The Frontstretch: Fanning the Flames: Casual Questions From "Hard Core" Fans -- And Vice Versa by Matt Taliaferro -- Thursday February 21, 2008

Go to site navigation Go to article

Fanning the Flames: Casual Questions From "Hard Core" Fans -- And Vice Versa

NASCAR Fan Q & A · Matt Taliaferro · Thursday February 21, 2008

 

Another solid batch, guys and gals. The diversity of questions is just outstanding, so keep ‘em rolling in… Thus far you all have absolutely topped yourselves from where we were at this point last season. Just click on this little red link and let's talk.

And before we start, I just have to say that if Chubby Checker and his painted-on jeans, denim jacket and shoddy lip-sync job ever show at a pre-race concert again, I'm outta here. I love racing, but my stomach just won't stand for that.

Q: Do you know why NASCAR can't build a few more pit stalls and allow more cars to race on a 2.5-mile track? With its "Super Bowl" status, and kicking off the season, why not let Bill Elliott and the Wood Brothers, Ken Schrader and others in the race? Now these teams face Race No. 2 with zero points and the dreaded go-or-go-home status the rest of the season. NASCAR is not very bright.
— Ray Miller

A: Basically, because 43 is the max number. That's the set-in-stone rule. We don't have too many of those these days, so let's not give NASCAR any ideas, OK?

The Daytona 500 is the race of the season. Do you want it to erode into a charity case? That's what it becomes if NASCAR starts allowing free passes (and save the bogus Top 35 argument — I don't agree with it either, but it's certainly not charity). Plus, isn't the Great American Race rooted in competition? If the sanctioning body allows teams and / or drivers a free pass based on popularity, what credibility this sport has left is totally gone.

Sorry Ray—I couldn't disagree with you more on this, but I still love ya, man.

Q: I seem to remember from watching races with my dad when I was younger that the bodies on the cars, at least, had to be "stock," and the templates that fit the race car bodies would also fit the street model. That changed long before the CoT and the common template, so what gives? Why did NASCAR ease up on the stock body?
— BillT99

A: Wow. Sorting through the why's, when's and how's of the stock car losing its "stock" could fill a three-part feature. So in the interest of time, space and my sanity, let me boil it down to this:

In the late 1960s, Ford and Chysler built the first vehicles to be used specifically on the Grand National circuit. In response, NASCAR mandated that at least 500 production vehicles be produced to meet the definition of a "stock" car — think Plymouth Superbird or Ford Torino.

Shortly thereafter, in the early '70s, many of the manufacturers pulled out of the sport and those minimum production quotas were rendered meaningless. NASCAR then mandated that a tubular chassis (as opposed to factory-based frames) be installed for safety, so while the bodies may have still been "stock" the beast within was anything but. By the late '70s / early '80s the bodies had evolved into custom hangs that were done, for the most part, in-house.

NASCAR allowed the innovations to continue because the product rolling off the Detroit assembly lines were no longer fit (or able) to meet the ever-expanding technical and safety templates mandated by the sanctioning body. So in a nutshell Bill, that's why and how we got where we are.

Q: Hi Matt! Can you tell me how many times (and by which driver) the No. 26 car has made it into Victory Lane? There seems to be some difference of reports on this. Thanks!!!
— Vanessa T. Lee

A: Sure Vanessa. I'm a car number history buff, so this one was fun.

The first Grand National race in which a car numbered 26 was entered was the 1950 Southern 500. Yep, that would be the inaugural running of the Southern 500. A guy named Dick Linder drove it from a starting position of 62nd (plenty of extra pit stalls that day, Ray.) to 13th. Not bad.

I've come to realize through your question that the 26 is a pretty storied number. It's not 43 or 11, but check out some of these names: Curtis Turner drove a No. 26 Holman-Moody Ford to the number's first win. It came at the legendary Lakewood Speedway in Atlanta. ‘Pops’ drove the same car to another win five days later in Charlotte.

Fred Lorenzon (one win) was the next to win with 26, followed by Bobby Isaac (one). Junior Johnson took over from there, guiding his self-owned No. 26 Ford to 12 wins in '65. Junior actually won 13 races that season, but ran the first three with the No. 27.

Darel Dieringer won a single event in 1967 and, although the number was still in use, did not visit Victory Lane again for 21 years when Ricky Rudd won in '88 and again in '89 in Kenny Bernstein's Quaker State Buick. Brett Bodine took the wheel in 1990 and won at Wilkesboro, his only career Cup win. (Do you remember the Quaker State commercial they ran for the following three seasons using footage of that win? Talk about getting some mileage out of a victory…)

Jamie McMurray is the latest of a “who’s who” to drive the No. 26 car in NASCAR Cup competition.

And of course, Mr. McMurray most recently drove Jack Roush's No 26 IRWIN Ford to last season's Pepsi 400 victory at Daytona. That adds up to 21 wins for the No. 26 in 912 starts since 1950. Check out these names that drove the 26 but never recorded a win in it:

David Pearson, LeeRoy Yarbrough, Earl Brooks, Wendall Scott and Butch Lindley. When Bernstein owned it in the '90's, Joe Ruttman, Morgan Shepherd and Hut Stricklin (among others) wheeled it. And lest we not forget the Travis Carter-owned Ford that housed Jimmy Spencer, Joe Nemechek and Todd Bodine. Johnny Benson, I didn't forget you either.

Sadly, I must also mention that Tiny Lund lost his life driving A.J. King's No. 26 Dodge at Talladega in 1975.

Thanks for history lesson, Vanessa. Good times.

Q: Matt, I was reading your answer regarding NASCAR's punishment of Tony Stewart and Kurt Busch and their (NASCAR's) "double-talk" highlights exactly why I have been AND will always be just a casual observer. I grew up in a hotbed of NASCAR racing and my family was in front of the TV every Sunday as well as keeping up with off the track goings-on. I never could get into it because of all of the inconsistencies. When will NASCAR see the error in their ways and could they be one major "ruling" away from the ultimate downfall of the sport? Basically, can they lose a major faction of their fanbase due to them "playing god"? Kind of ironic a casual observer is surfing the Frontstretch, huh?
— Paydirt55

A: Well first off, thanks for reading. We welcome the hard-cores and the casuals alike. There should be something for everyone around here and I think the "suits" have adequately seen to that.

As for your question: I'm sure that for every fan there is a breaking point. However, that point is unique to each individual. That's why it would be hard for me to believe that one, almighty act by NASCAR could alienate a massive number of fans to the point that, let's say, one-third of the fanbase stage a mass exodus.

Unless of course, NASCAR did something off-the-charts crazy like radically change the point system, dump the series' title sponsor and institute a common car, all while abandoning the fans that helped the sport rise to prominence in the first place.

Oh wait… They already did that. And even some of the casual fans, like Paydirt here, are still around.

Give it a few laps to see if the CoT will help Fontana's Fourth Annual February Parade this weekend. If we get to midway and all you can think of is how exciting The Rock's events were, feel free to turn the channel. Or drink heavily. By the way, cars numbered 26 have a 22.4-place finish at California.

NASCAR NEWS, RIGHT TO YOUR INBOXAND IT’S FREE.
The Frontstretch Newsletter, back in 2014 gives you more of the daily news, commentary, and racing features from your favorite writers you know and love. Don’t waste another minute – click here to sign up now. We’re here to make sure you stay informed … so make sure you jump on for the ride!

Today on the Frontstretch:
NASCAR Easter Eggs: A Few Off-Week Nuggets to Chew On
Five Points To Ponder: NASCAR’s Take-A-Breath Moment
Truckin’ Thursdays: Top Five All-Time Truck Series Drivers
Going By the Numbers: A Week Without Racing Can Bring Relief But Kill Momentum
FREE NEWSLETTER! CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP

 

©2000 - 2008 Matt Taliaferro and Frontstetch.com. Thanks for visiting the Frontstretch!

McNair
02/21/2008 10:09 AM
permalink

I can think of no better example of charity than the top 35 rule . Lets look at the facts . If a car in the top 35 runs the slowest speed of all in qualifying , they are in . And as we have seen in many instances in the past , if a car from outside the top 35 runs the 10th fastest time , they could be , and have been , sent home . If you have a guaranteed starting spot , no matter how slow you are , that sure strikes me as charity .

Matt T. -- FS Staff
02/21/2008 11:21 AM
permalink

I imagined that line would get someone going. Mac, here’s the reason I don’t see the Top 35 as being a charity case:

Those go-or-go-homers’ top priority is just making the race. Therefore, their cars are set up to qualify, whereas the locked-in group may not run as fast in qualifying because “just making the field” is not the priority.

By being at the track each and evey week and racing their way into the Top 35 via raceday performance, the locked-in teams have earned said security. At the same time, the go-or-go-homers are given a fair shot at racing their way in one week at a time. If they continue to show each and every week, they build points by making the show(s). Eventually, that ongoing effort earns them a guaranteed spot. You have to work your way in; nothing is given.

All that said, I don’t agree with the Top 35 rule in its current format. I think 35 is much too high a number. I’m thinking 20 or even 12 (just the teams currently in the Chase on any given weekend) is a much better idea. Because as a purist, I have a problem with qualifying detemining only the starting order, and not the composition, of the field.

McNair
02/21/2008 01:02 PM
permalink

Well here’s the problem with the top 35 . Everything . The top 35 is populated almost entirely of very wealthy three and four car teams . They have the money , they have the technology , they have the help of their respective manufacturer , and in most cases have the best drivers . A startup team, or a one or two car team can only afford to show up and attempt qualifying for a limited number of times before they are forced to close the doors . It costs every team the same amount to go to the races . And if you go home , as you no doubt will because the top 35 cars in points are owned by five or six teams with almost unlimited resources , evetually it ceases to make financial sense . Sponsors that were almost impossible to find , begin to pull out , increasing the financial pressure to make the race . Which is a monumental battle because even if you outrun the top cars , you may very well go home .
By the way , many of the top teams are also set up for qualifying ( witness the cloud of steam from Johnsons’ car at the end of his run at Daytona ) because pole position pays money , and is very important for a teams’ marketing , not to mention bragging rights .
The upshot is this . The racing is being consolidated into a handfull of teams , leaving small , independant , or startup teams out in the cold . If given the chance to qualify on speed , most would be able to race , and earn money . As it is now ,new teams aren’t being formed and many teams have been forced to close the doors . And when a team the size of Penske has to resort to playing loose with the top 35 rules just to get a team into the show , then there is an obvious problem with the whole top 35 concept .

Ricky
02/21/2008 03:24 PM
permalink

To me, with the top 35 rule, you might as well draw a number when you come through the date to determine starting position for the top 35 and then let whoever drew the next 8 lucky numbers be in the race. Qualifying is a waste of time with the top 35 rule and they might as well do away with it. The top 35 Rule SUCKS, SUCKS, SUCKS, SUCKS. Besides the Chase, it is the stupidest idea Sir Brian Doofous has come up with. I remember some tracks only had 36 pit stalls(Old Richmond fairgrounds, Bristol, & Martinsville). That would be a real treat if you only had 36 pit stalls. Pretty soon, you wouldn’t have any new interest in owners trying to get cars into the field and that might even happen with 43 starting positions. If you bring a car to the track, qualify tenth, and still have to go home because you’re not in the top 35, then the sport will eventually go downhill as it already has. Get rid of the top 35 rule, IT IS CHARITY!!!

John Montgomery
02/21/2008 06:30 PM
permalink

Stock cars???? They are pipes& sheet metal..Go back to stock cars with safety equipment FOR BETTER RACES

 

Have a question for Matt's Fanning the Flames?>Just click here! and Matt may answer YOUR question right here on the Frontstretch.

Like what you see from Matt? Well you're going to love what you hear from Host Patrick Snow, Matt and Frontstretch's own Tom Bowles every week on the Athlon Inside Racing Powered by Pepsi podcast!

Contact Matt Taliaferro

Recent articles from Matt Taliaferro:

Fanning the Flames: Of Daytona, Danica, Dale, and Duels
2009 Season Review: Tony Stewart
2009 Season Review: Ryan Newman
Fanning the Flames: Closing the Inbox on the 2009 Season
Fanning the Flames: The Crew Chief Carousel and Other Assorted Oddities