Four-time Cup series champion Jeff Gordon took part in a national teleconference on Monday and was asked his opinion on the nine owners who formed the Race Team Alliance last week.
Here was his response:
"Well, you know, I don't
really see where things have changed a whole lot other than it's more official. They've been meeting for years to get together and communicate about where the
sport is at, things that they can do to strengthen their teams, be more
efficient. I think it's really just more of an official way to create that
alliance, and I think it's a positive because our sport, in order for it to be
strong, the teams need to be strong. They need to be profitable. They need to
be able to do business," he said.
"It's turned into a big business, and it's constantly
growing, and so I'm in support of it because if the teams are strong and more
successful, then that's good for us that are part of the team and it's good for
the sport, it's good for the fans, and so I think that this is definitely going
to be something that we're all going to learn from and grow from, but I think
it's something that definitely is only going to be good for the sport in
general."
Gordon also said he believed the RTA was more of a team alliance than an alliance of individual owners.
"To me it's what's going to make the teams more efficient,
stronger, more profitable, and to me that includes the drivers. That includes
all the employees on each of those teams," he said. "I think that it's in a lot of ways covering us,
as well. We're aligned with the teams. I have a contract with a team and I
want that team to be strong because I know if that team is strong, then that
secures my position as a driver. It secures our sponsors and only helps us with
our partners and our fans."
In other words? This is "press conference speak" for the following: "All our teams are scared to death that attendance in the stands keeps dwindling, sponsor money is now on the fence and NASCAR doesn't seem to care that our profits are shrinking..."
ReplyDeleteIt's not all that hard to figure out - this is NASCAR's life support efforts to save a dying patient...
If the teams' profits are shrinking, you think NASCAR's are growing?
DeleteI like Jeff, always have, but what he said is the standard 'company line' BS. Simply a case of the greedy getting even more greedy...the empty seats tell the story, period.
ReplyDeleteI could lower the cost of racing and fill the stands without even trying. First, strip off all the aerodynamics. Everything but the hood and roof scoops that help keep the cars on the ground. Second, use stock body parts. Third, use stock engines from the manufacturer.
ReplyDeleteSpeed doesn't make racing exciting, racing makes racing exciting and you can't do it if your going to fast to pass, or if the turbulence is so bad you can't control your car when you get behind another car.
Amen, a hundred times over. Go back to stock, except for safety modifications. Remember (old-timers do) when in the heyday of NASCAR racing, manufacturers had to sell a minimum of 500 street units of a model (later, 1,000) to the general public in order to achieve the FIA homologation required to run. That's why we saw the dramatic, winged Dodge Daytonas and Plymouth Superbirds actually driven on the streets, along with the long-nosed Ford Talladegas. We also had the Mustangs, Camaros, Firebirds, and AMXes of Can-Am racing, which was probably the best racing series ever. It's side-by-side racing fans want. If one maker gains the upper hand, fine. In six months, the other will come back with a response (the Ford Talladega was an example of that). You'll have competitive racing, and cars fans can identify with. I'm a lifelong racing fan who once had to resort to shortwave broadcasts to even find racing coverage. Now, I absolutely refuse to watch NASCAR racing - and will never go back until the cars are stock and drivers chosen on the basis of talent and ability, not marketing focus groups, gender and ethnicity.
Deleteblockhead - why did NASCAR get away from "stock" in the first place? Because stock doesn't work. The performance levels simply don't do anything and they're not that safe in stock trim. Racecar evolution is not something that doesn't exist.
DeleteYou mention the wingcars from Chrysler - fascinating cars but you neglect to mention their absurd performance levels made them irrelevant, and when they disappeared Chrysler didn't exactly suffer competitively because of it. And how come you mention those cars and not the bubble-glass Monte Carlo and Pontiac 2+2?
The argument about "cars fans can identify with" never takes into account Form Following Function. I mentioned the bubble-glass cars above - could fans REALLY identify with them, especially given their rarity? Yet they were good to excellent racecars. That is what matters first and foremost. The complaint I hear over and over is "NASCAR has made the cars all look alike." No, Form Following Function did that - and people need to brush up on their study of the sport's history to see making the cars look alike dates to the 1960s.
You say you want drivers chosen on talent and ability - well, name me a driver or two who has talent and ability yet is passed over by raceteams. Not that it doesn't happen to some extent, but the complaint about it is so overrated it isn't funny.
When people say "I refuse to watch NASCAR," I want a credible reason why, not a tangent based on a past that tends to be made mythical than real.
When Charlotte Motor Speedway has to close off some of the stands to not look as bad,things are in poor shape....every race I have watched this year,I have seen large numbers of empty seats....NasCrap is dying!
ReplyDeleteEmpty seats? Let's demolish them so we can charge more for the seats we have left. Daytona Rising is a great example of that.
ReplyDeleteYou did know Andy Hillinberg did the exact same thing when he purchased Rockingham, don't you?
Deletegreat idea about using " Stock" cars, but who is to say if a certain manufacturer is not competitive they will continue to involve themselves in the sport. Many manufactures and models have already pulled out,...ie. Dodge, Pontiac, Buick...
ReplyDeleteThere's also the larger issue of the technology arms race in general. Here is where Brian France does deserve criticism but also the teams themselves deserve criticism. By now it is manifest that radial tires are worthless for racing and the cars have too much horsepower; it is also manifest that good racing is created when the draft is more important than handling.
DeleteWhen Indycars race at The Brickyard, the draft has become everything again, and the lead changes show this. When the stockers raced at the identical Ontario Motor Speedway in the 1970s, the draft meant more than handling. At Kansas the Trucks generate a drafting effect and the higher incidence of passing reflects this. So why can the sport not get the draft back at more tracks?
As for tires, why not go back to bias ply tires? They work, and we see it in NASCAR's other touring series, notably the Modifieds. Where on radials drivers have to catch the car, bias plies allow the drivers to RACE each other.
As for other manufacturers, the technology arms race and concurrent raceteam spendaholism are issues both the sanctioning body and raceteams deserve criticism for - raceteam budgets should not be over $10 million per year per car and no team should be fielding more than two cars at most.
These and other issues are issues both sides need to cooperate on.