After seeing today's race, I think we have a pretty decent car here.
The problem is Goodyear and their pathetic excuse of a tire they bring to these tracks. I was lenient on them last week because of Phoenix's new surface, but this was Vegas. The track is weathered now. There's NO excuse for bringing that hard of a tire to a track like this.
They're becoming more of a bad joke than anything.
Aside from the joke, because Michelin still holds that title for me, YOU made a valid point. Was the tire harder than optimal? Yes. I'll get to my opinion later.
NASCAR should have another tire war. Michelin vs Hoosier vs Goodyear would solve the main problem with Goodyear (them being lazy) and make the cars seem more different to each other.
This one is not valid, as unless you can prove to me Goodyear is lazy, and my GOD do I hear this every 🤬 time anything with wheels is even thought of by anyone within earshot, then why would they bother doing anything. Why not just a single compound and tell NASCAR to deal, and why isn't Pirelli lazy, or Firestone, or Continental?
Common sense leads me to believe tires are the problem.
When the 2nd place car (and the fastest car of the race) has 30 lap fresher right side tires and can't get by the leader, that's a problem. How could you or anyone else say otherwise?
Driver skill, equipment, and the situation combined. You make a great point, but Matt has done this before. Yes, 30 laps is extreme, and yes, Kasey should have flown by him and Brad like they were nailed into the asphalt, but getting there is one thing, and Kahne did catch Kenseth, but making the pass is another, picking through traffic and the 5 not being able to blast by helped a lot. I'm not going to sit here and say it was all the driver, but it wasn't all the tire.
Melt at 60 degrees? I know that's an exaggeration, but what the hell kind of Play-Doh tire do you think we want to see? We want a tire that actually falls off in speed. We want fresh tires to actually mean something. We want drivers to tactically manage their stuff throughout a run. Right now it's go as hard as you can every lap, come in under yellow, get two/no tires, go back out and do it again. That's ridiculous. There's little to no tire management. The drivers have minimal punishment for abusing the crap out of their cars, and it all falls back to tires. It shouldn't be like that. Period.
You? No. But then again, you are reasonable. You, and those who also want something more like the D-oval tire, are fine. It's the majority of drunken "fans" who go to Bristol just for fights, Talladega just for the big one, and are angry and claim that the sport is "too commercialized" if they don't get it, as they are the center of the universe and only they matter. Where I live, this is the opinion. Not the majority, the ONLY one.
Yeah, when you run softer tires, you run a higher risk of blowing one out. But these teams are professionals. Combining that with all the technology and data they have today, if they can't figure out the right air pressure combinations to prevent that, they'll rightfully pay the price.
And you are correct again. They push the envelope too far, they suffer for it.
Why do you think Atlanta Motor Speedway has provided some of the best non-plate track races and finishes over the last 13 years? BECAUSE IT EATS TIRES. Guys slide all over the place and search for grip anywhere from the white line to the wall. It's a natural recipe for good racing.
Not as bad Dover used to, but I get what you're saying.
No melting tires there, nor was it a "demo derby" as you questioned us to liking. Not sure where you were trying to go with those statements. I could be wrong, but it came off to me like an attempt to bitterly stereotype us for having a different opinion than you.
I'll listen to every opinion you can think of as long as even a hint of logic is applied, and not,"Herrr, this is dum 'cus it sucks". Logic is not something I'm used to hearing, so I take what I can get. BTW, I'm trying real hard not to name names.
I'm not insulting you so don't take this the wrong way, but I've never seen a NASCAR fan (or driver for that matter) that actually prefers a hard tire until you. I'm certainly taken by surprise over it.
Insults I can deal with. My opinion on the matter is this; Was the tire harder than nessisary? Yes. I'll admit that. Here is where my mind goes, just because the tire is hard doesn't mean it takes away from the driver or the racing overall. If the tires had been softer, maybe Kyle Busch, who had the fastest car at the end of the race, wins instead of coming fourth behind Keselowski who was in the same boat as Kenseth. The fact that the tires WEREN'T the determining factor, or fuel for that matter, made it that much better in my opinion. It also shows why Kenseth beat out Kahne twice in Kasey's rookie year.
But to my point, I called out those wanting a tire-war. You didn't call for one, merely softer compounds, so I was surprised you jumped into the defensive stance. All I have heard since the imfamous events at Indy is "Bring in hoosier! BFs are best! Firestone would kick Goodyears rear!" I've had enough. I didn't mince words, I meant what I said. When a tire war goes on, the tires get softer and softer trying to get the edge, except it can't in NASCAR. Why? Because they don't supply a team, or a manufacturer like in F1, by NASCAR rules they have to supply enough tires for every team for the entire weekend, so what would the point be?
