Q: Kelly, I was wondering what would your opinion be on a simple change for races that have multiple race dates in the calendar. Like Bristol dirt and the night race.
I know the NHRA holds two races at Las Vegas and Charlotte. Both four-wide races are in the regular season that sell pretty decent in ticket sales and then two lane racing during their countdown to the championship. They are obviously trying to make the two separate race dates different.
When it comes to NASCAR and races that have two separate dates, why would it be a bad idea to maybe just do something slightly different/ Especially after the previous weekend at Martinsville. Maybe make the 400-lapper a stage break-free race and leave the 500 in the fall with breaks since it’s a playoff event.
It’s a simple change, and now with road courses without stage breaks maybe NASCAR could try to differentiate some of the ovals with multiple dates and see if that would potentially drum up more ticket sales for the old school fans, or just to see how the race would play out more organically.
Joseph K., Berlin, NH
KELLY CRANDALL: I do like the idea of race weekends having different meaning or a different feel. Bristol dirt and the night race is a good example. Darlington talks a lot about that when it got its second date back, promoting that throwback weekend is early in the year, and then the focus is on the playoffs when the series returns in September.
I’m not a big fan of many tracks having two dates because there are times when the season feels so long, and it just lags in the summer when the schedule would have two Michigan races and two Pocono races spread over a few weeks. But I’m not a fan of having different races with different rules, and NASCAR doesn’t like doing that either. The sanctioning body has talked previously about trying to have consistent rules and policies across the board because it wants to keep it simple. If NASCAR — or the tracks — are going to try to mix things up, I doubt it would be through different rules for different races.
Q: I want to start out my question with a statement that I am only a casual NASCAR fan. I’ve been to a few races and I try to catch one every other year or so in person. I watch Daytona and a few others throughout the season, I have a favorite driver and I always take a look at race results and standings on RACER.com. With that baseline set, I do not understand the logic behind green/white/checker finishes.
I don’t want to judge the hardcore NASCAR fan, but for me, it’s not racing — it’s random and it is very expensive for the teams to run those “last two laps.” (Plus, it is very time-consuming for the fan at home.) Have there been any surveys done to determine if GWC really moves the needle with fan engagement/enjoyment of the sport? I, for one, would rather see the most deserving driver win under yellow, than for the GWC randomizer to pick the winner.
Andy R., Brighton, MI
KC: I disagree that GWC finishes make the winners random, but it does get ridiculous and it does get expensive. But it’s the drivers’ fault, right? This kind of goes back to the talk after the COTA race about why it was so ugly — because drivers know they have to get what they can get when they can before someone gets them. Cautions breed cautions. The pushing and shoving and running through each other get worse and worse as the race goes on, especially when it comes down to overtime restarts.
The whole idea behind a GWC is that NASCAR heard from fans for years that they didn’t want to see a race won under the yellow flag. If a caution came out within 10 laps to go, there was a good chance the race was going to be over, and those final few laps were going to be run under pace car speed. Fans wanted to see a winner, so NASCAR implemented the GWC rule to try and make that happen. However, the law of unintended consequence is that they tried it, and it’s messy, so the rule reads that after the white flag is taken, the next flag ends the race, or these attempts will keep going and going.
Q: We have seen changes with designers moving and departing from McLaren and Mercedes. Namely, James Key and Mike Elliott are departing. So, my question: what skill is missing from these technical leads? Is it organization, vision, or competency? Will they work again?
Steve
CHRIS MEDLAND: Not so fast, you’ve jumped the gun with Mike Elliott — he isn’t departing and is very much still working for Mercedes. He’s effectively been promoted to chief technical officer in a role swap with James Allison, so Mercedes clearly sees value in him and he has been a major contributor to the team’s success in the past. The impression there is that Elliott is better suited to a more strategic overarching role rather than the (slightly) more immediate and public-facing technical director position, and Allison is willing to return to his previous post.
When it comes to James Key, his stock rose at smaller teams than McLaren — impressing at a young age with Force India and setting Sauber up for a very strong 2012 season before joining Toro Rosso — but his impact at McLaren had been limited. In a bigger structure the results weren’t trending in the right direction, and Key didn’t have the previous success with the team in the same way that Elliott did so was replaced. At McLaren it seemed to be a combination of the underwhelming last two cars and not fitting into the structure that Andrea Stella wanted when he took over as team principal.
That said, I’d still expect to see Key join another team in F1 at some stage if he wants to. He has good experience and has shown he can be a technical director at multiple teams before McLaren, while he could also be attractive in a different role at bigger teams.
THE FINAL WORD
From Robin Miller’s Mailbag, April 23, 2014
Q: Is there any chance you could obtain the rights to write the definitive biography of A.J. Foyt? I have the one that was issued in the late ’70s and it is rubbish. You know A.J. quite well and nobody loves open-wheel racing more than you. You are truly the best writer when it comes to Indy.
Joe Thoms
ROBIN MILLER: Well, thanks for the compliment but Bill Neeley wrote a book in 1983 (“A.J.”) that’s a pretty good read about Super Tex, so go on Amazon and see if you can pick one up. A.J. asked me once why I hadn’t written a book yet and I told him I couldn’t until he’s passed on. He wondered why and I said: “Because after you read one of the chapters you’d want to kill me.” He called me an a**hole, I agreed and said that’s why we were pals.