NASCAR in its death bed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RACECAR
  • 14 comments
  • 1,343 views

RACECAR

Keeper of the Undocumented Changes Threads.
Premium
Messages
36,275
United States
Addison,Texas
Messages
GTP_RACECAR
I honestly think the end is near for NASCAR. All these team mergers and job losses and major drops in attendance for the races, I have very little hope it'll survive.
 
Last edited:
This actually showed up on Autoblog yesterday.

Autoblog
If automakers get a bailout, should NASCAR die?
A columnist over at Slate.com is recommending -- and not lightly, he wants you to know -- that with the domestic automakers enduring "Detroit's version of The Troubles," now would be a good time to "euthanize" NASCAR. He makes a long argument, but the crux of it is simple: if the domestics get a heap of money from the government, should that money really be used to sponsor a specialized race series that arguably doesn't have the national pull or the return it once did? His supporting arguments are sometimes disingenuous and occasionally slightly off-base, but the question is worth considering. If the public loans money to the automakers, who decides where that money is spent? Yet, if Ford, GM, and Chrysler were to do the same thing to NASCAR that Honda, Suzuki, Audi, and Subaru have been doing, well... that would leave NASCAR as a one-make series featuring, ta-da, Toyota. And wouldn't that be something to see?

And the article in question:

Slate
Gentlemen, Stop Your Engines
As the proud owner of a Honda and a Toyota, I've been following the to-bail-or-not-to-bail dance between the federal government and the Big Three automakers from a slight reserve. Forgive me, but as I've worked as a producer on a television show about NASCAR and written lots of articles about the sport in recent years, I'm most concerned about the fate of Jimmie Johnson and Dale Earnhardt Jr. Given the brutal financial climate, I should, out of pure self-interest, support whatever measures will preserve NASCAR. Nevertheless, I can't help but think that Detroit's version of the Troubles is the right time to put the sport out of its misery.

I don't recommend euthanizing NASCAR lightly. This is the sport that gave us sporting icons like Dale Earnhardt, Cale Yarborough, and the King, Richard Petty. I appreciate NASCAR's cutthroat competition, consider it a major sport, and think of the drivers as world-class athletes. But let's face facts—even if Ford, GM, and Chrysler get the cash they want from the taxpayers, they are going to have to pull back heaps of sponsorship dough from stock-car racing. Brian France, the CEO of NASCAR and grand pooh-bah of the sport, wrote a letter to Congress lobbying for the bailout, but that won't be nearly enough to win favor with the automakers, who will be slashing costs with a band saw, not a scalpel.

The Big Three and NASCAR have a symbiotic, deeply intertwined relationship. The adage "Win on Sunday, sell on Monday" has defined the way Detroit views NASCAR—as an extension of its core business. Roughly 75 percent of Sprint Cup teams—NASCAR's top division—drive American brands (the rest are with Toyota), and that percentage increases further down the NASCAR ladder. Beyond outfitting the race teams with chassis and souped-up engines, Ford, GM, and Chrysler provide manpower, technical support, and—the plasma that courses through the sport's veins—sponsorship: at the tracks, at media/marketing events, and everywhere else that NASCAR touches down. There is a simple cause-and-effect in the automaker/motorsports relationship. Poll after poll shows that there's a huge overlap between racing fans and buyers of American cars. Both tend to be fiercely loyal to preferred brands, which is a big reason why NASCAR shot to the top of the sporting food chain not so long ago.

It also stands to reason, then, that as the economy has gone down the toilet, the NASCAR bubble would be one of the first in the sports world to burst. As fewer and fewer domestic autos have sold, interest in NASCAR has declined as well. Meanwhile, the economic crisis has buffeted stock-car racing beyond the travails of the Big Three. According to AdAge, 12 of the sport's 42 full-time rides lack a sponsor with the Daytona 500, the traditional circuit-opener, just two months away. Mergers and cutbacks are the talk of pit road. Race teams have pink-slipped seemingly half of Mooresville, N.C., the home to the majority of the teams. The carnage has totaled roughly 1,000 employees, with many more bracing for the inevitable. Someone who still has a job—for now—with a smaller-level race team put it to me simply: "We're ****ed."

It would be one thing if NASCAR were exceptionally strong and this were merely a cyclone to be ridden out in a basement somewhere. But the sport has been leaking oil for some time. Attendance at races dropped drastically in 2008 (in large part because steep gas prices this summer curtailed the RV armada that follows the circuit), and TV ratings declined for the third straight year. The season-ending "Chase" has failed to provide fireworks or closure—if not for the BCS, it would be the worst playoff system in sports. There's also a growing disconnect between racing and its hardcore fan base that began when the Frances stripped races from traditional tracks in Rockingham, N.C., and Darlington, S.C., in favor of places like Kansas and Las Vegas. And the most visible part of NASCAR, the driver corps, has morphed from a crew of heroic-yet-relatable, older, mostly mustachioed hell-raisers to an interchangeable posse of corporate-ready drones fresh out of driver's ed.

Consider Jimmie Johnson, the three-time Sprint Cup champion. Superbly talented, handsome, friendly, and always ready to pump the sponsors, he has received a lukewarm embrace from fans who prefer old-school types like Tony Stewart and Earnhardt Jr. The Tim Duncan of NASCAR, Johnson is excellent but dull. That would be OK if there were enough Kobes and LeBrons to make up for the champ's lack of luster. But Junior is an average driver living off his last name, Stewart can't find Victory Lane and is about to embark on a risky venture owning and fronting his own team (he couldn't have picked a worse year for that), and the rest—feh. Drivers like David Ragan and Denny Hamlin are strong up-and-coming talents, but they bring very little oomph.

But NASCAR's biggest problem isn't fixable with a couple of sexy drivers or a breathless season finale in Miami. The sport can't escape the fact that the internal combustion engine and fossil fuels are technologies on a steep downslope. With hybrids and electrics on the way in, it's hard to see where gas-guzzling, emission-belching stock cars fit in. Unlike the Indy Racing League and Formula 1 (open-wheel racing circuits famous for the Indy 500 and the Monaco Grand Prix, respectively), NASCAR has yet to implement alternative-fuel programs—hell, it only switched to unleaded gasoline last season! Open-wheel racing isn't immune from the economic turmoil (Honda recently announced it was dropping out of F1), but it stands a better chance at survival. Formula 1 and the Indy crowd run machines that are less cars than science experiments, highly engineered equipment that can and will adapt easily to new technologies. Stock cars are just tricked-out Dodges and Chevys—you know, the ones that nobody's buying anymore.

During NASCAR's glory years in the 1990s and early 2000s, gas was cheap, we could kid ourselves into believing it was plentiful, and those who pointed out the connection between CO2 and global warming were easily shouted down. The Hummer went from obscure military hardware to pop culture icon. But then Al Gore made a documentary, and politicians started talking about the folly of importing oil from "countries that don't like us very much." In 20 years, are we going to look back and shake our head in wonder that we let such a wasteful, environmentally disastrous "sport" take place?

Or, if you prefer cold-blooded business calculations to tree-huggery, examine the situation from the Big Three's point of view. The automakers' CEOs have already been reamed for flying private jets to D.C. while their companies wither. If the bailout does come through, making a huge expenditure on a diversion like NASCAR would be a jet-style PR disaster. Congress wants those dollars to go toward renewable-energy technology, not mammoth ad displays in the Talladega Speedway infield.

Continuing to fund stock-car racing would be a sign that Detroit simply cannot function in the new century. When and if U.S. automakers come up with a better alternative to their outmoded product, I'll be all for getting them out to racetracks to trade a little paint. But there is an unshakeable anachronistic whiff to NASCAR these days. Like the saber-toothed tiger and the cassette tape, stock cars had their time—but that time is now past. Yes, it flamed out quickly, but that's how Neil Young says it should happen. Detroit's nightmare is an opportunity for NASCAR to do the right thing and suspend operations. Once it goes, we'll probably wonder why it ever existed in the first place.

Source: http://www.slate.com/id/2206711/

I agree I think NASCAR should die as I don't think it's been interesting in years. I mean oval racing has never been to thrilling for me but a few years back I could actually watch it, now not so much.
 
This actually showed up on Autoblog yesterday.



And the article in question:



Source: http://www.slate.com/id/2206711/

I agree I think NASCAR should die as I don't think it's been interesting in years. I mean oval racing has never been to thrilling for me but a few years back I could actually watch it, now not so much.

I unfortunately agree with it. CUP series has become a Sponsorship circus with Nationwide a closes second. As much I don't like the situation, I think it'll finally allow other motorsports to be seen and popular.
 
The automakers have very little contact with NASCAR, other than helping to supply a few engine parts and advertising in return. If the Big Three (or Four, if you count Toyota) took a year away from assisting NASCAR, it wouldn't disappear.

Fifty to sixty years ago, there wasn't much of the way in factory support. It was pretty much "run-what-you-brung"; the Car of Tomorrow doesn't require factory parts, the engine and transmission parts are largely machined and manufactured by private entities. The automakers can just cut back on their sponsorship roles for a little while, and everything will still float.

Of course, the Car of Tomorrow and the excesses like hospitality and promotional activities that a team hauls with it (just like every form of professional motor sport, mind you) have increased the budgets of teams already in NASCARs Sprint Cup and makes it very difficult for a new team to break in to the sport.

NASCAR isn't in the death throes right now, and it is not in the same sort of crisis that Formula One racing or Sports-car racing is right now, it has many teams already (there weren't 43 cars at every event 15 years ago). NASCAR has had other things to deal with, there are more sports and activities demanding the attention of its audience like Mixed Martial Arts. Some sports increase and decrease in popularity...look at the National Hockey League right now: On the crest of a wave from about 1990-1994, and then two lockouts relegated it to unimportance in many cities without a historic/successful NHL franchise.

NASCAR also has too many races; there used to be 28-30 races, and now there's about 35+. There doesn't need to be that many, since the die-hard fans will travel 300-400 miles to see a race.
 
Nascar may be having a decline in some attendance,& some trouble with sponsorship right now. But any buisness runs into trouble at some point. As far as death bed no I think that may be a little premature. But with the economy like it is in the buisness world I'm sure there going to face more financial troubles in the very near future. I mean how many companys can pour money into racing right now. Also with unemployment as it is I'm sure attendance will be down this coming season. As a casual fan I can honestly say would'nt bother me in the least if it went away tomorrow.
 
i'm assuming that ARCA is also deep in the whole because of this?

Nothing about the series being in trouble has come out so I assume they are safe(for now). Also, ARCA is a seperate entity from NASCAR.
 
Although I don't want it to go away completely I feel they should really cut back on the races(both # and distance) as well as the number of cars. NASCAR has basically grown to big and became what is basically a generic form of racing with alot of indifference from race to race(same 3drivers winning every week). I have started to become more interested in other series like IRL and the NHRA series for my adrenaline fix.Maybe this will be good for NASCAR and get them back to there roots.
 
Getting back to its roots is probably the only way for NASCAR to save itself.

Let's face it... while the thrill of strategic high-speed traffic jams that aren't over till the last corner is arguably more attractive from a live-spectator point-of-view than Formula One, NASCAR is neither here-nor-there when it comes to racing. Is it stock cars? While Touring cars or Rally cars may have very little to do with their road-going counterparts, they at least look exactly like the car they're based on. Open Wheelers, on the other hand, are purpose-built to race. NASCAR? They're built to an engine and chassis spec that has absolutely nothing to do with current stock cars, they have engines and engineering that are about as politically incorrect as can be (yeah, the idea of hybrids and electrics in major racing right now is a joke, but if you don't at least pay lip service to the greenies, that's political suicide)... it's just a fossil of what it used to be.

I'm hoping this current economic crisis will bring motor-racing back to its roots. With teams racing cars that people actually buy and drive. But I'm not holding my breath. Next year is going to be rough for racing.
 
First off, anything from Slate is bound to be an anti-car, anti-racing piece.

Second, read this: http://sports.espn.go.com/rpm/nascar/cup/columns/story?columnist=hinton_ed&id=3673003

As much as it pains me, NASCAR's not going away. Sure, some teams will merge, some teams will fold and car counts will most likely drop. Attendance will as well. (All those fair-weather fans NASCAR courted while dumping their traditional diehard fans are moving on to the next fad.)

But I believe NASCAR will survive in spite of its leadership. Brian France embodies everything that is wrong with NASCAR today. I grew up with the sport, have family members who change tires, run teams and do PR, but I wouldn't watch a NASCAR race if someone paid me. From cookie-cutter cars to cookie-cutter 1.5 mile ovals to robot drivers, I-have-to-mention-my-sponsors-every-five-seconds-during-an-interview, "boogity, boogity, boogity," "Lucky dogs," green-white-checkers, five-hour long races with commercials every five minutes and so on and so on, this is not the NASCAR I know.

The current leadership isn't smart enough to change. They will continue on their current path until dumb luck gets them out of whatever situation they find themselves in. It's the NASCAR way.
 
First off, anything from Slate is bound to be an anti-car, anti-racing piece...
Yeah, that was my first reaction. Someone did a little research when writing it, but there's no seasoned nor experienced viewpoint on the matter.

The current leadership isn't smart enough to change. They will continue on their current path until dumb luck gets them out of whatever situation they find themselves in. It's the NASCAR way.
...or NASCAR can continue to flummox it like they have been for the past 10 years. They took a good thing, and ruined it with too many ways to spice up the entertainment for non-racing fans.

What usually happens is that NASCAR Sprint Cup will be more like the Nationwide series (with "all the Buschwackers" it may as well be the main event), the latter becoming more like the Dash series. Seriously, it's so out of control with hoopla and fireworks, that it needs to focus more on racing first, sponsorship second. Sponsors will not go completely away, but once teams know how big a budget they have, professional motor sport teams will react in kind.
 
The guy in the Slate article says he's a NASCAR fan, past that I have no other experience with the site. I was posting information from Autoblog and to keep sources straight I also posted the original Slate article.
 
The trouble is, NASCAR should be a relatively cheap sport to compete in. They are not using state-of-the-art technology, the teams don't have wind tunnels running 24hrs a day every day, they just don't need F1 levels of R&D costs. Yet, some of the top teams have $50m budget for each car they run (2008 figures). Where the hell is all this money going?

They need to cut through the crap and introduce a spec chassis (if they don't do that already) and further restrict regulations on the engines. It would seem to me that the biggest budget costs are all the corporate sponsorship stuff and driver wages. If F1 can agree with itself to slash budgets for this then NASCAR certainly can. Trying to pull in a greater audience of non-race fans is one thing, but Joe Puplic is fickle and won't hold his/her interest in the sport once the novelty wares off, especially with how things are financially at the moment and for the foreseeable future. This leaves a hard-core of long-time fans who have become somewhat disenfranchised with the audience-led direction their sport has been taken. The only way to keep them on-board is by taking the sport back to how it used to be before corporate sponsorship became the main focus.
 
They already have introduced a spec car (the "Car of Tomorrow") and with it, severely restricted innovation. But just like in Formula One, the $50 million goes to find that extra 10th of a second per lap. And actually, the amount of engineering in NASCAR is probably second only to F1. Read some of Gordon Kirby's articles (http://www.gordonkirby.com/categories/columns/theway/2008/the_way_it_is_no159.html or http://www.gordonkirby.com/categories/columns/theway/2008/the_way_it_is_no153.html). The people who used to engineer Indy Cars have moved to NASCAR, because that's where the money and manufacturer support is (or was).

It's amazing the parallels between Formula One and NASCAR. They might seem like complete opposites, but really there are tons of similarities. Both started out encouraging innovation, but have become essentially spec series, with tons of money spent on finding that last bit of speed. Both are run by people whose first priority is the amount of money they will make, not the racing. Teams from both series have become essentially franchises, with NASCAR's protection of the top 35 cars, so they are guaranteed to make a race. (If you're a new team, you have little chance of breaking into the sport.)

And like you said, their new fans are becoming fickle. NASCAR, in their rush to make as much money as possible, abandonded their traditional, hardcore audience, by moving races away from the southeast U.S., introducing cars that have absolutely no connection with road cars, and introducing gimmicks to "make the racing better." (Allowing Toyota in certainly didn't help.) Now, all those new fans NASCAR courted are moving on to the next fad.

If I had my way, I'd ditch the tube-frame, carbureted dinosaurs and make them use production-based chassis (modified for safety and racing purposes, of course) with production body panels (this would slow the cars, make them less reliant on aero and improve the racing). I'd also limit the schedule to under 30 races: one race per track (the events would sell out), except at places like Daytona, Talladega, Bristol, Charlotte, etc. (traditional dates). Bring back the Southern 500 on Labor Day weekend. Have only a handful of 500 mile races, with most races cut back to 300 miles. Add a road course or two. Ditch the "Chase," "Lucky Dog," "green-white-checker" and all the other gimmicks. Ban all testing. Have open testing on Friday, qualifying on Saturday, race on Sunday. Have a simple points system starting with 100 points for a win and work on down, with enough of a gap to make winning a priority. Make everyone qualify, so no one is guaranteed a place in the field. Ban Cup drivers from racing in Nationwide, or limit the number of races they can participate in. Or just ban Cup teams from competing in Nationwide. Allow the drivers to be themselves, not robots. Don't insult people's intelligence by explaining every race what "loose" and "tight" mean. But of course, these ideas make racing the priority, not making money, so they have no chance.

But I do have to say one nice thing about NASCAR: they have the coolest pit stops in racing.
 
NASCAR in its death bed? We can only hope. x2^ Very well said. I hope more racing fans start to display more interest in production based racing classes. Win on Sunday sell on Monday is what started this whole mess.
 
Back