How to fix Talledega?

1972 was chosen almost entirely at random to find out whether there were many close races where there could be a bump and run or, as I had thought, that most races were decided by a lap or more. It was my contention that there was no bump and run in the 1970s primarily because the 2nd place driver wasn't close enough to the leader to bump him.

 

I have to agree with CCRob here. I don't believe there was some sort of ethical code that doesn't exist anymore because the drivers of today have less respect than the drivers of yesteryear. I love some of the good ole boys of ole, but they were good ole boys. They didn't care a bit to spin your butt if they could. There were times where there was clean racing, but grudges got settled on and off the tracks, too. Restrictor plates bunching up the cars also makes everything more tenuous. And the desire to have more fans in the seats means you put more seats at the tracks, thus the tracks having seats closer to the action. You can never plan for every exigency. You just can't. That doesn't mean you shouldn't make the tracks safe and keep the fans safe, but you can't zero the risk for fans. It's just not possible.

 

I'm not convinced this argument supports your position.

The lucky dog came about after the "no racing back to the caution flag" rule, merely restoring a way for a lap-down driver to get a lap back. Safety concerns took away an opportunity; lucky dog restored it; racing got safer (in theory).

Nothing about addressing disrespect in that.

 

No, racing got sillier. There's nothing in other sports (and I use the word "other", implying that racing is a sport to avoid that argument) that allows a competitor such an advantage.

 

The lucky dog rule, a rule that I hate as well, was put in place after a race at New Hampshire, I think it was 2003, when Dale Jarrett spun and stalled on the frontstretch. Cars trying to get their laps back nearly T-boned him as he was just sitting there on the track. To counter this, Nascar started freezing the field and implemented the lucky dog rule.

 

The lucky dog rule is all about the race back to the yellow and it's a rule I hate. I don't think it has anything to do with a disappearing courtesy ethic.

 

I didn't write anything down about Richmond because I was changing channels between the Bulls-Celtics game and the race. I saw the following on another site: "Darrell Waltrip just tried to equate Carl Edwards' car almost going into the stands last week to a ball or puck going into the stands at another sporting event."

Can somebody here verify that? Did DW really 0try to do this? If so, this means that Nascar's got DW in full spin mode and they're not going to be changing Talladega anytime soon.

 

At times you would be correct, their were races won by many laps. Why?
Because when a car went out it didn't come back into the race, so there might be 10 to 15 cars running at the end. Also pits and work that is done in the pits have closed up the field. And don't forget all the yellow flags, for the most part yesterday there were not as many for thing laying on the track or less it was the car.

If you will look at a lot of the old races with Steward, the English racer doing the color you will hear him say that what he liked the best about NASCAR was how many races were close, he said close in F1 could be 15 seconds or more.

I agree racing was cleaner back in yesteryear than today. DW and Dale brought back hit and run or win at all cost or dirty racing. As Tim Flock said many times, we rubbed sides but never hit rear quarter panels or any place on the track that could cause a crash. He said it worked because there was many a fight in the garage after ward between the ones who took the short cut to win and the one he took out and if you did some thing dirty to one driver there could be another driver or drivers try and take you out of the race.