minds to it?).

Some of you are old enough to remember when video arcades were a new phenomenon (back in the late 80's/early 90's). Lucas and Spielberg were shadow partners for a series of high-end, Dave & Buster type arcades, featuring banks of "immersion type" games. These included series of pods, where gamers would play against other gamers from within a surround video/sound pod - typically these were space war or tank war types of shoot-'em up units. But they also had the "sit-in" type of racing games, where there would be a bank of four to eight cars with large screen video displays, and even larger displays overhead for spectators (lines behind the games were long, they were very popular). Even by today's standards, these games were a good deal of fun, pitting you against seven other drivers for relatively long races (usually about 5 minutes, although some were set-up for longer races).

--------------------------- -------------------------------

A couple of buddies and I had gotten pretty good at an open wheeled version of the game, featuring both road courses and the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. We would usually choose a course allegedly set up along the California coast - a pretty challenging course in the scheme of things in this game. As we got to the front of our lines, ready to take the next race, we're chatting it up with the current group of drivers - and notice they're on the same course we prefer and doing very well. And they're talking some serious trash amongst themselves. The race ends, and the guy in front of me has narrowly beaten the guy two seats to the right. As they get up, I notice it's Robbie Gordon. And Jimmy Vasser's the guy he's just narrowly defeated. A couple of us started talking to both of them, asking them to stay in their seats and let the rest of us race against them - we'd pay for their races (like they needed to have us pay for them, ... but we desperately wanted to race them and really weren't thinking things through in this regard ...). Everyone else in the lines agreed, and Robbie and Jimmy stayed for about an hour playing the game over and over with a couple dozen of their closest friends living out their Walter Mitty-esque fantasies.

I don't think any of us ever came close to beating them, regardless of the track (these games were not set to artificially keep contestants close to one another, a setting that is usually engaged at most arcades). These guys were a lot of fun. Robbie is VERY personable and was quick to give advice as to how to drive faster - generally, easier on the throttle and focus more on entering and exiting turns smoothly. (I've done some entry-level racing in non-shifting carts and 1.9L sports cars, and knew a bit about how to race, but still couldn't touch these guys). Neither guy had an apparent ego, readily engaging anyone in conversation and seeming to have a good time themselves. This was the first week in May, and both drivers were there taking a break from the track (it was raining all day). They'd talk about Indy and the other race teams with us while they drove and humored us when we strategized to have two drivers focus on taking each of them out, while the remaining two raced as fast as they could in an attempt to actually take a win from them - no dice. We had a blast, until their entourages finally pried them out of the building to head back to the Speedway.

I've since thoroughly enjoyed watching Robby's escapades in a variety of racing series. His short-lived reality series was one of the more interesting yet produced. The program featured Robby and his life as a racer and team owner warts and all, but never seemed to catch on with the public - at least not in sufficient quantities to sustain network interest in picking the show up for another season.

I believe he's really a great guy, but also an INCREDIBLY competitive person as well. Sure, when he's in the competitive mode, he crosses the line more than a few times, particularly in NASCAR sanctioned events. I find this to be an endearing quality, but know others have been repulsed by some of his behavior. There is no denying he's fast as hell in whatever car he climbs into, whether it's his native off-road series, an IndyCar, a sports car/GT, or a Cup car; and, once the green flag drops, he'll be one of the most aggressive drivers on the circuit. He has won off-road series championships more than ten times, has numerous IndyCar and sports car wins as well, including four 24 Hours of Daytona class wins in a row in the late 90's. His rep as a reckless driver only exists in NASCAR - I'm thinking he takes "rubbin' is racin'" quite literally and does not shy away from contact in that series. This is NOT characteristic of him in IndyCar, off-road, or sports car racing.

I'll keep pullin' for Robby, and will hope that he and Marcos team up and spin the entire field off the track in their march to the front this weekend at Watkins Glen - and then finish their unfinished business from last Saturday at Montreal.

One of the more interesting conclusions to an auto race continues to be digested by it's fans this morning. Who caused what, and when in yesterdays Busch Series road race in Montreal? How egregious was Ambrose's punting of Gordon? or Gordon's punting of Ambrose? or the shunt between Harvick and Pruett? etc. In the midst of this digestive process, NASCAR has made an initial ruling that Robby Gordon will not be allowed to race in todays Cup race at Pocono (good friend P.J. Jones will race Robby's machine, but have to start from 43rd position on the grid). It is expected that more sanctions will be heaped upon Gordon before NASCAR is finished with this incident.

Sending Gordon to 13th position following the late race spin AFTER the caution flag was displayed sounds odd. The guy was clearly in either first or second place when the caution was displayed (haven't seen definitive proof of either) and was then hit from behind by a competitor, causing him to spin out. By the time he recovered, a dozen or so cars had passed him. What sensibly crafted rule would allow a racer to remove an opponent from a competitive position in this way? Logic and fairness seem to scream to allow the "punted" to be able to return to the position where they were when they were punted. Whether letter-of-the-law and/or precedent supports it, NASCAR's "maintain a cautious pace" rule sound suspiciously like one of those rules that can easily be bent to meet the interpreter's desires. And it doesn't appear the interpreters desired Robby Gordon to be anywhere near the lead at the end of the race. Or, at the very least, they didn't care to interpret their very broadly written rule in a manner favorable to Gordon.

Still, Gordon's behavior following the Ambrose-initiated punting and subsequent NASCAR ruling was classic rebel, ... or was it that of a petulant child? I know I was literally talking to the television as Gordon, who had driven back up even with, and then immediately behind Ambrose, took the restart from second position rather than where he'd been ordered to restart - the aforementioned 13th place. I was happy that he'd refused to comply with the bogus sounding ruling - had he done so, there was NO way he would have a chance of being awarded the win or second place upon appeal. But I think everyone watching KNEW there was a strong chance Robby would do something worse, that he'd spin Ambrose out. "Don't do it! DON'T DO IT!" was likely repeated loudly in front of tens of thousands of television sets across the country. And sure enough, just a turn or two after the restart, bam! Around goes Ambrose (justice?). The other competitors were never close to Gordon, who continued to pull away until the dropping of the checkered flag.

Gordon is an incredible talent. His road course success and his flashes of brilliance with less-than-superior equipment in years past, PLUS his "average positions gained" stats from this year point to his ability to drive as well as any racer out there. He's got a touch of Foyt in him both in terms of temperament and also has more than a touch of Foyt's incredible ability to drive cars to their limit in nearly ANY racing formula. Unfortunately, he does not live in Foyt's era, where disciplined compliance took a back seat to boldness and audacity. I would have rather Gordon complied with the ruling and moved to 13th place, and then beat the crap out of Ambrose in the garage area and/or rammed the NASCAR trailer with his car, ... but you can't really prescribe the actions of a petulant rebel. They just act.

And when they act, they don't seem all that lovable at the time. How many loved Dale Sr. when he was, on a regular basis, punting his way to win after win? Not all that many. But that sort of behavior helps create the air of lawlessness that has benefited NASCAR very well. Post race brawls, on track roughness, defiance of authority - it SELLS. I believe it's safe to say over the past several seasons Robby Gordon has not been viewed as a favorite by many NASCAR fans; in fact, he seems to have been despised more than anything. That is until now. The AFLAC survey running right now on NASCAR's website has, as more and more people participate (up to 36,000 now), shown about 44% of participants think Gordon should have won yesterdays race, to Ambrose's 35% and Harvick's 20%. While this is conclusive of nothing with regard to who won and who didn't win, it seems to me to clearly indicate what Robby did yesterday resonates fairly well with a decent proportion of NASCAR fans.

I believe NASCAR is witnessing the rise of just what they need. A guy who proudly and effortlessly wears the black hat. GO ROBBY! GIVE 'EM HELL YOU MAGNIFICENT, UNCONTROLLABLE  B@STARD! (even if you make me cringe in the process.)

Well, this has been enjoyable. And I'm glad we've had fun AND a decent argument at the same time. Further, I'm exceptionally happy that my esteemed colleague on the other side of the auto racing aisle has raised one point in particular. So as my follow-up to last evening's exchange, I would like to focus on one, and only one argument raised by Mr. Flag; in that argument lies the fundamental difference between the series. Your take on this position alone likely determines whether or not you prefer NASCAR or some other form of racing (be it IndyCar, F1, Champ Car, Grand Am, ... whatever). So here we go, my final formal contribution on this issue:

____________________________________________________________________________

Not to get cute, but I have just one number for you: 25,122. The number of "quality passes" of a Top 15 car in the races to-date. ... 25,122. Twenty-five thousand one hundred twenty-two passes ... That's approximately 1,300 "quality passes" per race so far this season.

How can you make passing boring? Do it 25,122 times over the course of the first half of the season. You've made my point. NASCAR has rendered what should be a thing of beauty into something as commonplace as a heartbeat. How can you possibly appreciate 25,122 passes? It's a bizarre twist of the language that the term "quality pass" would be applied to something so commonplace, so expected, so normal.

------------- ------------------

----------------Quality Passing------------------------------------ -------WHOOPS! No quality pass on this lap,------
-------------------at Daytona-------------------------------_------- -But wait! Likely debris found by NASCAR---

SIDE NOTE: Hardcore Cup fans will likely find it disturbing to learn that KURT BUSCH is the current leader in terms of quality passes executed through the first nineteen races of this season (1,144 - Kurt has been a busy, busy passaholic). I don't think this is particularly relevant to anything, but will likely cause some of our NASCAR faithful to vomit within moments.

QUALITY PASS LEADER

Anyways, ... back to the giant number: 25,122 "quality passes" so far this season (excuse me, ... I've got to explain to my wife again why I'm laughing as I type) ... there, ... I'm o.k. again.

This is something akin to McDonalds serving billions of "quality hamburgers" and judging, therefore, McDonalds burgers to be the best in the world. Sure they're good. McDonalds may be the best fast food franchise in the world; it's certainly the most popular. One of the truly great business successes the world has ever seen. But the most flavorful or highest quality? ... please

I also stand by my earlier statement, that watching a Cup race is very similar - save for the interminably unbearable difference in the amount of time spanned by each event - to watching an NBA game. None of the stuff that happens during the first three and one-half quarters of an NBA game counts; no matter what happens during that period of time, it's all just filler until the last couple of minutes when the outcome of the game is determined. Just like a Cup race.

---------------------------

For the last half of the twentieth century, Indy-type racing was the cock of the walk baby! Stock car races were an amusing diversion for all but current or former moonshiners until the mid-70's. I curse the day the arrogant Tony George decided to take on the uber-arrogant directors of CART, splitting the series and nearly destroying open wheeled racing here in the States and his beloved Indy 500 with it and at the same time breathing life what became known as Cup racing. IndyCar has found a formula that works beautifully, but the market share is gone - and it's a tough thing to regain market share in the entertainment business. Someday, Champ Car will fold and the open wheel series will be one again. I don't know if they'll recover a decent portion of their lost market share, or the emerging X-games market, even if they do come together as early as 2009, but I hope and pray so. The sport of auto racing in the U.S. will suffer badly if its only major choice is a steady diet of 50,000+ "quality passes" per season.

--------- ------------------
IndyCar vs. NASCAR. Open and shut, right? More fans = better. Indy blew it with the CART/Indy split back in the early 90's, lost their market share and advertisers to Cup racing, yes? Now Cup racing is the better of the two.

... a myth perpetuated by runaway success.

I've been called out by The Black Flag, charged with the seemingly impossible: to insert or reinvigorate some doubts in the minds of NASCAR fans on this site about the seemingly inviolate contention that Cup racing is the most exciting version of racing and that IndyCar is a tired, worn-out old dog of a series. If popularity indicates quality or excitement, I've got no case. Fortunately, popularity does not mean the service being provided is high quality or exciting (just think back and review the last four nominees of our two party system over the past two presidential elections, the outcomes of the last several American Idols, or the continuing astronomic ratings for professional wrestling).

So, exactly what makes a racing series exciting?

SPEED

The primary objective of a race is to get someplace faster than everyone else. The faster the car, the better. IndyCars go MUCH faster than Cup cars. On average between 25% and 35% faster. At some point, incredible speeds may become a hindrance to the appreciation of auto racing. Short of that (and I don't know where that is), speed is good. I can tell the difference between 225 mph and 180 mph; 225 is far more exciting. Speed doesn't matter? Then why not slow them down to 140? Why not 120? It matters.

And don't even broach the topic of acceleration. Watching an IndyCar restart and a Cup car restart are as different as watching a fireworks display and a river of molasses.

IndyCar takes the category in a blindingly fast cakewalk.

TIGHT COMPETITION

The objective of a race is undeniably to get to the finish faster than the rest of the competitors. It is also undeniable that a race will be more interesting if it's outcome seems in doubt until the final moments - ideally at the moment the competitors cross the finish line. An element of style comes into play here. What is more exciting, holding competitors in a glump as though tethered to one another and then letting them go at the last moment? Or witnessing competitors who are untethered fight it out to the finish? You're more likely to see a large group of competitors close to one another when you keep them tethered until the end. But is that really satisfying?
Both IndyCar and NASCAR attempt to keep racing close in their leagues by strictly prescribing nearly every aspect of a cars design. Body shape, tire type and construction, engine size and composition, fuel type and quantity, etc. Teams spend millions trying to figure out advantages within those design parameters. And the racing IS close in both sanctioning bodies. Over the last five years of IndyCar racing, there have been five races where the top 3 finishers were within an amazing 6/100ths of a second of each other. Margins of less than one or two seconds are commonplace in both series (NASCAR average margin of victory is currently 2.031 seconds, a smidge below IndyCar's).

The key difference is the way race officials manage the closeness of the racing DURING each event. IndyCar officials tend to let the race take it's course. If one team or driver has figured out how to make their car exceptionally fast to the point they run away from the field, ... officials let that happen. If NASCAR officials see something happening during a race that threatens their desire to see door handle to door handle racing throughout the entire race, they'll throw a yellow light and bunch the pack back up again - and will continue to do so as often as necessary until the race is over - the aforementioned "tether" keeping the cars in a glump. There is something very impressive about 43 cars rumbling around a track two wide in a four to five hour, 170 to 180 mph heavy steel ballet. It requires great skill on the part of the drivers to keep from bumping more often than they do. But it's also so artificial, so suppressing, so manipulated. It's so routine it isn't exciting any more, it's expected.

Isn't there something anti-American about suppressing achievement in the name of making everyone equal? Does no NASCAR fan recognize the Grand Canyon like disconnect between the American fascination with uninhibited individual achievement and their personal fascination with a racing series where EVERY effort is made to suppress such achievement (at least until there are five laps to go)? Such manipulation diminishes the drivers' and crews' achievements. Once the green flag drops, let 'em race - come what may.

IndyCar takes the category again. It's un-American to think otherwise.

DANGER

Few want to see drivers get hurt (above - suffered a very bad concussion - that's it). Still, most of us are excited by crashes. Both have crashes, with about the same frequency.

Open wheel cars, with their wheels stuck out there in traffic, have a very overt risk associated with racing as closely as they have over the last fifteen years or so. On the other hand, Cup cars intentionally bump one another. Find me a NASCAR fan who doesn't say "rubbin' is racin'" in his or her sleep. The idea that one driver might punt another into the fence is clearly attractive to many (me included).

Rubbin' is wreckin' in IndyCar. IndyCars have components arrayed around a sturdy carbon fiber tub so that, in the event of a crash, the cars peripheral components absorb energy from the impact before potentially harmful energy is transferred to the tub and driver. As a result, Indy crashes are typically spectacular events. In the process of absorbing the energy of the crash, an IndyCar will almost literally explode in a shower of suspension parts, tires, wings, engine parts, transmission parts, etc. Also as a result, IndyCars typically are unable to continue racing after contact with another car or the wall. Cup cars are rigid, they're built to hit things and can continue after even heavy contact (so long as the driver hasn't absorbed too much of the crash energy - tragically, what keeps the cars running after medium contact is what kills drivers upon heavy contact - Cup cars deflect very little crash energy - too often, that energy makes it to the driver).

So, you're at the end of a race, three cars are competing for the win and racing within milliseconds of one another. Which has more inherent and adrenaline producing danger-induced excitement? Cars with fenders and bumpers, made to run into one another, racing within inches of one another? Or cars with no fenders or bumpers screaming within inches of one another at speeds 50 mph faster? That perception of greater danger factors into the suspense and excitement of the fans.

IndyCar by a tumbling suspension piece.

PERSONALITIES

IndyCar:

Helio Castroneves, Tony Kanaan, Marco Andretti, Dario Franchitti, Sam Hornish, Jr., Dan Wheldon, Scott Dixon

--------

Dario Franchitti and his lovely wife, Ashley at the '06 Banquet.----------------Mrs. Ward Burton at Costco.

Cup:

Jeff Gordon, Dale Earnhardt, Jr., Tony Stewart, Carl Edwards, Jimmie Johnson, Juan Pablo Montoya

The U.S. drivers are clearly flocking to the NASCAR series. IndyCar and Champ Car are left primarily with the exceptionally talented foreign drivers.

If the criterion is how many U.S. drivers do you have, the Cup series wins in a walk. If the criterion is which series has the best drivers, it's too close to call.

I don't care what country the drivers are from, I want them aggressive, skilled, and personable. Any one of these drivers can win, if given the right ride and crew. You can make strong arguments for each one of these drivers to be considered top talent (personally, I'd choose Montoya as the most talented driver, followed by a pack in the next tier including Castroneves, Kanaan, Hornish, Dixon, Wheldon, Stewart, Gordon, Franchitti, and Edwards.

Too close to call.

SIZZLE

While some maintain Cup racing has all the sizzle, most of that ends as soon as the green flag drops. Well, that's not entirely correct, and NASCAR's done a great job here. The pre-race sizzle is SO powerful it helps anesthetize fans - along with copious quantities of Budweiser - to the point they are open to the subliminal suggestion that five hours of artificially close interstate driving is exciting. As the end of the race eventually draws near, fans awaken from their hypnotic state to view the final five laps (not at all unlike an NBA game - albeit a five hour one - - lots of baskets back and forth, ... but nothing of consequence until the last two minutes). The excitement of these final couple of laps serves as another hit of racin' dope, NASCAR horse if you will, to keep the 'em coming back for more. Masterful, really. Folks think the tobacco manufacturers are the worlds leading ad/PR men? Where do you think these guys all went after the shit hit the fan in that industry? Right ...

---------------------------------------------------------

IndyCar's sizzle comes from the excellent racing, frequent camera shots of Ashley Judd and David Letterman along the pit wall, and - of course - Rusty Wallace in the booth. O.K., I'm wasting my breath here.

NASCAR buzzes along in a purple haze, well ahead of IndyCar.


SO ...

I won't even bother claiming the results of my category reviews to be conclusive (IndyCar takes it - 3 wins, one loss, and one draw). Want pure racing? IndyCar is your series. (or Champ Cars, or any of a variety of sports car series). However, if you want "the show" and sizzle that goes with it, while the Indy 500 fits that bill, NASCAR Cup racing provides that on a week in week out basis, albeit a cynically controlled, artificial show.

Give me the speed, danger, and unrestricted close racing of IndyCar any day.

Will IndyCar be auto racing's Betamax (better product, but rendered extinct through superior marketing of VHS)? They've developed a series with superior racing. Will they figure out a way to leverage that into market share? It's a long road to hoe. Yet I have faith that the superior racing series will pull through, and will continue to put my money where my mouth is.

I've got to run. We're getting ready to welcome NASCAR's incredible fans to the greatest race track in the world. Just because we find IndyCar to be our preferred form of racing, doesn't mean we can't enjoy a really good show.