The worst daytona 500 ever?

[Brian Lohnes]

It is exciting for Outsider because if it involved the blue oval and is positive, his pants get really....and I mean REALLY tight.

I watched it flag to flag and enjoyed it. I marvel at the TV production of these races. There are so many reporters and moving pieces and they bounce between them and through them with ease. I always watch the Daytona 500 and Indy 500 because I love their history and stuff.

I was pulling for Danica and when the last lap was setting up I knew she was boned, but still I was impressed with her drive. I'd argue that lots of NASCAR wins over the years have been due to the fact that there were "mediocre drivers in good equipment". Hell, if you look at Bill Elliot's career after the mid 1980s he sure as hell looks like a "mediocre driver" that was screwed into a rocket ship for a couple years and then fell off the table. Richard Brickhouse could be the most famous "mediocre driver in good equipment" ever from that first Talladega win in 1969.

The overnight ratings for the race show a 30% increase from 2012. NASCAR is hoping every contest is as "boring" as yesterday's.

[38P]

So, let me get this straight, just so I understand; when a driver laps the entire field, or leads 85% of the race, that is exciting?!?! For who?!? Don't get me wrong, Bills dominance on both Daytona and Talladega is impressive. But, at the same time, when you lap the entire field, the race becomes extremely boring. I don't care if the rest of the field is single file or not.... Imagine being there in person when AJ Foyte lapped the entire field twice. Man, I bet there wasn't a person sitting down during that race.

Maybe that was Bill Elliots "Calling".... Hmmmmmm

BTW, AJ's win in the 500 was in 1972, not 1968. Cale won in '68 in the Wood Brothers Mercury.

Excitement isn't always a turn-four pass for the win. Sometimes it's witnessing virtual perfection (like a no-hitter in baseball). Seeing an undisputed legend such as A.J. Foyt -- at the top of his hall-of-fame career-- dominating the series regulars in spectacular fashion is exciting due to its historic nature. Foyt's 1972 Wood Brothers Mercury was one of the most successful of the Gen 2 cars, having a remarkable win percentage, even after David Pearson took over for Foyt.

[38P]

It is exciting for Outsider because if it involved the blue oval and is positive, his pants get really....and I mean REALLY tight.

I watched it flag to flag and enjoyed it. I marvel at the TV production of these races. There are so many reporters and moving pieces and they bounce between them and through them with ease. I always watch the Daytona 500 and Indy 500 because I love their history and stuff.

Being a former RTVF student back during one of my college stints, the production side of NASCAR racing is Herculean. The gyro cams were a long-overdue innovation, spoiled somewhat by the forest of tubes in front of them. However, Fox doesn't do as well at telling the whole story as ESPN did back in the Bob Jenkins days. Fox's booth crew is repetitive and annoying. Not in the league of the greats of the past. MRN does a better job with the words.

Also, production values . . . especially with set pieces and promos . . . tend to be way overdone (as in all pro sports -- too much faux "MTV" "excitement" for the casual fans, when the serious fans would rather have more story telling and insights).

I was pulling for Danica and when the last lap was setting up I knew she was boned, but still I was impressed with her drive.

The end was dictated by the 48's lane choice on the restart, although the 88 did use all of his Earnhardt "air seeing" skill to attempt a charge. Patrick just didn't have the experience to make something happen when all of the cars at the front (except for the damaged 2) were roughtly the same.

I'd argue that lots of NASCAR wins over the years have been due to the fact that there were "mediocre drivers in good equipment". Hell, if you look at Bill Elliot's career after the mid 1980s he sure as hell looks like a "mediocre driver" that was screwed into a rocket ship for a couple years and then fell off the table.

Elliott's good years started in '83 (when Ford was still way under-competitive as a result of Iacocca's "great mistake" in 1970) and mostly ended in '92 when he narrowly lost the championship to Alan Kulwicki at the greatest race in NASCAR history (1992 Hooters 500). He wasted several years after running for a declining Junior Johnson operation, in a non-competitive Gen 4 car (as the new superteams took over, budgets skyrocketed, and none of the single-car teams were competitive). Then the calendar just caught up with him (he was born in 1955 and started NASCAR WC in 1976).


Elliott's biggest problems were that he spent most of his early career in under-funded, hand-me-down cars and that he wasn't really that good on the short tracks (costing him at least two championships).

Was he as good for as long as Earnhardt or Pearson or even Petty? No. But to suggest that he only had a "couple of years" and was otherwise mediocre isn't accurate. So I'll respectfully disagree with Brian's assessment.

but Richard Brickhouse could be the most famous "mediocre driver in good equipment" ever from that first Talladega win in 1969.

Brickhouse benefitted from the first and only driver's strike in NASCAR.

The overnight ratings for the race show a 30% increase from 2012. NASCAR is hoping every contest is as "boring" as yesterday's.

Prediction: after yesterday's poor show, cumulative ratings will not hold the gains, unless something big happens.

[BBR]

So, let me get this straight, just so I understand; when a driver laps the entire field, or leads 85% of the race, that is exciting?!?! For who?!? Don't get me wrong, Bills dominance on both Daytona and Talladega is impressive. But, at the same time, when you lap the entire field, the race becomes extremely boring. I don't care if the rest of the field is single file or not.... Imagine being there in person when AJ Foyte lapped the entire field twice. Man, I bet there wasn't a person sitting down during that race.

Maybe that was Bill Elliots "Calling".... Hmmmmmm

I think it's exciting when one guy totally obliterates the entire field. These clumped up crash fests are stupid and will get more people hurt and tear up more equipment than they ever would running without the restrictor plates.

Ratings were up because of the huge wreck in the nationwide race and because of Danica.

My opinion of course.

[studemax]

I at least like the fact I can tell which brand they are supposed to be from the front of the car now. I'll call that progress in the right direction.

Yeppers.

[Barry Donovan]

The mini-van was probably more entertaining.

yep.

I like historians speaking up, the outsider speaks intelligent..some years of point of view.

the origin being moonshiners and regular cars made to go faster...being for crooked reasons more than fun.

That still has not changed...except ignoring "stock", and that sucks.

[Orange65]

I watched it during track cleanups at Lights Out (thanks for the link!) Not that bad a race to me. I would rather watch pack racing than someone run away with it. I went to the 500 back in the early 2000's and that was boring. Two cars could run really well together so Jr and Smoke teamed up and basically left the field for most of the race.... yawn.

I remember Earnhart Sr complaining about pack racing- it was too dangerous to him. He preferred the ability to run away. Gee- what driver wouldn't?

I think the opinions of what is good racing varies by who is talking and who is winning.

I like the new car better than the old one.

Two remarks to Outsider-

Your remark about early 60's 500 and it being in stock cars. If you did that today, you pretty much would not need a pit crew since most get good enough gas mileage to make it but it would take them 10 laps just to get up to 100. You would need a relief driver to take over 5 hours into the race! YAWN!

As for Million Dollar Bill- his big Daytona win was behind the wheel of a narrowed up Tbird. He took advantage of NASCARs templates not checking width and narrowed up his car a couple of inches. Not cheating, I guess but getting creative. NASCAR nipped that idea when they figured it out with new templates.

[38P]

Ratings were up because of the huge wreck in the nationwide race and because of Danica.

My opinion of course.

Add in the Gen 6 attracting back some curious formerly hard-core fans, and you're correct. Also, Daytona ratings tend to increase when part of the country is snowed-in.

[38P]

I watched it during track cleanups at Lights Out (thanks for the link!) Not that bad a race to me. I would rather watch pack racing than someone run away with it.

But one-groove, single-file "parade" "racing" at speeds too high to "use the bumper" . . . and the virtually elimination of bump drafting, except for perhaps Biffle and Keselowski when the 48 was threatening before the last caution . . . isn't exactly "pack racing."

went to the 500 back in the early 2000's and that was boring. Two cars could run really well together so Jr and Smoke teamed up and basically left the field for most of the race.... yawn.

However, compared to the 74 lead changes of the 2011 Daytona 500 -- which was the zenith of "tandem" racing -- the 2013 Daytona 500 was almost like the stereotypical Formula One "follow-the-leader" race (before KERS and movable wings).

Two remarks to Outsider-

Your remark about early 60's 500 and it being in stock cars. If you did that today, you pretty much would not need a pit crew since most get good enough gas mileage to make it but it would take them 10 laps just to get up to 100. You would need a relief driver to take over 5 hours into the race! YAWN!

Not true. A more stock-based formula could yield decent speeds that would use enough fuel and tires to need pit crews. Relief drivers would not be any more necessary than they were during the first decade of Daytona racing.

As for Million Dollar Bill- his big Daytona win was behind the wheel of a narrowed up Tbird. He took advantage of NASCARs templates not checking width and narrowed up his car a couple of inches. Not cheating, I guess but getting creative. NASCAR nipped that idea when they figured it out with new templates.

The GM teams also narrowed their cars (compare Petty's 1984 "200th Win" Grand Prix to a production GP). The Thunderbirds had a slight aerodynamic advantage until NASCAR allowed the "cheater" "Aerocoupe" and 2+2 conversions. In 82-84, the Thunderbirds had a slightly lower ride/roof height as well.

Elliott's big mechanical advantage was Ernie Elliott power under the hood. Ernie's cylinder head work was briefly ahead of the other Ford builders, and -- as shown by all the current NASCAR spec engines having splayed valves, instead of traditional inline "wedge" heads -- Cleveland-type heads had more power potential than 22-degree SBC heads. Ernie seemed to lose his advantage once Robert Yates was back in the Ford camp (Yates started with Holman-Moody before FoMoCo pulled the rug out from under the Ford teams. Yates built some dominating Chevrolet engines before Ranier-Lundy (which became RYR) switch to Ford)

[Bob Holmes]

They need to dump the restrictor plates and resize the engines to 302 ci.

[TC]

They need to dump the restrictor plates and resize the engines to 302 ci.

I think better yet is leave the cubes as they are and make the tracks better and remove the restrictor plates. I would love to see a track that has inverted turns....... Or where the guys are riding on the "walls" while in the turns......

[cobra]

I think it's exciting when one guy totally obliterates the entire field. These clumped up crash fests are stupid and will get more people hurt and tear up more equipment than they ever would running without the restrictor plates.

Ratings were up because of the huge wreck in the nationwide race and because of Danica.

My opinion of course.

the truth of the matter (and not politically correct to admit), is that NASCAR fans go to see the wrecks.....as long as no one gets hurt.

i've been going every year since the mid 90's. this race was the most boring i've seen in a while. the best racing i saw was the past two with the tandum racing. the simple fact is that in 2011, there were more lead changes then EVER in the past. when a pair got way ahead one lap, the next they could be at the back of the pack. that's excitement in racing...(and a few wrecks in between)

[38P]

NASCAR, track operators, and the broadcasters even advertise the wrecks in their "action" promos, so maybe admitting it isn't so un-PC.

And I suspect a lot of tandem critics are now rethinking their position after yesterday's somnolent event.

[38P]

They need to dump the restrictor plates and resize the engines to 302 ci.

See my reply in the "restrictor plate" thread.

[Scott Liggett]

I think the long single file line was a result of the drivers' first race in this car. Yes, they practiced and had couple duals, but they really have no experience racing in packs in these cars. I suspect that the July race back at Daytona will be a bit more aggressive. Drivers are still learning how the draft affects the different shaped cars. They also no longer have 2x12 front and rear bumpers where they slam dance like with the Gen 5 car. I also think most of the teams were just hoping to finish the first race in the new car, get points, and learn a few things.

They have been racing the Nationwide series cars for a while now and it showed by how aggressive the racing was. Same with the trucks.