Talk:NASCAR/Archive 1

Do you see what I mean? NASCAR is going to become kind of a circus act. Two articles supporting, and one against. Although I can tell you that the Ford engineering involved with NASCAR is more reward based than technology based. It's just a fun way to be an engineer. But your Ford Fusion does not have NASCAR brakes. So what's the end result? Fans who know about technology will (continue) to drift away. I don't know if this is a problem. I guess, to me, I just put NASCAR in the same "sports" bucket as monster truck racing and professional wrestling. Feel free to use any of my writing here in the article. I'm going to check out.--Mlprater 22:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

People do have to drive these things, you know. That is what I, and I would guess, most other NASCAR fans are interested in and perhaps they just aren't that interested in the technology side of it. I've even started racing (Autocross) myself because of it. Sure, I can't work on the car for anything (and I'm sure that pisses you off) but maybe this is where motorsports is heading: Technology has gotten to the point where it's dangerous/impractical/prohibitively expensive to go much faster and so the emphasis is taken off of the technology and put on the driver. That, if you ask me, is much more sport-like. Recury 23:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Passing, or "entertainment value" of F1 is an issue. They choose to allow teams which try harder on the technology side to have a lead, v. NASCAR, which slows the fast teams down so the fans have a better time.--Mlprater 15:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Recury raises a very good point: perhaps criticisms should be intertwined. However, it would be a lot of work. And it might also lose one important cultural item of note: NASCAR is so polarizing that it's generated its own criticism section, whereas the other series have not. Perhaps they are not polarizing. Since we've no statiticians to verify this, it's impossible to "cite" as some people so fervently demand. But it's nonetheless valuable. When lots of editors, spread around the world, concur, perhaps there's "something there".--Mlprater 15:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't really buy the "NASCAR vs the world" meme that others seem to be pushing. I think the answer is simpler: NASCAR is a huge entertainment business, and with that size comes the inevitable criticism. Separating the criticism out into 1 big section allows all the critics (and supporters) to make their case in one place, rather than having stuff spread throughout the article. For instance, I don't think it's appropriate to add criticism of NASCAR's long-time use of leaded fuel in the "History" section. Simishag 20:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would be one of the bits that would have to go. Individual critics do not need to be given a place to criticize NASCAR (certainly not on Wikipedia, anyway). It's really only the common, frequently published criticisms that are NASCAR-specific (unlike, say, leaded fuel or the environmentalism argument in general) that need to be addressed, IMO. Recury 20:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

perhaps it would be worthwhile for someone with more knowledge of NASCAR/public opinion to make a section about public perception of nascar? while it is popular, bear in mind it also has many who deride it as an activity (not necessarily a 'sport') or rubes and hillbillies. it is a major POV, which wikipedia policy says to include. by the way, I am from texas, so don't dismiss what I say as hatespeech of some ignorant outsider.

I like this idea. Maybe we should also include POV of New NASCAR fans vs. NASCAR fans losing their intrest due to concentration on younger drivers.

Well, I took a stab at a perceptions section. what do you think? --edgester July 6, 2005 01:02 (UTC)

Perceptions section was written with bias with no references backing up section. "many people tailgate while eating barbeque and getting drunk". Not true. Most people who go to races come, park, watch the race and leave. The campers/tailgaters are a minority.69.134.50.153 6 July 2005 01:39 (UTC)

So edit it instead of deleting it outright, unless you think that the controversies of NASCAR have no place in the article?Kurohone 6 July 2005 01:42 (UTC)

I have rewritten that section removing some of the bias and statements not backed up by fact. I would like to find more factual information about the demographics of the fans of the sport before putting that information in there (i.e. are they really redneck? are the fans that aren't redneck just not going to races, but watching on tv? differences between traditional NASCAR and new NASCAR fans)69.134.50.153 6 July 2005 01:48 (UTC)

Well, from personal experience, I can tell you that a very large proportion of the people that attended the Cup races at Lowes Motor Speedway during the past two years are redneck or at least act it on raceday. I'm bummed that you removed the "go very fast, turn left" quote that's pretty common and is used by both fans and NASCAR-haters alike. --edgester July 6, 2005 22:32 (UTC)

Redneck is a very subjective term. Redneck is an independent person's view of what a redneck is. While not seeing any proof first hand, I would still argue that the majority of NASCAR fans are not redneck, and that they are just not attending the races (i.e. just watching at homes). There still needs to be hard proof/statistics on the demographics of all race fans.69.134.50.153 03:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Personal experience, blah blah. Don't even get started on this. My personal experience at college football games is the same (drunk people that tailgate), and yet the college football article has no reference to this (in a negative light). It's a huge sport, so it draws in all kinds of people. Let's not stoop to this level- leave the opinions out (both sides could argue, stupidly, forever).

 secretagentwang 02:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

This section is getting pretty detailed (too detailed) in my opinon. Anyone care to create a new article for the EA NASCAR game?69.134.50.153 03:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Fan Demographics

Some bias comes from the belief that most NASCAR fans are are rednecks because of the sport's Southern heritage; this stereotype is largely inaccurate. According to NASCAR, about 10% of NASCAR fans are African-American, which is fairly in-line with the percentage of African-Americans in the general population. This compares to the NFL, where African-American NFL fans represent about 11.7 percent of the total NFL base. The percentage of African-American NASCAR fans has grown by 86% since 1999. About 40% of fans are female. Almost half have attended college and about 25% have attained a college degree. About 36% of NASCAR fans make more than $50,000 a year. Finally, NASCAR fans are evenly distirbuted across the country. For example, 20% of NASCAR fans live in the Northeast U.S.; this is in line with the general population--20% of the U.S. population lives in the Northeast. While the largest base of NASCAR fans live in the Southern U.S., only 38% of the NASCAR fans live in the South. Again, this is in line with the general population--35% of the population lives in the South.

The Survery is Biased. The general population is NOT 10% black in the south. It's a lot higher than that.

Am I the only find who finds this ironic? It's got so much detail that it rivals the US Census. It's alot for a car racing body I think. Someone in NASCAR must of tried very hard to prove that there fans are not just a bunch of rednecks. --Arm 17:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I read this section, and I was a little confused as to why it is included at all. I can understand that there is a stereotype of NASCAR fans that categorizes them as rednecks, but making a counterargument to an assumed stereotype doesn't make sense, nor is it appropriate for this artice. I vouch for the removal of most of this content, if not all of it.

I find this information very valuable. Haven't found the fan breakdown like this anywhere else

The page in the beginning is messed up like when it says the and then the picture of the nascar logo. 130.111.98.241 17:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I would expect this is a result of your screen resolution, no HTML trickery is being used to force the full version of "NASCAR" on to one line. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Can someone else keep an eye on both this page, Nextel Cup, and Busch Series? An anon user is repeatedly posting a link to his/her NASCAR forum, violating WP:EL. Now he/she's on AOL, making him/her harder to discover. I don't have time to go after him/her each day, so help out please. -- SonicAD (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

SonicAD - This is your last warning about editing the page for your own personal gains and affiliations with Nascar related websites.

I have nothing to gain, nor do I have affiliations with any of these sites. Assume good faith.-- SonicAD (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Please be aware of SonicAD he has a personal affiliation with a nascar based website and simply tries to eliminate any other outgoing links from this page. Please keep an eye out for his abuse

Just sprotected this page and Nextel Cup because of the link spam. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You need to remove all external links due to SonicAD's affiliations and abuse of the system

Again, I am not affiliated with any of these sites, nor have I abused the system (other than breaking the (three-revert rule, which one may break in cases of vandalism.)-- SonicAD (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Please Note: SonicAd offered advertising as an alternative to being listed in wikipedia

I do no such thing. I have a NASCAR blog that I link to on my user page (which one is allowed to do), and that's it. I have nothing to gain, and the one site I did add the link to and create an article about here I only did because it meets notability standards. Please pay attention to the fact that I am not the only person reverting your edits. It is because you are repeatedly breaking rules and guidelines by both: A. posting a link to your own website (See: WP:EL), and B. breaking the 3 revert rule {See WP:3RR). I am held to the same standards, as is everybody else here. Please consider this. -- SonicAD (talk) 03:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Should we bring in a section on how this is a predominantly white sport? Can anyone remember that survery that showed how most fans in NASCAR would not like a black man driving in NASCAR? --Hqduong 19:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Taken directly from the article: According to NASCAR, about 10% of NASCAR fans are African-American, which is a slightly smaller percentage of Blacks than in the general population. This compares to the NFL, where Black NFL fans represent about 11.7% of the total NFL base. The percentage of Black NASCAR fans has grown by 86% since 1999. There have also been some attempts by NASCAR to bring in more African American fans into the seats, and drivers into the races. --D'Iberville 03:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

But isn't that data a little biased since it's coming from NASCAR? Hqduong 07:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Data cannot be biased. Its presentation could be, but this looks to me like the results of a simple survey. Are you suggesting that it is prima facie invalid because it came from NASCAR? That's a rather serious charge. Moreover, your previous comment about a vague, unknown survey smacks of race-baiting. While there's only 1 black driver currently (Lester), he's by no means the first. If you have other sources you'd like to include, by all means reference them. Simishag 23:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay here are the facts from a person that actually races in NASCAR. First NASCAR is predominately a white sport, however this is just becuase NASCAR hasn't been around as long as other sports. Times are changing and i would have to say that in the next decade or so look for a strong increase in african americans in the sport. Remember at one time there was no african americans in the NBA or MLB and now its the other way around. We already have Juan Pablo who gets booed almoost worst than Jeff Gordon, which is a start, the one scientific reason theres not many black drivers is because a staggering 82 percent of African Americans in the United States cannot drive a manual transmission. The sport has almost abandoned all of its southern races such as Darlington and Rockingham in order to make second race dates for tracks out west. NASCAR will always have its so called rednecks but its really widening its fan support to other regions.

I have changed this to "fielding a Camry lookalike", as the cars are silhouettes. Duke toaster 15:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it back... none of the cars are actual models of the real cars, but they're simply called "Fusion", or "Camry" anyway. It's already given that they're not racing the real cars, so "lookalike" is unnecessary. -- SonicAD (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The Car of Tomorrow will make this discussion irrelevant soon anyhow. Almost all racecars today (above the beginner class at the local tracks) are lookalikes. A rollcage with either the true fenders off a street car or sheet metal/fiberglass which was bent/manufactured to look right. I'm with SonicAD. Royalbroil 03:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Has anyone hear heard of any serious criticism from the environmental side of things? --JohnFlaherty 02:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, there was something about how NASCAR uses leaded fuel, but it's being taken care of... NASCAR's moving to unleaded fuel either next year or 2008, I forget which. -- SonicAD (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I was refering more to common criticism I hear from liberal environmntalists that I know about what a sinful waste of Petroleum NASCAR is.--JohnFlaherty 04:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I would guess that the cars have no emissions standards, but does anyone have the facts? That figure of NASCAR being equivalent to 3300 average cars doing 12,000 miles a year is good for getting an idea of the enviornmental impact from a fuel consumption standpoint, though I wonder what the equivalent would be from an emissions standpoint. Anyone have any ideas? --Paraphelion 01:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd guess "3300 cars" reflects both fuel and emissions, since emissions impact is more or less proportional to the amount of fuel consumed. It's possible that the higher power of the engines, rapid consumption of fuel, all those cars on 1 track, etc., makes emissions "worse" but that's not obvious and it would need to be cited. Simishag 04:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I would not expect that at all as I doubt the cars in NASCAR are held to the same emissions standards. Many devices meant to reduce emissions also reduce engine power and I have not found any information regarding whether devices such as a catalytic converter are used on them.--Paraphelion 06:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Cat converters are not used as they would be destroyed by the lead in the fuel. I don't think they use anything to control engine emissions; they just run straight headers out. Again, though, the emissions impact is not obvious. The fuel consumption can be related to passenger cars more easily. Simishag 19:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought the 2 million figure was too high. I agree your edits are probably original research, but given that your analysis seems reasonable and if the only source for the 2 million figure doesn't discuss how it was obtained, then think something needs to be said about it, regardless of whether that involves original research. Are the calculations you used including the qualifying races or any other races? I suppose it might be 2 million if all the practice and transportation usage is considered - but that would not be an entirely fair comparison since most other professional sports involve all kind of fuel consumption from flying a football team in a charted plane to transporting horses by truck. *I just looked at the source and it does explain the 2 million figure some, though still leaves many questions - I don't know very much about NASCAR - but the 36 races you speak of - that is only the main event - NASCAR runs other tournaments/series as well, according to this artcle.--Paraphelion 11:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The main problem I have with the 2m figure is Gerard's methodology. She assumes 50 cars, 40 races, and also says "Each track averages 10 250- to 500-mile races per week in the summer," which is preposterous since it implies roughly 13*10*40 = 5200 races during the summer alone. I'm still not sure how she arrived at 2m. However, since I got 387k fairly easily, 2m doesn't seem like a ridiculous figure, it's just not really explained. For my calcuations, all the assumptions are provided, and some caveats are noted about what's not included. For the purposes of this discussion, I think we should limit the calculations to actual racing, and we should simplify things where possible (by assuming all races are run under green, etc.), in order to provide a sensible figure without getting bogged down in details which could be disputed. Simishag 18:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

While I also find difficulties with the 2 million figure, I don't like the way that the fuel consumption section is presented. As it stands, it constitues original research and should not be part of the article. -- timc | Talk 01:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I wrote it and I feel the same way. My objective was to avoid the back and forth in this section which has happened a few times now. Is there a way to present this without it being OR? I've revised it to indicate that it's a highly simplified estimate and added some justifications for the assumptions used. It's essentially just basic math based on a few key figures. I've found a better source for usage, so I'll add that now, but I think the section as it exists is somewhat enlightening. Can we rework it somehow? Simishag 02:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think your calculations are not going to include all of NASCAR's events then there's no point in mentioning it as a comparison to the source which says 2 million gallons. I think qualifying races should be counted, and there should be a way to estimate that. I am sure practice is more difficult to nail down and may not be fair to include. However, if qualifying races are added and the other events added, the 2 million figure doesn't sound all that far off. Another option might be to try to find a source that talks about fuel consumption for the main event only.. and if it is far off, perhaps your calculaton is worth mentioning.--Paraphelion 03:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I've located a couple of better sources for total consumption. In one, I found that NASCAR says they use about 6000 gal/race for a typical weekend (I assume that's NEXTEL Cup alone), or 216k gal/season (36 races). That compares reasonably well to my estimate of 387k (which is known to be high because of some assumptions), but it's way off from 2 million.

On the other points, the Busch and Craftsman series almost certainly use less fuel, since they run shorter races with smaller engines and fewer cars in the field. Qualifying for NEXTEL is only 2 laps per car, which is only 86 laps total for the field. That doesn't even work out to a full race for 1 car, so qualifying should be tiny compared to the 43 cars running the full race. I think you'd really have to look hard to find 2 mil gallons of consumption in 1 year. My guess would be around 500k total for the top 3 series combined.

All that said, it's still my own "research" I guess. We need to find some good sources; I wonder if we could find someone in NASCAR's press office who could help out. Simishag 04:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Another point - I don't think it is worth mentioning that the cars would get 14-16 mpg at normal speeds. One reason - there's no source, and with all the modifications done to these cars and that they're designed to use a fuel that most regular cars don't use, is it really that sure of a thing? The second reason - it doesn't really matter because they aren't be raced at normal speeds (though it could be mentioned in a section or article on the cars themselves). I do think it is worth mentioning that the low 2-5 mpg figure is primarily due to the high speeds. Rephrasing "At race speeds, NEXTEL Cup cars get 2 to 5 miles per gallon." to "Due in large part to high race speeds, NEXTEL Cup cars get 2 to 5 miles per gallon." might get that point across.--Paraphelion 03:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Despite the modifications, the engines are still small-block V8's, which are extremely well known by American gearheads. Modern cars with V8's are close enough to be useful comparisons. We could get into the calculations with bore, stroke, RPM, etc., but that's even more OR than what's already here. A source would certainly be useful for this, but for now I think 14-18 mpg is a safe range for caution speeds (around 55 mph). Also, I think it's important to distinguish the MPG at race speed vs caution speed; it can be of great importance to race & pit decisions, and although this section is about environmental concerns, I don't know if fuel strategy is mentioned anywhere else in the article. I don't object to some rewording but I think "Due in large part..." kinda sounds like making an excuse for why the mileage is low. An overall average would be fine as long as it splits race vs caution mileage, but I suspect the average MPG will end up being very close to race MPG. Simishag 03:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an important section, but needs to be re-written to avoid original research, especially the part that states "As a brief digression...". An encyclopedia is not the place for digressions. Not a dog 03:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I added this article to the list of sites that are regularly spammed in the external links section so others can help watch. Right now there is a website in a foreign language, and another that links to some kinds of a team website source that I never heard of (and it doesn't look very professional to me either). Apparently I'm not alone, for others have been removing that second link. I think that the only two external links that should remain are 1) the official website (of course), and 2) Jayski.com (which has built an excellent reputation as a long-term source of NASCAR news). I have seen Jayski interviewed several times on reputable NASCAR-related television shows. Royalbroil 03:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with you. I've have this page on my WL for a month or so and yep...spam is a major problem. So thanks. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If you feel the link is so important, then discuss it and get a consensus on Wikipedia:WikiProject NASCAR. Royalbroil 02:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The publication MotorsportToday.com offers official team pre-race and post-race reports directly from NASCAR team PR representatives. Site also provides official news releases from automobile manufacturers associated with NASCAR racing along with Goodyear Racing tires. You will find driver interviews, teleconference transcripts, audio, live qualifying and practice updates which are linked directly from official NASCAR team forums. Hey! You asked for it. You could have saved me a lot of time if you would have taken the time to investigate for yourself instead of immediatley deleting the link.Thunderroad 03:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have responded, and your response was civil. I have never heard of the site, but I am willing to listen. I will leave this link active until we can have WikiProject NASCAR members voice their opinions to reach a consensus. I will post a message on the WikiProject message page asking members to come here to reach a consensus whether or not this link should stay. People have argued about including Jayski.com, which is well know in the NASCAR community. Why are you so passionate about this link staying? Royalbroil 04:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

My problem is that if we keep MotorsportToday, well then we should have thatsracin.com or some of the other news sites out there. It could get out of hand real fast. I'm not even sure that we need Jayski linked since we have his site under "See also". --Woohookitty^(meow) 04:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Woohookitty, this kind of stuff usually turns into a slippery slope and even if it doesn't, it's still a waste of everyone's time to keep adding and deleting links every day. I think just the link to NASCAR.com is fine. Also, if Thunderroad is in any way affiliated with the site whose link he is adding then it doesn't matter how notable or interesting it is; it should be removed. Recury 14:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents:

• Don't use bold for the site name. Seriously. Just put it in like the rest.
• Don't call it an "official" anything. The implication is that the site speaks on behalf of NASCAR. Put a simple description of the site; based on the info you provided, something like "News and information collected from NASCAR and team sources."
• Motorsporttoday.com actually looks like a pretty nice site; lots of info and the advertising is pretty minimal. But it should be something unique to merit mention here. Plenty of sites provide NASCAR news; do we really need links to ESPN/Yahoo/everyone else from here? Simishag 05:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me say that if other website links are not allowed and the Jayski site is then Wikipedia looks biased toward that site. I pointed this out before the Jayski article was included but was out voted. I also stated that the links section should be only for the official NASCAR webiste. So I propose to add a statement to the links section that no other links (except official links) will be allowed. This should also cut down on the number of edits to the link section. The Jayski link should be removed. Thunderroad 19:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. Jayski is listed in the related articles section, and that's enough for me. The message that you added does look out of place. I propose that we as a community could just enforce the ban on adding any other links. Royalbroil 19:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd also suggest http://www. nascarspace .com/nascar/ which is an outstanding forum and community of high quality, I'm a member there and think it's a top quality resource. Please let me know if you would support this addition I think Nascar fans would enjoy a nice resource to openly discuss their feelings about the sport. --Edited By a Professor of Life 01:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I should note, not that it will be added anyway, that this website was spammed relentlessly a few months ago, and I would be wholly against adding it again (as it seems this user, now registered, is doing much the same thing as he/she was as an IP. -- SonicAD (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is way too long and I will be removing/summarize/moving some stuff to try to fix this. The criticism section is especially, um, verbose. I know NASCAR is controversial and all, but we don't need to have 2-3 paragraphs for each issue people have with NASCAR when 2-3 sentences are sufficient to sum it up. Recury 14:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No complaints here, definitely a good idea to trim the Cup stuff to its own article and the other edits look good. Thank you for posting here and also for posting detailed edit summaries; it's nice to know what people are up to. Simishag 20:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the internet. I don't understand your concern with "too long". Make sure you cut fat, and not muscle.--Mlprater 21:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is very decent. It just needs more pictures. --Leidiot 04:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Why did you remove the media section?--Paraphelion 08:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to submit nascarfish.com as one of the external link for Nascar. James Hick 10:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I rolled back this change: "It is the most popular sport in the US.", assuming that it was vandalism. I have a hard time believing that this is a true fact. If this is true, a citation would be nice. Thanks! --  timc  talk   03:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably isn't true and definitely isn't the right wording for a claim like that (How was the popularity measured? NASCAR isn't a sport, per se; Auto racing is). You did the right thing, IMO. Recury 03:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

POV for sure.

NASCAR has promoted itself as the "fastest growing sport", but not the most popular.Mustang6172 04:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The article states that Nascar has no provision for rain tires. In the late 90s Nascar developed rain tires that would be used only at Watkin's Glen and that the race would be run rain or shine, with a caution so teams could put on rain tires, windshield wipers and brake lights. I do not know if this is still the case. Mark Martin tested rain tires at Watkins Glens a few times for Nascar. -- User:Lord_Chess

According to this article, as of 2003, Nascar still had rain tires for Watkins Glen:

http://www.nascar.com/2003/news/headlines/wc/08/09/darby_rain/index.html Lord Chess 15:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)User:Lord_Chess

Okay Nascar does have tires officially for the two road course tracks, Watkins Glen and Infineon. They wouldn't run ina pouring rain but if its misting or a wet track, they'll slap the rain tires on. See:

http://www.nascar.com/2003/comm/chat/07/18/transcript_helton/index.html I'll update the article.Lord Chess 15:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, they don't have rain tires anymore... they dropped them in 2004, as they were old and hard, and weren't up to snuff. They'd served their purpose, so no more were made. Can't find a source right now, but it was mentioned on Trackside @ Watkins Glen in '04, IIRC. -- SonicAD (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

TheMike Helton interview I linked to seems to say they still have rain tires for the two road race courses but not for superspeedways.

Yeah, but it's from 2003. They don't have them anymore. That I am sure of. I've just got to find the article. -- SonicAD (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

And the article I was looking for doesn't exist anymore, but there's still a blurb about it near the top of the news page for Watkins Glen on Jayski - [3]-- SonicAD (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) I wondered about the rain tires. I remember Dale Earnhardt (Sr.) testing the tires. I don't remember seeing the empty windshield wiper attachment for several seasons. Royalbroil 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

My feeling is (without proof) thnat nascar no longer considers rain tires a valid option for the two road courses. It was fun to research. Lord Chess 02:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the Busch Series will use rain tires at Mexico City. They said they would use them if necesary last year. And this year you could see (if you looked closely) the cars had mounts for windshield wipers and brake lights in the rear windshield. They also had the equipment at Watkins Glen. I haven't seen this on the Nextel Cup cars though. I THINK they may make a comeback if NASCAR adds more road course races.Mustang6172 04:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I moved a few paragraphs around. I changed the format. I added more information about the Busch and Truck series. And I'm taking the Cup centric parts to the Nextel Cup article where they belong. Mustang6172 05:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone's been having some fun with the article so I put a lock on it.Mustang6172 06:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you just added a {{sprotect}} box, which I have removed. Only admins can protect the page. Mr Stephen 08:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

And they do such a fine job of it! Please note that's sarcasm. Mustang6172 05:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is where people can request that an admin protect an article: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection SubSeven 06:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• • It's getting rediculous, it's been three vandals/reverts in just the past several minutes. Doctorindy 19:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Although it may seem "rediculous", AOL IP addresses are protected from blockage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.74 (talk • contribs)

It's to help AOL users, who have nothing else to do with their lives --ArmadilloFromHell 06:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Why was the protection taken off? We're back where we started! Mustang6172 21:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see something added to the main article about sponsorship. i.e. "How to become a sponsor" "typical cost of sponsoring, running a car at NASCAR" "How much goes to the driver vs. the team" "Sponsor dollars vs. winning purse dollars" etc.

I think that belongs under a series specific article.Mustang6172 03:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Does this picture show a restrictor plate? If so, should it not be pointed out for novices such as myself? PrometheusX303 00:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

hey in this pic the restricor plate is not shown because it is actually in side the carburator.--69.1.20.100 19:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

hi there im harvick fan ....... are u a harvick fan--Harvick29 21:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  ahem, i do not beleive your comment is relevant to this discussion.72.185.44.3 00:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

In Early History paragraph 5 it says "barroom napkin" instead of bathroom

No, it's suppose to say "barroom".Mustang6172 01:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

dear wikipedia, The points awarding chart in the article page is incorrect the points are in increments of 5 so 1st place gets 170 points 2nd gets 165 points and third gets 160 and so on.

No, the point system is accurate. Your source seems to be fautly.Mustang6172 03:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't remember if I brought this up before, but this page describes what we should be doing to shorten this article. Recury 20:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I tried to stream line some info under safety, but I think it will take something drastic. Perhaps we could move the criticisms section into it's own article.Mustang6172 08:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right about it needing to be drastic. I'm going to start a rewrite at NASCAR/Temp that way we can decide what should be in the article and then write it instead of the other way around. The criticisms should be part of the article, not a section in it or a seperate article. If there are criticisms about the Frances, for example, then those could go in a section about the NASCAR leadership or the company of NASCAR. If you look at Featured Articles (and I don't think making this article featured is impossible) that is how they generally do it. Recury 02:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've started a rewrite at NASCAR/Temp. I'd like to concentrate on what we should include before we actually start writing the thing, so take a look and if you have ideas for what else should be included or better ideas for section titles, leave a message on the talk page. Recury 02:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoa there buddy! I think we've done a good job of working over the article in the last month or so. You're new article has a section on the Chase for the Championship. I took out a section on the Chase because this article was too Cup centric! I moved that to Nextel Cup because that's where it belongs. The same goes for the Car of Tomorrow. We've got a great article here now, it's just a little too long. Look at the history page, it used to suck. Mustang6172 06:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

In all fairness, it isn't even close to great right now. It's poorly organized and not that well-written and has tons of balance and emphasis problems (I would say balance and emphasis are the main problems with it right now). And of course like most articles it doesn't have inline citations. It needs a rewrite badly. Recury 04:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide an example of some of these "balance and emphasis" problems? Mustang6172 07:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The sections on safety and the point system are way too long for a general article on NASCAR. Recury 14:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Then why not just start a new article for the point system? Mustang6172 05:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You just asked for an example. There's plenty more. Recury 13:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The saftey information seems essential. What else is wrong? Mustang6172 21:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Those are two of the most glaring problems and if you don't think there's a problem with those, then me listing less glaring ones isn't going to convince you. The fact that you think that much info about safety should be included in a general article on NASCAR makes me think you probably shouldn't be involved with it anyway. Recury 23:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well if we don't put the saftey info here, where else could it go?Mustang6172 04:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, a lot of the individual safety devices already have articles, so it would just be a matter of linking to them from here. We can either have a seperate article about safety in NASCAR or we can have a much shorter section on it or we can just mention the more important safety parts as they come up in the history section. Recury 13:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that someone should include something about the future hall of fame center, whose construction is due to begin in Charlotte, NC. I am not exactly a fan of the sport,but I feel that something should be mentioned about it.

We'll just give it a whole new article. Mustang6172 05:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we have one at NASCAR Hall of Fame. I'll add a link from here. Recury 13:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What about adding the weekly or current standings for the cup here or on the cup page to show how the season is panning out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EinsteinEdits (talk • contribs) 01:22, 15 October 2006

Not a bad idea, but current standings aren't covered on the main page for other sports, and NASCAR's are currently covered by 2006 in NASCAR-- SonicAD (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is an article discussing this: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/motor/nascar/2005-09-22-nascar-baseball-ratings-claim_x.htm. Also, it was mentioned earlier that Individual NASCAR races score higher than individual, regular season MLB games in terms of ratings. This isn't really significant because there are 2,430 regular season MLB games (most of which are televised, many on multiple stations). A fairer comparison would be to take the nationally televised baseball games against the natioanlly televised NASCAR events. According to the USA Today article cited above, the 43 natioanlly televised baseball games had a 23% higher rating than the 26 natioanlly televised NASCAR races. I think the No. 2 ranking ought to be taken out of the article. Rambo32x 03:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Actually according to the article NASCAR doesn't even including baseball's rating for playoff games or the all-star game. When these two things are added to the normal televised games baseballs recieves a 23% higher rating. Seeing as how the all-star game and the playoffs are a part of the season excluding them is clearly just NASCAR skewing the numbers so that they come out as the second most watched sport to thier advertisers. If NASCAR isn't going to include MLB's all-star game or playoffs then NASCAR's final 10 races should not be counted towards ratings either, seeing as they are essentially the playoffs for NASCAR. 192.203.136.254 17:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • How about we just cut out everything that has to do with ratings? How does American television viewership validate anything?Mustang6172 06:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ratings mean a lot in this case. Remember that the NFL, MLB, and NASCAR are all primarily American sports, and television viewership is an important part of that. If they were more worldwide, the US ratings wouldn't matter so much, but outside of America these sports aren't very popular. I think they're a pretty good meter for assessing popularity. -- SonicAD (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one that realizes this article is obviously biased? The title points it out for you, BASEBALL says that Nascar's numbers are skewed. Well of course the MLB is going to say they are skewed to make themselves look better. What we need is a neautral point of view, like the raw numbers from Nielsen. I'm just saying anh article purported by NASCAR or MLB will be biased, I don't think we should take it out just yet, we just need to find the proper documentation, and base the article off of that. War wizard90 00:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Why does this page need an infobox? NASCAR isn't a sports league, but a higherarchy of leagues. Mustang6172 05:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, it should have the infobox for a company.Mustang6172 21:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Its just a matter of time before a car bursts into falmes or a car goes airborne and goes through the fence at Daytona. Should Nascar be taking these things into consideration. Maybe that track could be mover farther away for the stands. Tyler N.Bold textNASCAR —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.202.86.113 (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

In consideration of the AfD debates over the notability of deaths at Daytona and over the effect of Dale Earnhardt's death on racing safety equipment, and in consideration of the preceding ... um ... comment before this topic, shouldn't this page have a small section pointing to a breakout article about the development of safety equipment in NASCAR over the decades? Fuel cells, tire-building advances, tire inner liners, firesuits and helmets, restraint systems, SAFER barriers and other fencing improvements, coolsuits and fresh-air systems, fire-suppression systems over the driver and engine and fuel cell. All of these topics have some notable developments that were specific to NASCAR and not just something racingwide that filtered into Cup or the org's other divisions. I added a magazine source about wheel tethers into the Whelen Modified Tour article, and broke the safety topic into its own section there. That same SCR story has other stuff that might fit into a "Safety in NASCAR" article, particularly the hood tethers (mandated mid-1999). If anyone wants to work on such an article, I'll help, at least with sources and copyediting and some historical perspective. Barno 04:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

For now I think that information would belong in NASCAR rules and regulations. Mustang6172 05:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That page has a section on history-of, but I know that it could be expanded with content that's encyclopedic, including a lot from the 1960s, without getting into excessive detail. That would make the section long enough for "undue weight", and would make the rules-and-regs article too long and too back-and-forth between current and historical parts. Barno 16:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

2-3 vandals per day is generally considered manageable on Wikipedia. The idea behind Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. I find this to be a violent example of protection-creep. Protection was meant for when Stephen Colbert tells everyone to go vandalize reality, or for George W. Bush. It was not meant for pages averaging 15 vandals a week.--CastAStone|^(talk) 19:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Post an unprotection request to Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_unprotection FironDraak 01:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I did. I was told to discuss it on the talk page first.--CastAStone|^(talk) 04:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The page was unprotected and already there is vandalism. Benje309 05:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely this page has been vadalized. The multiple redneck references and run on sentences would have to be satirical otherwise.

Whoever maintains this article, you're doing a terrible job.

24.131.16.112 02:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Someone who actually wanted good info on Nascar.

Try looking at the real article and not the talk/discussion page. The run-ons might be there (I haven't really edited the article that much) but the word "redneck" is not in the article. Michael Greiner 03:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the copyedit & cleanup tags were unjustified. This is an extensive article about a subject of broad interest, and there are a lot of editors who have contributed. Additional contributions are of course welcome, but those tags are rather prejudicial when they appear at the very top of the article. Please save those tags for articles which don't get very much attention. If you'd like to discuss particular changes here, we're listening. Simishag 00:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• While I agree that the tags were not needed and the user should have posted here first about the tags, the placement of the tags is not prejudicial. The tags are supposed to be at the top of a page. If a user sees the tags, the hope is that they may be spurred to help fix the article. Michael Greiner 00:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In his defense, he mention it on the Wikiproject NASCAR talk page.Mustang6172 01:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. I understand the point of the tags, but many users are just casual readers, and a big message saying "this article needs cleanup" tells the casual reader that this is a poorly-written/incomplete/otherwise lousy article. To me, it's not all that different from the NPOV tag, which can be added to an article to impugn its credibility. The copyedit tag is perhaps appropriate, as it is intended for "more-or-less complete" articles, but a vague "cleanup" tag is a little unfair. Simishag 01:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

1) Someone should explain why they have applied a tag if there is ANY doubt. 2) How did Cannonball Baker get in the article? While he was the first commish, Big Bill was the real voice of NASCAR. I think that Baker should have at most a passing mention. Barkhimer doesn't seem like he should have more than a few sentences either IMO. Royalbroil ^T : C 05:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the "history" section is getting large enough to justify a separate article. All the historical figures could get sufficient treatment in such an article. Simishag 23:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey...I put those tags there...and now that this discussion is actually taking place...I think they have worked. I did mention it on the project page, but whatever. I requested the semi-protection for this page, and it was granted...since then...it has been lifted...but everyday there is vandalism!

Also-- when i read this on the talk page: "Surely this page has been vadalized. The multiple redneck references and run on sentences would have to be satirical otherwise.

Whoever maintains this article, you're doing a terrible job.

24.131.16.112 02:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Someone who actually wanted good info on Nascar."

I am saddened. We are not doing a good enough job. And when this is the main page for NASCAR, it should not be rated "B" on the quality scale. Lets work together and get this article up to "featured" level. Benje309 21:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Benje, that was talk page vandalism. Look at the time index compared to the article's history record. There were no "redneck refrences" at the time of his post.Mustang6172 21:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Note my response to that comment:

Try looking at the real article and not the talk/discussion page. The run-ons might be there (I haven't really edited the article that much) but the word "redneck" is not in the article. Michael Greiner 03:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael Greiner 00:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

A couple of additional points. The WikiProject talk page is not the best place to propose changes to specific NASCAR articles. Use the individual article's talk page instead. The "B" rating has been here for a while, so perhaps it's time for a new evaluation, but I don't think we should worry too much unless there's a date attached to that rating. Finally, as I said earlier, we're all listening if you want to propose changes, or you can simply be bold and make them. However, IMHO, a cleanup tag is not bold; it's lazy, especially without specific complaints. Simishag 23:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

We need this article to be protected, semi-protected at the minimum...vandalism everyday can't help make this entry better. Benje309 03:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• I just recommended a semi protect for the page. Michael Greiner 00:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Having skimmed this article (more than enough to understand the basics of other unfamiliar sports) I still have no idea what the hell nascar is. What defines a stock car? DFoes that mean they can't do them up at all? How many laps do they do? Is this the one where people watch cars going around and around in a big circle that we always laugh at, or is that another one?

The article states that after Prohibition was repealed, the moonshine runners profits dried up, and they had no outlet for their fast cars and desire to drive such. As a person who grew up in North Carolina, I can tell you that this is patently untrue. Moonshining was a huge industry in the Southeast all the way up into the 1950s and 1960s, and still exists in many areas even today. We need another explanation, since there was 15 years between the end of Prohibition and the beginnings of NASCAR. Junior Johnson's conviction for making and running moonshine was in 1956. The truth is that moonshining flourished. The 'shine runners would get together at someone's horse pasture on Sunday (even bootleggers wouldn't run moonshine on Sunday) and race around in a circle. The establishment of local dirt tracks gave them a more respectable outlet, even one that might pay for their gas. That snowballed into local race circuits here and there, and is where Bill France started to build his dream. What we don't have is references, which shouldn't be hard to find. I won't edit the article now, but I will begin once I find some references, and I would appreciate any help. Thanks. -- Elaich 03:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right about the Prohibition reference being way out of date. Please feel free to contribute, especially if you have sources to add. The "History" section is a little long, but I think with a little more material we could break it out into a separate article, so if you can expand on it, have a blast. Simishag 04:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:NASCAR-CoronaLogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)