Detroit Big 3 tell NASCAR to cut schedule, elevate tech
Quote selected text Published August 6th, 2008 in NASCAR News
Leading up to the Brickyard 400 at Indianapolis a couple of weeks ago - and in intense discussions ever since - the Detroit manufacturers have been dissecting their involvement in NASCAR with a fervor not seen since, well, ever. NASCAR officials got an in-person earful at The Speedway from various Detroit auto company executives in attendance. The message? The financial numbers aren’t good, cutbacks are a certainty - and that means our NASCAR programs too - and we will be discussing what shape our future involvement with NASCAR will take in the coming weeks.
Whether or not Brian France and Mike Helton & Co. were surprised or not is immaterial (they shouldn’t have been), because NASCAR management left Indy with the realization that for the first time in memory Detroit’s involvement wasn’t going to be “automatic” for the foreseeable future. And it was sobering for NASCAR and its teams.
Cut the schedule. To the manufacturers this is a “no-brainer.” You want to cut costs? Then cut the number of races, which will allow the manufacturers to reduce their overall expenditures. One manufacturer in particular has already suggested eliminating at least four races from the overall schedule, while adding two more road races, which means effectively cutting six existing races from the schedule. The easiest solution to get there? Do away with the double visits to certain tracks during the season.
Elevate the technology. This is something that NASCAR better get on board with, because the manufacturers are more than adamant about it. They’re tired of NASCAR’s head-in-sand approach when it comes to applying technology to Sprint Cup. On the manufacturers’ wish list? Direct fuel-injection, overhead cams and alternative fuel. And that means walking away from “spec” engines too - and doing away with the common bore centers that NASCAR is requiring. And the fact that NASCAR just went to unleaded racing fuel not long ago isn’t cutting it with Detroit, either. They’re thinking E85 instead.
- Street Race in Detroit on Penske’s Agenda for Indy Racing League
- Lincoln Tech to Sponsor Vitor Meira for Remainder of 2006
- IRL to race at Belle Isle, Detroit in 2007
- NASCAR to honor victims of Virginia Tech tragedy
- IRL race in Belle Isle getting closer
so in otherwords…. get rid of the COT!
E85 isn’t the answer to a damn thing, so I don’t know why the Big Three would push it on NASCAR, unless they’re getting kickbacks from the Gov’t on it (probably so).
Direct injection is not a bad idea, but at this point, isn’t that really adding more expense in R&D and adding a lot of technology and electronics (aka money) to the cars? Overhead cams seem fine to me, I guess. Seems like that’s another huge expense in R&D and everything else to redesign the motor around a new cam style. I can’t figure out how this much monkeying with the motor would save anyone money. The teams would be spending like crazy to get up to speed and so would the manufacturers!
I LOVE the idea of cutting out second returns to tracks! I’d be happy to go to Road Atlanta instead of a second visit to AMS or something. I’d keep the cornerstone tracks like Daytona, Talladega, Bristol, etc… But cut everyone else back to one. Make Charlotte either lose one race or the All Star Race. No need to go there three times a year, IMHO!
Charlotte needs three races IMO. It is the home of NASCAR teams, it allows drivers to spend more time at home, crew members to spend more time at home, and saves teams money. I’m for Daytona and Talladgea losing a race each because I think restrictor plate races suck.
48wolfpacker wrote:
Then take one of the oval races at Lowes and move it to a road course nearby… Don’t know how suited they are to NASCAR races as far as parking, seating, etc, go, but I see there’s at least Carolina Motorsports Park and High Rock Raceway. I’m surprised Bruton doesn’t have an infield road course. Well, he may, but it doesn’t look like it based on the website. Heck, they could go to VIR. It’s only a few hours away and teams test there all the time. Again, don’t know that it’s capable of hosting the event.
Either way, I don’t want to see two races at the same track, so why in the world am I going to want three? All the cookie-cutter 1.5 milers need to lose races… It’s more or less the same thing week in and week out! BTW, I’d be willing to guess that you’re in the minority if you want to lose races at the plate tracks.
If the Manufactures want to cut costs they need to do it from within to themselves. GM is one of the biggest ones I notice wasting money on themselves. Why do they need to have the Saturn Sky and Pontiac Solstice? They are the same car with different bumper covers and logos.
When the manufactures stop doing stupid stuff like that then they will all be ok.
Fisha695 wrote:
True, but foreign manufacturers do it too… For example the 350Z and Infiniti G35 are the same car, more or less. Then again, Infiniti is more like the luxury division of Nissan. I find it hard to believe that Saturn or Pontiac would be considered a luxury brand of anything!
Ford and Dodge are also really bad about taking the same turd and selling it under multiple banners too. Heck for a while there Dodge went for the trifecta and sold basically the same van as the Dodge Caravan, the Chrysler Town and Country and the Plymouth Voyager!
I don’t believe getting rid of the COT would cut costs. This wouldn’t be the first time
Nascar has cut down either the length of races etc.. When the fuel shortages were going on
they cut the length of the races. This actually would make more sense. I say get rid of the
second dates for most of the tracks and use a couple of those dates to go back to Rockingham
and a date at Kentucky Speedway. I don’t think any tracks other than Daytona or Lowes should have
more than one date.
Oh and they won’t truly be OK until they can build a car that can compete with foreign manufacturers on mileage, quality, dependability, longevity, fit and finish, etc…
They spent the last 20-30 years demanding that people buy their cars because they’re un-American if they don’t. Instead of innovating, they rested on their laurels, sat back and watched the money roll in. Folks bought their BS hook, line, and sinker back in the day, but have wised up over the last decade or so, and the Big Three have been trying to play catch-up (ineptly) ever since.
Hopefully they can figure it out, re-structure, build a competitive car, and not disappear forever. Unfortunately their entire business model is so screwed up that it’s going to take quite a bit to get things turned around. Getting rid of similar cars under different brands isn’t the entire solution, but it could be a big part of it.
Why should Daytona have 3 races a year (with the Shootout), but not Lowes. If you count the qualifying races, Daytona gets 5 Cup races a year. But your right Jeff, I admit I’m in the minority with my view on plate racing.
Excuse my incorrect use of “you’re”.
I’ll forgive your use of you’re this one time. Next time you won’t be so fortunate
The only explanation I have is that the Shootout is part of the 500 and the Duels are part of the shootout, so they are all components of one giant points paying race.
If you count the qualifier races for the All-Star, they have 4 a year, so Lowes isn’t much better. Either way, it’s too many races, IMO.
In my ideal world, there would be 30 total, counting the All Star, the Duels, Shootout, and all. A majority of the dupe track dates would go bye-bye, and we’d be seeing more road racing (Road America, Road Atlanta, Mid Ohio etc). How awesome would it be to see Cup Cars trying to get through the corkscrew at Laguna Seca???
I hate road racing its OK on tv but its miserable at the track to actually sit there and watch the car come by for 5 seconds than wait another 2 minutes for it to get back
I really enjoy road racing and would like to see more of it, but I can see how it could be pretty boring in person.
They need to cut costs within their own companies before they can go to NASCAR and demand them to cut costs in the racing series.
Having repetitive brands between Saturn, Pontiac, Chevy, and GMC is just plain stupid. Your paying to make and market the same car for 4 different brands.
The manufacturers shot themselves in the foot a long time ago and didn’t learn by their mistakes. By the way, whatever happened to my Edsel stock?
Jeff wrote:
Yeah the foreign ones do it too, but not as much as the domestic ones. And don’t forget when Dodge was selling the Neon under the Dodge, Plymouth and Chrysler banner.
While more road courses sound all fine and dandy to add to the schedule, talk about losing a boatload of money. Now I don’t pretend to know how much WG and Sonoma hold because I don’t. But I do like adding a track like Rockingham back to the fold, especially if it gets rid of a date at California, Michigan or Pocono.
ITS SIMPLE
GET RID OF A POCONO RACE
ITS TOO DANG LONG!
Sounds Great! More Road Tracks and Technology! Lets make NASCAR a world wide player!
There is no reason to visit a track twice. Maybe Bristol or Daytona but that’s it. Make it 26 race season
20 races to the chase 6 championship and add more road tracks.
I am sure you all hate me for the comments above. Come find me at the glen this weekend and I will
spell out how NASCAR, Car Companies and Fans would benefit from a shorter season, more road tracks
and better Technology in the cars.
Also Charles Road tracks can hold 200,000 people no problem. Every year when F1 goes to Montreal over 350,000
people attend the race weekend.
I would reply to the comment of Fisha695. You are 100% correct. Chevy pick-ups and
GMC are made on the same assembly line. Only the Emblems were different at that time.
It’s Simple MONEY! The COT does not look like the cars on the road. If the car they see on sunday is the one they buy on monday, then go back to when you could actually tell them apart!
I think Fontana, Talladega, Pocono and Daytona should all lose a race.
Or, if you want 2 races at Daytona, use the road course in the summer.
I also agree with the idea of upping the technology. Let’s face it
these cars are nothing like what comes off the assmebly lines, so
what is the big deal with moving forward and making progress? Well,
other than the fact that the powers that be in NASCAR would lose
some of their control and pocket change.
What I think sucks the most is the possibility of the Truck Series
going away. I love those races, especially when they are not in
conjunction with the Cup events. There isn’t all the ridiculous
hype and hoopa, it’s really about the racing. And, look at how many
people would potentially lose their jobs.
Let’s face it, NASCAR has never been leading edge with much of
anything, other than finding ways to get people’s money. Pretty
soon there will be a lot less of that lining France and Smith’s
pockets.
Road courses suck period. At least in NASCAR.
I don’t mind two road races a year but i really don’t like them. I would rather see more short tracks added to the schedule and cut all tracks to one race excluding Daytona and Charlotte.