Catchfence

The involvement of auto makers in NASCAR has been a boon to the sport for decades, but with economic struggles the manufacturers, by more and more accounts, are wanting changes to justify staying in NASCAR. It is a story worth some attention, but which may be oversold.

The one pushing the story hardest is Peter DeLorenzo, of the Autoextremist website. DeLorenzo has had a virulent and often irrational NASCAR hatred for many years and it is serially reflected in the website’s coverage of the sport. He lists five changes the manufacturers supposedly want. They are worth examining but ultimately come up short on the real world of racing.

The first “proposal” is “Brand Recognition,” because supposedly all brand differences have been wiped out by NASCAR and its tightening rulebook. The popular version of this argument is “the cars all look the same.” The reality, though, is that aerodynamics dictate one certain shape is competitive. The sport saw this in the late 1960s when the cars transmuted into clones of the 1966-7 Dodge Charger; it continued in the 1970s as the Dodge Charger and Ford Torino were far more alike than different. It accelerated in the 1980s as the 1981 Pontiac Lemans became the template for the mid-80s Ford Thunderbird and the subsequent aerodynamic war of that decade into the 1990s. Finally, the 1995 Monte Carlo debuted and that basic shape was unchanged by any participating manufacturer until the COT’s debut, and it wasn’t because of common templates, as unofficial aero-matching preceded the 2003 introduction of common templates by several years. In short, the cars looked, and look, alike because aerodynamic reality dictates it. Why it is supposedly not possible to still glean brand recognition from this reality is not explained by anyone – a Dodge still has differences from a Ford, etc. enough that one can still root for Dodge.

DeLorenzo notes that “brand recognition” means a return to the old days of endless rules fights; oblivious as he is to the reality that those rules fights did no one any good, to want to return to that is madness. DeLorenzo also notes the push for “pony” cars in NASCAR, without bothering to explain why they are needed.

The next “proposal” is to increase the sport’s technology, to include fuel injection, overhead cams, and alternative fuels. This is DOA because contrary to the myth, racing is not about technology, as even F1 has admitted with bans on numerous technological items over the years; as Brock Yates noted in 1987, costs and absurd performance levels mandated the banning of Wankel engines, turbine engines, and other such items. Moreover, alternative fuels are a myth; they are not better than oil-based fuels and in fact have proven to be something of a chimaera, shown by the ethanol fiasco in the US and the need for ridiculous subsidies for alternative fuels because they are uncompetitive in the market.

The fact is no one has offered any justification for abandoning the “yester-tech” of NASCAR, which not only works, but is still easier to police and handle than higher tech. The need for abandoning retro-technology is never offered by DeLorenzo or anyone else.

DeLorenzo next offers that the schedule should add several road races. That road racing is worthless as competition is never considered. The least competitive form of racing anywhere, it thrives mostly because some manufacturers push it. The audience for road racing is the US is not there, as oval-track racing remains far more popular and superior competition. Road racing adds nothing to a manufacturers’ brand recognition because it adds nothing to competition.

Related to this is the proposal to cut the schedule. Again this is a non-starter because other than a couple of areas, the tracks have earned their dates and the demand remains for the schedule as it is; in fact the demand for a LONGER schedule is clearly there. DeLorenzo suggests doing away with double trips to certain tracks, but he’s wrong again – the tracks with two dates earned them and they belong on the tour.

Two other changes are proposed – disbanding the Truck Series and banning Winston Cup participation in BGN. Given that the Trucks have basically no serious manufacturer involvement there isn’t much choice here, and banning WC involvement in the Sportsman Series has been an idea that was the right one from the days when Sam Ard, Ray Hendrick, and L.D. Ottinger were calling for it.

What DeLorenzo misses is that the sport’s popularity STILL has a positive effect on the manufacturers. That the costs are out of control is true enough, but dictating increased technology won’t solve anything. What is needed to to DECREASE the technology, to force teams to cut to only three teams and to cut overall spending and adhere to a hard cap, to share revenue with each other, and to treat the sport AS a sport, not as a business. The notion that the sport has to “adapt” to something racing doesn’t need was disproven decades ago by the sport’s burgeoning popularity WITHOUT adapting wholesale new technologies.

The manufacturers certainly should demand changes from NASCAR, but the changes the sport needs are not to be found from Peter DeLorenzo.