Filed under: Clint Bowyer, Denny Hamlin, Jimmie Johnson, Kevin Harvick, Chase for the Sprint Cup, Sprint Cup, NASCAR
Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments
Filed under: Clint Bowyer, Dale Earnhardt Jr., David Reutimann, Denny Hamlin, Kevin Harvick, Talladega Superspeedway, Chase for the Sprint Cup, Sprint Cup, Joey Logano, NASCAR
Filed under: Clint Bowyer, Jimmie Johnson, Talladega Superspeedway, Chase for the Sprint Cup, Sprint Cup, NASCAR
NASCAR is always one call away from controversy. This is a lesson that has been glaringly apparent over the last couple of weeks. One penalty gets them into trouble, and another doesn’t. Why that is, is really a matter of perspective.
Take today for instance. Clint Bowyer, fresh off his own controversy with NASCAR, was in the lead in the final 20 laps. Somewhere around lap 17 NASCAR threw a caution for debris on the backstretch. Bowyer was understandably not happy. He complained that the debris had been on the track for most of the the run.
Now exactly why NASCAR threw the caution at that moment is something I can’t answer, but the fact is, it didn’t help Clint Bowyer’s cause. Still it’s hard to argue the caution shouldn’t have been thrown. What if, for instance, that debris had gotten blown out onto the racing surface and Tony Stewart (or some other driver in contention) ran it over. It could have cut his tire down (it wouldn’t have been the first time a driver had his tire cut down by debris) and ended his day – and his shot at the championship.
For years drivers have enjoyed screaming about the ‘phantom caution’ or the ‘competition caution’ when it hurt them, while decrying NASCAR for not throwing a caution when they had their day ended because of debris.
From where I sat, the debris on Sunday looked worthy of a caution. Certainly it looked bad given who the leader was, and it’s probable that the piece of debris was on the track for most of that run. That doesn’t mean though that caution shouldn’t have been thrown.
I write this not to say I think NASCAR is right in every situation. I think there are definitely cautions that have been thrown in the not too distant past that are up for debate, but often NASCAR is left with a situation where they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
As the sanctioning body of this sport NASCAR is often forced to make discretionary decisions. They won’t be perfect every time. And in the case of debris what one perceives as bad enough to throw a caution for is in the eye of the beholder.
TheNASCARInsiders.com Follow the Insiders on Twitter or be a fan on Facebook!
Filed under: Clint Bowyer, Richard Childress Racing
Filed under: Clint Bowyer, Jeff Burton, Kevin Harvick, Chevrolet, Chase for the Sprint Cup, Richard Childress Racing
Two Chase races down, eight to go. While the Truck Series is off this weekend, the Cup and NNS cars head west to Kansas. While we work through another week, here is the 94th round of reader questions and answers. If you don’t know what this post is, we answer any and all reader questions every Wednesday, right here. So if you’ve got one, click on the ”Ask the Insiders” tab at the top of the page and send one to us. On to the questions…
1. From Ric:
Was there any advantage to Tony coasting down the front stretch, versus turning into pit road?
Well, he still needed to cross the line to register on the scoring as having completed the last lap. And the turn in for the garage area is well before the start finish line at Loudon, so pulling down pit road wouldn’t have made sense. At the point he was at, there were definitely no advantages left to be had. – T.C.
2. From DMan:
At Loudon on the last lap, or rather I should say Stewart’s last lap, ESPN showed about a half second’s worth of Hamlin giving Stewart a little push. It was my understanding that it was against NASCAR rules to assist another car on the last lap. Why was there no penalty to Hamlin or Stewart? Or am I splitting hairs?
I think you are splitting hairs a bit. Hamlin had already crossed the line at that point, and Stewart wasn’t going to improve his position over another car by getting a little aid. So really, no harm, no foul. – T.C.
3. From Michael in SoCal:
How do spotters communicate with other spotters during the race? If they’re constantly watching out for and advising their driver, how do they find other spotters to talk to and get in a couple of words to pass along messages? Thanks! You’re a daily read.
The spotters stand isn’t exactly a large space, and you have to remember that for the most part, these guys spend weekend after weekend up there with the same 42 other guys. They get to know each other pretty well. So when there is a message to be conveyed, all they have to do is step over to the other spotter and make their point. Obviously if they are at Daytona or Talladega, or in a tight battle, the spotter probably won’t take the chance, but there are plenty of opportunities during a race to do so. – T.C.
4. From Joe:
I noticed one of the people on survivor called Chase is a jackman on a pro race team,do you know him? Since Bowyer’s car got caught why not check Harvick’s and Burton’s? I doubt there’s any difference between any of their cars. It may explain why Harvick is running way better this year than he was last year.
The guy on Survivor is Chase Rice. He was a linebacker for the University of North Carolina football team, and after he graduated, he joined Hendrick Motorsports. Before he went on the show, he was a developmental jackman who’d spent some time in ARCA and the Nationwide Series. And don’t worry, NASCAR is keeping a very watchful eye on all the RCR cars. Remember that RCR was warned following Richmond about some of the measurements, so NASCAR is well aware that they are trying to push the limits a bit. In any case though, it’s not fair to say that RCR’s performance gains have been made through cheating. I do believe they have made legitimate improvements to their program. – T.C.
5. From Lost in NASCAR:
Got to wonder about this penalty to the 33. i would like to know from NASCAR what the advantage was to the 33 car. I am not in favor of cheating, but there seems to be something wrong with this whole story. Do you think that someone “RATTED” out the 33 to NASCAR to start them looking in that direction? If not, how come they took the car to the research center? I have been around the sport as a fan long enough to have seen some real cheaters.
From what we know about the problem, it would appear that doing something like this would be to gain some sort of aerodynamic advantage. Don’t forget that NASCAR warned the #33 following the race at Richmond, that they were close on some of the measurements. This didn’t come out of nowhere. And Bowyer’s car wasn’t taken back to the R&D center out of the blue. NASCAR routinely takes the winning car back to Concord with them for a more in depth inspection. – T.C.
6. From BB:
Thanks for the great blog and frequent posts; still the best one for in depth information……..just wondering how things are going in terms of sponsors, stability, finances etc at MWR. They have come a long way in a couple of years, but still seem pretty low profile. Also, how likely is TRB to stick with Toyota?
Thanks BB! As far as I know things at MWR are pretty good. Raceworld USA (or I think they’re just calling it Michael Waltrip Racing these days) was an expensive venture that put the team in a bad position. With the involvement of Rob Kauffman and other business partners the financial stability of the team is much improved. They’ve got the sponsorship from NAPA (and they love Michael) and of course Aarons. They definitely have come a long way in the last several years – and lets be honest, look much better than their fellow inaugural Toyota team, Red Bull. I think TBR returning to Toyota next year is pretty good – I haven’t heard anything to the contrary. - Journo
7. From Christopher:
After hearing Bowyer’s “tow truck” excuse for being over the limit on size of part of his car by such a tiny amount, I got to thinking. After even minor bumping against other cars, which happens to everyone… I would imagine MOST cars are dented and banged up enough to technically be outside the rules, even though they started within the legal limits. I’d imagine, for example, after just a little bump drafting, you’d knock your car in or out 1/16 inch. How does NASCAR take this into account when testing cars post-race?
During the inspection process NASCAR takes into account on-track damage. Cars don’t have to fit templates in the post race inspection. They also have a ton of data that will help them in determining where things should be. In the situation of the tow-truck, NASCAR’s engineers actually looked at data from similar tow-truck damage incidents and determined it was unlikely the tow-truck could have caused this particular issue (this was actually addressed in the teleconference on Wednesday). - Journo
8. From Brent:
The 33 car did not pass the height stick measurement after the race. My question is, do the chassis adjustments made during the race affect this measurement, such as wedge (corner jacking), and tire pressure? Or do they somehow measure the body relative to the chassis instead of to the ground?
When did the #33 not pass height sticks? The penalty they were given was for a body measurement made at the R&D center, not for not passing height sticks. In any case, no, the teams must keep the height sticks in mind when making adjustments during the race. The measurement is taken from the ground to the car’s body. The car must pass both pre and post race. – T.C.
9. From old9fan
Hi guys, love your website! As a long time NASCAR fan, I noticed something recently. Most of the tracks have count down cones, 3-2-1, as a aid for drivers. Pocono has always had the number. But I haven’t recalled seeing them before this season. Is this a new practice for the tracks and are they adjusted for series that is currently running a race? If so, why? Thank you!
Thanks old9fan! You know I have noticed that too, but I’m not sure if it’s a new thing. The practice definitely helps drivers, and spotters – and it’s possible NASCAR has asked the tracks to start doing this. Sorry I can’t be of more help. – Journo
10. From Kev:
As a relative newcomer to studying NASCAR racing closely – I’ve had a casual interest for years – I need help understanding some of it. I thought the Lucky Dog and the run around were the same thing but in the Nationwide Dover 200 the commentators told who had the Lucky Dog and who had the run around. The difference is?
Okay, here we go. First, we will deal with the lucky dog. Instead of having cars race back to the yellow like in the old days, NASCAR instituted the lucky dog so that cars still had the chance to get laps back. When a caution comes out, the highest scored car that is a lap (or laps) down gets to pass the pace car and get a lap back, as long as they were not involved in the caution. They have to still pit with the lap down cars, and they must start at the tail end of the longest line. The wave around was brought in with the double file restarts. When a caution comes out, IF all the lead lap cars come to pit road, that leaves all the lap down cars behind the pace car, but in front of the lead lap cars after they exit pit road. If they choose, these lap down cars can not come to pit road, and with one lap to go under yellow, NASCAR will let them pass the pace car and get a lap back. So that is why you heard the TV guys talking about both the lucky dog and the wave around cars. – T.C.
11. From Michael:
“Now I won’t comment on the validity of Hamlin’s comments, but they got him into trouble.” Why won’t you? Failed communication is never good. By adding the “but they got him into trouble” would suggest that it was false. I see no reason you can not, or will not, comment on if the “everybody garage area knew what RCR was doing” remark. Maybe you are protecting RCR. I am not the “insider”. I want to know who was in the grassy knoll. When I read your newsletter, rarely am I left with more questions than answers. Monday’s issue left me scratching my head.
I knew this was going to bite me. Does it suggest that what Denny said was false? More than anything I didn’t want the discussion on the post to spiral into whether or not people believed what Denny had to say. I wanted to preface that I was not going to be talking about it. I promise you I’m not protecting RCR, my opinions on the matter were just irrelevant for the post. If it makes you feel better about the situation, just pretend like that section of that sentence isn’t there. - Journo
12. From Scott:
Hey Guys, As always, love the site and read all the posts. Fantastic job to both of you. My question is about Team Red Bull. Given Brian Vickers health issues this year and the questions about who will be the second driver or if a second car is even a possibility is Team Red Bull back to square one? Currently, both cars are locked into the points and probably will stay that way until the end of the year. This speaks volumes for the team behind the scenes however not having the presence of a veteran driver like Vickers race in and race out must have some kind of effect right? Will be the 2011 race season be a rebulding year or is there enough juice left to give that team wings?
The issue at Red Bull is not whether there will be two cars, it’s whether it will be three cars, and if it’s just two cars, who will be in them. Obviously Kasey Kahne will be in a car next year, but if Vickers’ health keeps him sidelined will Red Bull keep Scott Speed? Or if Vickers does return do they keep Speed and create a third team for Kahne? I personally think there are issues at Red Bull that start at the top. It sounds like the folks in Austria are starting to make changes there - whether that has a dramatic effect on the team’s performance remains to be seen. They certainly have the resources to be a good team, but there are issues that need to be remedied before that can happen. - Journo
And that brings yet another “Ask The Insiders Wednesday” to a close. Thanks to everyone who sent in questions. And remember, if you’d like to be a part of next week, click on the ”Ask the Insiders” tab at the top of the page and send your question in!
Filed under: Clint Bowyer, Chase for the Sprint Cup, Richard Childress Racing, NASCAR
Combine a sanctioning body with no self awareness, select media members inflaming a penalty, an unclear inspection process and technical issue, and a driver who likes to speak his mind and you’ve got a lesson in public relations no-nos.
There is an old adage in PR: if you don’t tell your story, someone else will and you may not like how they tell it. This is something the folks at NASCAR could stand to learn.
In a media environment that is increasingly loud, swift and dare I say hostile, treading lightly around these penalty issues is very important.
In the wake of the Clint Bowyer penalties this past week, NASCAR used their weekly teleconference to explain the issue and answer questions – only they did a pretty bad job at both. Instead of making sure things were appropriately explained, and giving media members every opportunity to ask questions, they were unclear (even when asked to explain in layman’s terms) and limited them to one question (which some promptly started complaining about on twitter).
All told the teleconference explaining this thing took 21 minutes. What NASCAR needed to do was to take the car, get their video conferencing equipment and go through it – then they needed to let the media members ask as many questions as they wanted (whether that took 20 minutes or 2 hours). Of course all of this needed to be available for fans to watch.
The resulting inadequate explanations then got muddled when the story was told. Then RCR added to the story by essentially calling BS on NASCAR (NASCAR addressed in the teleconference what would later become RCR’s explanation and said given previous data they had, it was not likely). With the amount of trust fans have in the sanctioning body though it was apparent who they believed. As usual, the story got away from NASCAR.
This wasn’t helped by some media members who took to their respective websites and social media accounts to join the chorus of anti-NASCAR sentiment. Again, they, like RCR, told the story, not NASCAR.
What I find hard to believe though is that NASCAR doesn’t realize the implications these penalties have with the fans. If they’d do a reasonable job explaining the problem, this means going on TV and explaining in actual layman’s terms what the issue is (because most people don’t understand what goes into the inspection process, or what exactly a penalty is being issued for because they haven’t been involved in building a COT, or understand the engineering of it), and then debunking things, they wouldn’t spend two weeks defending themselves against (or doing what they normally do and ignoring) unfounded allegations.
This sporting body has trust and public relations issues unlike their counterparts throughout America. It’s to the point I believe it’s driving fans away. They though are tone deaf. Truly mind boggling. Let’s hope whoever takes this unenviable position of Chief Communications Officer convinces the leadership at NASCAR to do a better job of creating transparency (which they are under no obligation to do) for the sake of the sport.
NASCAR wasn’t alone in their communications missteps this weekend. Look no further than Denny Hamlin, a guy who is never afraid to give his opinion. During his Friday Chase press conference Hamlin said:
“In the garage, everyone has known it for months… It’s not two weeks old. They’ve been warned for a long time, way before Richmond. … They knew it was wrong way before that, and they wanted to get everything they could.”
Now I won’t comment on the validity of Hamlin’s comments, but they got him into trouble. As JD Gibbs later told him, sometimes it’s best to keep our thoughts and opinions to ourselves.
Whether acting under team orders, or as a lone assassin, Kevin Harvick, during practice on Saturday, proceeded to let Denny Hamlin know that his comments were not well received. Afterward there was some intense discussion. NASCAR said ‘boys, have at it’ right? No doubt failed communications on all parts.
What we learned this week was that NASCAR still has a long way to go in regaining the trust of it’s fans and that is probably going to start with much more transparency to prove that they really have no agenda – other than maintaining their rulebook. And don’t screw with RCR, because they’ll get you.