rec.autos.simulators

What principle(s) has NASCAR sacrificed for money and ratings??  It seems to
me that they've made some rule changes in the interest of closer competition,
but so has IndyCar/CART and F1.  It seems to me that NASCARs success is a
result of better marketing, and more competetive racing.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Ziemer, Jr.            HAMILTON <HH> HALLMARK      Voice: (414) 780-7209
Field Applications Eng.     2440 S. 179th Street              (800) 369-0391

             The Rusty Wallace Miller Genuine Draft Thunderbird
                        !! AWESOME when opened up !!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

: CART will have many of the most-familiar teams and drivers, but even with
: these, their 2.5-3.5 nielson ratings - with a lower average without NHIS
: and Pheonix, could be eclipsed by IRL with all-ovals, a big network, some
: familiar added drivers, and better promotion (eg, walt Disney knows a
: little about the TV and entertainment biz, and TG has learned a lot about
: marketing from NASCAR which is a much better marketer than CART)

: Let the TV ratings war begin!

        You're trying to sell a product based on TV ratings? If that were
        the case, then that must mean F1 is junk. Hardly. Just because the
        entire US population isn't clued into it doesn't meant it stinks.
        You may think oval racing is the key ingredient to having big
        ratings, but that isn't the case. It has to do with the type of
        racing and the organization behind it. I'll admit that NASCAR has
        the edge here because they are willing to sacrifice principle for
        money and ratings. I hope that series like F1 and CART IndyCars
        survive because the day that they start to alter the rules for the
        sake of the television set is the day that I stop watching it.

        Jay
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|...........The Racer Archive -- WWW Racing Service...........|
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|<http://www.eng.hawaii.edu/Contribs/carina/ra.home.page.html>|
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

I don't think it's a matter of selling principles, rather it's a series
for the drivers, owners, and FANS.  This latter part is a key ingredient
to the survival of the sport and NASCAR pays homage to the idea of not
being able to survive without fans.

Jay, the problem is you can't get everyone who is interested to all the
races.  Can't be done.  The largest facility isn't large enough for all
interested, and even if it was, a large percentage couldn't afford to
go.  That means that they have to use TV to get to all of them.  As to
altering the rules for TV, that just might be necessary for the series to
survive, and they alter the rules for everything else anyway...

: What principle(s) has NASCAR sacrificed for money and ratings??  It seems to
: me that they've made some rule changes in the interest of closer competition,
: but so has IndyCar/CART and F1.  It seems to me that NASCARs success is a
: result of better marketing, and more competetive racing.

        Well, closer competition has a different definition in IndyCar, F1,
        and NASCAR. In F1, the competition is between constructors. In
        IndyCars, the competition is between a combination of chassis,
        engines, and tires. NASCAR is an outright competition between
        drivers. I firmly believe that F1 has the right formula. IMHO, I
        don't think artificial tinkering with the rules for the sake of
        parity is good. I applaud NASCAR and it's efforts to keep the
        championship close, but let's face it. NASCAR is having to save Ford
        and Pontiac from Chevy. You won't see that in the other series.
        IndyCar, though, has the bad habit of having a hand in the outcome
        of the races (read yellows). I know it is a necessary evil, but I
        hate it just the same. I think a race should be run flag to flag
        with no interruptions and if the problem is with the circuits, then
        they should find others that make this less of a problem. Okay, so I
        am very partial to road courses. But I think everyone who saw
        Portland will agree that it was one of the better races this year
        simply because they yellows were few and there was a lot of room for
        passing. NASCAR is about fans and that's the way it was created. I
        applaud that. But what F1 and IndyCar racing should stick to is pure
        and simple team concept racing. I think drivers are important, but
        the cars are just as important to me and I don't see any difference
        between Jeff Gordon's Monte Carlo and Dale Earnhardt's Monte Carlo.
        What makes it different from Barber racers and similar chassis
        specific racing? I know I am still going to get flamed for this, but
        this is the best that I can do to explain my position. Sorry for any
        bad feelings, but I don't like it when the sanctioning body has to
        change rules to bridge the gap between inferior designs. You have to
        live and learn. No one was complaining about Penske last year.
        Everyone agreed that they did their homework and deserved to clean
        house.

        Jay
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|...........The Racer Archive -- WWW Racing Service...........|
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|<http://www.eng.hawaii.edu/Contribs/carina/ra.home.page.html>|
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

: I don't think it's a matter of selling principles, rather it's a series
: for the drivers, owners, and FANS.  This latter part is a key ingredient
: to the survival of the sport and NASCAR pays homage to the idea of not
: being able to survive without fans.

        So when a manufacturer gets something right and starts running away
        from the competition, the ruling body effectively rewrites the rules
        so that parity is restored. How lame. I am sure that if Benetton
        were penalized for being too fast, the fans would really appreciate
        that one. Sure, I realize that NASCAR is something different, but
        lame is lame.

: Jay, the problem is you can't get everyone who is interested to all the
: races.  Can't be done.  The largest facility isn't large enough for all
: interested, and even if it was, a large percentage couldn't afford to
: go.  That means that they have to use TV to get to all of them.  As to
: altering the rules for TV, that just might be necessary for the series to
: survive, and they alter the rules for everything else anyway...

        It was never my intention to get everyone into the whole thing. The
        original argument was about ovals vs. road courses. I was trying to
        say that the race courses have nothing to do with the popularity of
        the sport. Then I commented that I thought NASCAR, in it's effort to
        promote parity, sacrificed certain racing principles. The biggest
        sacrifice is the cars. NASCAR is a spec series despite the fact that
        Ford, Chevy, and Pontiac are there. The sanctioning body has
        effectively shown that any significant gain in performance by any
        party, even within the rules, is eliminated for the sake of parity.
        Now if this is done for the sake of the show, fine. But the extent
        that they call NASCAR a series for US manufacturers is a bit of a
        joke. These are not even close to being stock sedans. It's just the
        shape were are dealing with here. Stick a GTP body on it and lo and
        behold it looks like a Le Mans entry. I have nothing against the
        series and I couldn't care less why fans seem to like it so much.
        But when people like Robert J. Kent extoll the virtues of NASCAR as
        a comparison to IndyCars, the argument gets real lame. If the debate
        concerns the racing, fine. But this debate is clearly getting to be
        more and more about the philosophy behind racing. Is it about the
        fans? The drivers? The manufacturers? Different series have
        different answers to that question. I'm merely defending the notion
        that a series dedicated to design and manufacturing excellance is
        just as good, if not better, than one devoted to corporate
        sponsorship and the customers (read racing fans) that they are
        trying to solicite. I personally have a problem with the latter.

        Jay
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|...........The Racer Archive -- WWW Racing Service...........|
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|<http://www.eng.hawaii.edu/Contribs/carina/ra.home.page.html>|
+-------------------------------------------------------------+