Post-Daytona Thoughts

Photo by Jerry Markland/Getty Images

After having ample time to digest what we all witnessed on Sunday, here are a bunch of random thoughts about the season opening race.

Good for Kurt Busch, he certainly deserved the victory after three runner up finishes. That includes pushing teammate Ryan Newman to the 2008 victory. Other years he finished second were 2003 and 2005. It was also a feel good story for crew chief Tony Gibson and team co-owner Tony Stewart. Continue reading “Post-Daytona Thoughts”

Paying Points For Daytona Qualifying Races Is Nothing New

If you let time go on long enough, things tend to repeat themselves. We see this in movies, music, and of course NASCAR. While NASCAR is not trading in the 1.5-mile paved tracks for .5-mile dirt tracks, it is going into the past by awarding points for this year’s Daytona qualifying races. Continue reading “Paying Points For Daytona Qualifying Races Is Nothing New”

Nobody’s Perfect With NASCAR Stats

It started out as a seemingly easy task, take all the NASCAR stats I could find and compile them into my own database. This way I could run queries of things I found interesting and just get information that normally I’d have to rely on other sites, such as Racing-Reference.info. Make an Access database and enter in data, that’s easy, right? WRONG!

What I learned quickly, and this isn’t getting into the obnoxiousness of Microsoft Access features, is no matter your source, odds are your information is wrong. And I’m not talking about Racing Reference or even DriverAverages.com (another fantastic, but lesser known site). I’m talking about information direct from NASCAR itself.

NASCAR historian and statistician Greg Fielden painstakingly compiled race recaps and results going from NASCAR inception in 1949 until 1989 in a four volume book set entitled Forty Years of Stock Car Racing. These books, along with its lone supplemental book for years 1990-1993, are a fantastic source of NASCAR history and stats. I found out recently he even has a similar book about the Convertible Series that was running during the early days, but do not count as NASCAR Cup Series statistics. Fielden (along with Peter Golenbock) also helped put together the NASCAR Encyclopedia, billed as the “complete record of America’s most popular sport.

Why do I gush about Fielden? Well, besides the fact he’s been able to do what I’ve always dreamed of doing in NASCAR (he also worked for CBS and TNN as their statistician for their broadcasts), it is because he and NASCAR are the only sources of information for any site that houses NASCAR stats. For example, Racing-Reference is built around Fielden’s work, whereas Driver Averages is built upon NASCAR’s stats.

The question then becomes, why does this matter? It matters because sometimes data from each source doesn’t matches the other. You’d think that if two people were keeping track of the same thing, you’d have identical results? Well, in this case, you do not. Fielden even devotes four pages in NASCAR Encyclopedia explaining why the data doesn’t match.

When it comes to the early days of NASCAR, not every track kept accurate accounts of the races, be it how the cars started or even how many laps many of the drivers complete. It makes sense when you think back to how things might have been in the late 40s and 50s when tracks were Mom and Pop operations. There was no digital scoring, everything was done by hand and stopwatch. Even re-watching races from the late 1980s I’m still amazed there were not more scoring issues even then. Most of the time it was simply the top ten finishers that were published in newspapers, with no other documentation.

If you haven’t guessed, I’m a Fielden supporter in that he reviewed everything he could to come up with the most accurate set of data there could be. That even means making common sense judgement calls (more on this later) rather than just looking at it as black and white numbers. This might be hard to imagine (sarcasm), but NASCAR has always been wishy washy on enforcing things, which brings us to the first and most glaring of issues with NASCAR official statistics (and that common sense piece).

Simple question, how many wins does Bobby Allison have in his NASCAR Cup Series career? You ask NASCAR fans this, most will tell you 84. That’s what the official record books say, that’s how he’s billed in anything NASCAR related. Well the reality of the situation is he has 85 career wins, but NASCAR has omitted one for reasons that aren’t very clear.

On August 6, 1971 something unique was done that day, the larger Cup cars raced against smaller Grand American cars. The Cup cars included makes/models such as Plymouth, Ford, Mercury, and Chevrolet. The Grand American cars included Mustang, Camaro, and Firebird entries. That day Allison drove a Mustang to a three second win over Richard Petty, in a Plymouth. Because he raced a Mustang, NASCAR considered the win in the Grand American Series rather than the Cup Series. But here’s the problem, the start, the top-5, the top-10, the laps led and the laps complete ALL count in his official NASCAR statistics, just not the win. Going a step further, as Fielden points out, the victory COUNTS for Mustang in NASCAR’s list of car makes/models with victories in the Cup Series. Where’s the logic in any of this? Either nothing counts, or it all counts, there can’t be an in-between.

According to the book, there was a meeting between historians and NASCAR in 2002 to try and hash out some issues from the past. It appears some have been updated, whereas others (mainly Allison’s win total) have not been, nor seem they ever will. For example, in the official listings for the final 1956 points, for many years there was the 39th place finishing Tom Harbison. Problem is there never was anyone named Tom Habison who raced in a NASCAR event that year or any other year. Now the record simply shows “unknown” as the 39th finishing driver.

While creating my database I’ve seen a number of odd situations where I don’t know where to turn to get a straight answer from. For example, in the official NASCAR database for race 24 of the 1975 season, Frank Warren is credited for driving Dean Dalton’s #7 car to a 12th place finish. If you pull open Fielden’s book, he has Dean Dalton as getting credit for the finish. As expected, Racing Reference sides with Fielden and Driver Averages sides with NASCAR. If you look for a third opinion, you get that of UltimateRacingHistory.com, who has on their site for that race a note that states: “Dean Dalton qualified car #7 and may have started the race.” So how do you decide this? Honestly, there’s no good answer because either way you choose, you then don’t have a cross reference anymore.

This is again where I side with Fielden over NASCAR because I’ve seen other examples of things that don’t make sense in the official record, but are different with Fielden’s work and make sense. Neil Castles in the 34th race of 1967, according to NASCAR, completed 311 of 200 laps. Fielden puts him at 190 laps completed. NASCAR has Jim Bown leading five laps during the 1983 Budweiser 400 at Riverside, but Fielden has Joe Ruttman leading those laps. I side with Fielden in this case because his results have a box score showing lap leaders, whereas NASCAR is just the finishing results.

Even with all that going for him, Fielden’s credibility takes a big hit with NASCAR Encyclopedia as there are many errors. The most glaring is how about half the father/son combinations who share the same name (Sr/Jr) also share the same stats. For example, Duane Carter is credited with starts in 1950, then 35 years later he has races in 1985, 1986, 1990, 1992, 1994 and 1995. The problem is Duane Carter has a date of death of 3/7/1993, making two starts after he died. Reality is Duane Carter (Sr) ran one race in 1950, then his son Duane Carter Jr (aka Pancho) ran the rest. Another issue is, not an error but an oversight, with the date of deaths for some drivers. Despite the book being updated in 2002, Kenny Irwin (died 2000) does not have a date of death, whereas Dale Earnhardt (died 2001) does.

I’m not trying to nitpick the man’s work, but that makes you start to question how you can trust it 100%, which is what my main point is, you can’t. Even when NASCAR and Fielden agree, it might not be accurate anyways. Case in point is the magical Doug Cooper. For race 38 of the 1966 season, Cooper is credited in both sources as finishing not only 10th, but 25th as well. Thankful Racing Reference has a more accurate looking result with Bob Cooper 10th and Doug 25th. The caveat to this without any citation, how do we know that, while sounding correct, is correct? Good news is I know the person behind Racing Reference has done a great job researching things, based on our conversations, so I trust it. Sort of.

That back tracking leads me to my greatest headache of the past three years and something I cannot get anyone (NASCAR, websites, or an International Motor Sports Research Center) to respond back with a reasonable explanation of what I’m missing. There are three drivers and two years where if you add up the points attributed to them via race results, it doesn’t match their end of year totals in the official final driver standings. The affected are Ricky Rudd and Tim Richmond in 1982 and Darrell Waltrip in 1984.

Ricky Rudd’s official total via the NASCAR Media Guide (NMG), their NASCAR Historical Database (NHD) for media members, and Fielden have him at 3,537 points. NASCAR.com, the official site of NASCAR, has him at 3,467 points. I, using a calculator first and then Excel to ensure I wasn’t adding wrong, have his total as 3,542. Here’s what I found to be crux of the issue is the 22nd race at Darlington. In that race, he finished 31st and according to Fielden and NHD, he led one lap. The 31st place finish netted him 70 points, and by leading one lap, he should have received 5 bonus points. Going back to the totals above, the NMG, NHD, and Fielden omit his 5 bonus points and NASCAR.com omits the 70 points for the finish. The additional points do not change where Rudd finished overall, but annoying it doesn’t add up.

Tim Richmond has the same scenario but with the 8th race at Martinsville. For finishing 18th, he should have received 109 points, and according to Fielden and the NHD, he led 18 laps that day, thus 5 bonus points. NASCAR.com and I agree, based on that, he should have ended the year with 2,611 points. Instead NMG, NHD, and FIelden have him listed at 2,497 points, less the 114. Most notably, drivers can sometimes not be award points if their entry was late for that race. Richmond, at this point of the year, was running for J.D. Stacy, which was a full-time team and it seems odd they’d forget that entry. Nothing out there references a reason why he wouldn’t be awarded points, nor any mention of a potential penalty that year that could have voided those points. Unlike Rudd, had Richmond been credited with those points he would jump from 26th place in the final standings to 23rd.

Darrell Waltrip has the weirdest case of any of the drivers because no one can come to agreement on what is going on. In the 10th race of the year Waltrip won a controversial race at Nashville, earning him 175 for the win and 5 additional points for leading a lap (Neil Bonnett led the most). In the 30th (and final) race of the season at Riverside, Waltrip finished 34th, with 33 laps led (Bobby Allison led the most), so 61 points for the finish and 5 bonus points. I calculated him at 4,230 points in total, which Fielden agrees with, but NMG has him at 4,235 (additional 5 points at Nashville) and NASCAR.com has him at 4,169 (minus Riverside, but with the extra Nashville points, which matches the NHD that awards him extra points at Nashville and zero at Riverside). Again taking the zero points angle, Waltrip was driving for Junior Johnson, so forgetting an entry seems very bizarre. Anyway you go, Waltrip still finishes fifth in the final standings, but why do we have such discrepancies?

In the end I will be taking up FIelden’s mantra of trying to produce the best database with the available data, but with a twist of common sense. I’m surprised that taking a look back at the records has never been a priority for NASCAR, if not to correct obvious errors, but to ensure that the official statistics are actually 100% accurate.

I’m Back!

It’s crazy to think back and realize it’s been about two years since I’ve been fully invested into this site. Life has a way of just taking priority over something that’s a hobby and certainly does not pay anything. But that’s ok, because it’s given me time to get my life in order and re-prioritize things, including this blog.

I started this with a friend in 2010 and have been able to do some amazing things during that time. Now it’s time to get back to what the original core value of the site was, and that’s providing opinions and stats of the Cup Series. With all of that said, let me get caught up with some commentary about what has taken place this off season.

Driver Retirements

Every sport goes through a spell where there’s a changing of the guard. Outside of Carl Edwards’ surprise announcement, it was time for Tony Stewart to leave and no one cares about Brian Scott or Ryan Ellis hanging up their helmets. I always love to play the what if game, and Edwards will leave me guessing what else he could have done. I say good for him to make that decision to walk away now with his health, as long as he’s content with his career. Don’t let fans fool you, they’re selfish and would rather a driver run way too long than walk away with dignity.

While not officially retirements, Greg Biffle and Casey Mears have been left out in the cold this off season, and that’s a good thing. Biffle is a lot older than most realize and there’s nothing he can add to an organization that isn’t a top tier team. It’s like how Clint Bowyer struggled last year going to HScott Motorsports, he’s likely to rebound in a big way because he’s with a top team. Mears always confused me how he kept getting rides. Sure he has a fuel mileage win with Hendrick Motorsports, when they were winning everything, but beyond that he’s been below average. I also enjoyed how suddenly everyone was a Mears fan when he got dumped, but before then most probably thought he just stared in GEICO commercials and didn’t race.

New Series Sponsor

The Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series or MENCS does not have a great ring to it, but it might over time. I hate the abbreviation because I feel like it’s a men’s club or something, but Monster might kick some much needed life into the series. Sprint did a good job of at track activation, but Monster could take it a whole new level. That is if they don’t go bankrupt first, but hey they’re only paying about half of what Sprint did for only two years, so they don’t have much to lose. I think NASCAR realized that by positioning the series as the <insert sponsor> NASCAR Cup Series. Side note, I’ll be calling it the Cup Series wherever I can because I don’t want to get too attached like I did with Winston.

New Race Format

Has anyone ever mentioned that NASCAR fans don’t like change? Naturally, they will not like this, but what I’ve gotten through my head is after 26 years of being a fan, I’m too invested to walk away. That said, this new format has promise, but I will have to see it in action before getting sold 100% on it. The strategy that will play out to “win” a segment should be intriguing. Removing the term “chase” from the dialogue of NASCAR was a plus as well, it is now simply referred to as playoffs.

Something that was added and not popularized during the press conference is a team cannot add body panels onto their cars if in an accident. Which will basically means: if you crash, you’re done. No more patchwork to get a car out there to run 15 mph off the pace and drop debris. While it’s a noble cause for teams to try and repair their cars to earn points, since there’s very little attrition during races there’s no real reason for it. Years ago engine/parts failures were common, now engines are near bullet proof.

The biggest con from all of this is the constant comparison of racing to stick and ball sports, oh and the word “moments” being used in everyone’s responses when talking about the formats. My guess is that NASCAR suggested that and we’ll see the new marketing campaign for this based around “moments.” Shoot me now.

Teams Folding/Merging

The charter system was a step in the right direction to make NASCAR ownership more cut and dry. Instead it seems to have hindered smaller teams even more, since if they’re not a charter they receive less money. And even having a charter wasn’t the cure all for teams as teams downsized or folded regardless of having a charter. The benefit is someone like Tommy Baldwin can walk away from ownership with something rather than getting taken to the cleaners. But the endgame shouldn’t be about the cash out, it should be about keeping these teams a float. When you have a system where Go FAS Racing decides it’s better long term to lease their charter to the Wood Brothers, then lease a charter from Richard Petty Motorsports in the meantime, something is broken.

Forza Motorsport 6 NASCAR Expansion Review

Following rumors of the impending release of a NASCAR expansion for Forza Motorsport 6, the DLC was released for $19.99. This expansion pack is not a replacement for the full-scale NASCAR games that are released by Dusenberry Martin Racing; however it is simply an expansion pack available to Xbox One owners that have Forza Motorsport 6. This review of the Expansion Pack will be tuned to the fact that this isn’t a full-scale $60 release but rather just a $20 expansion, that I happened to purchase for even less than the MSRP.

Right from the Start, You Notice Factual Problems
Right off the bat, you are immersed into the NASCAR world via a cutscene that lasts about 90 seconds. There’s a small tutorial before you are fully thrown into the game, but it’s in the introductory cutscene that you are first exposed to a very common theme with the expansion: minor details are incorrect. The opening cutscene features dialogue calling NASCAR “a sport as American as apple pie”- while it’s a minor complaint, NASCAR is not a sport (it’s a sanctioning body, much like the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc.), nor is apple pie American.

Following this cutscene, you are taken to Homestead-Miami Speedway, where you get your first taste of the new cars and tracks that are part of the NASCAR expansion. It is in this cutscene showcasing Homestead-Miami Speedway where you are conveniently left unaware of another aspect where this content is lacking. The developers claim that you get 24 cars, and sure, there are 24 cars that you can drive. However, this list of 24 cars includes a number of cars that are just alternative paint schemes, with there only being 16 different Sprint Cup cars available. The 16 drivers whose cars are featured in the expansion include: #1-Jamie McMurray, #2-Brad Keselowski, #4-Kevin Harvick, #5-Kasey Kahne, #10-Danica Patrick, #11-Denny Hamlin, #14-Tony Stewart, #18-Kyle Busch, #19-Carl Edwards, #20-Matt Kenseth, #22-Joey Logano, #24-Chase Elliott, #41-Kurt Busch, #42-Kyle Larson, #48-Jimmie Johnson, and #88-Dale Earnhardt Jr. The 8 other cars shown include second schemes for Keselowski, Harvick, Kahne, Kyle Busch, Matt Kenseth, and Joey Logano, and a total of 3 different schemes for Carl Edwards’ #19 car. If your favorite driver isn’t from the Hendrick, Stewart-Haas, Ganassi, Gibbs, or Penske organizations, sorry, but they aren’t going to be in this game.

It’s at the end of the cutscene highlighting Homestead-Miami Speedway, right after the narrator says you’ll take over the #24 NAPA Chevrolet “driven in NASCAR by series champion Chase Elliott” (another inaccuracy!) that you finally are able to actually go racing in the NASCAR expansion- well over 5 minutes after you first load up everything. I would probably have been more forgiving about the introductory walkthrough if it hadn’t been full of inaccuracies, but I’m of the mindset that the basic things should really be what’s done correctly.

You get a 10-lap quick race at Homestead to get your feet wet with the car. The game takes your difficulty settings for this race, so depending on how you play you may either have some difficulty adjusting to the car or dominate the race. Either way, even on a high difficulty level, you should probably at least compete for the win. Oh, and don’t expect the AI to be intelligent; Forza’s AI is the game’s real weak point. The AI will take your line in the corner if you’re faster, and will be a pain sometimes. If you’ve played NASCAR 14, NASCAR Inside Line, or NASCAR The Game 2011, the AI in the Forza NASCAR expansion will feel right at home.

There’s A Good Amount of “Career Mode” Style Gameplay
Despite all of the factual inaccuracies, one area where the game excels is the amount of gameplay in the NASCAR World Tour. There are 9 different series to play through, and each one takes about an hour to complete from my experience, so Forza’s claim of 10 hours of new campaign gameplay is pretty accurate. Add in the time you’ll spend trying to race NASCAR vehicles with all the other cars in the game and you can really sink many hours into just the expansion.

The gameplay in this campaign is probably one of the strong suits. The introduction of “Quick Stops”, where you have to visit pit road a certain number of times in a race, definitely highlights the strategy aspect of races. There are a lot of tracks to race on and you’ll race at a large range of tracks from Daytona’s oval, to Mount Panorama in Australia, to a track set in the Bernese Alps of Switzerland, to tracks in South America. You’ll get to compete against IndyCars at Indianapolis, GT cars at tracks in Europe, V8 Supercars at Mount Panorama, and can learn how these cars compare to NASCAR racecars. These multi-class races can be a lot of fun, especially when you run the Indianapolis Cup/IndyCar combo and in 7-8 laps are not only fighting other NASCAR cars for the win, but also having to dodge IndyCar racers that are just that much faster than you. There’s a controlled chaos to everything that makes the races somehow more enjoyable, despite the fact that you’re racing with a nearly incompetent AI.

If there’s any real complaint to make about the gameplay, it’s that the NASCAR Sprint Cup tracks in the game are limited to Daytona, Homestead, Indianapolis, Watkins Glen, and Sonoma. Homestead is the only new oval track, so if you want your NASCAR oval fix, you’re probably looking at the wrong game unless you really like Daytona, Homestead, or Indianapolis.

I would love to review online gameplay, but after trying twice, I just gave up and went back to the campaign. The experience wasn’t terrible the first time, but I found the online players I was paired with to be on par with the AI in their intelligence level, as there was a giant pileup going into the first turn of the Rio de Janiero track. The second time I tried, I couldn’t actually connect to any race lobbies, and after trying to host a race myself, I gave up after 5 minutes of not getting enough players to start a race. Be prepared, when you do race online, to need a really good setup and upgraded car in order to compete online. One thing I noticed the race at the Rio de Janiero track was that many of the cars I raced against were heavily upgraded and tuned. Be prepared for disappointment racing online if you aren’t going to spend loads of time to learn how to set the cars up for certain tracks.

The Final Verdict
The good thing about the Forza Motorsport 6 NASCAR Expansion? Even when accounting for all of the minor details that are wrong, the game is still much better than any other full-fledged NASCAR game that has been released in recent years. For $20 you’re still getting something that’s better than the $60 NASCAR games released in recent years- you just don’t have a full field of cars to choose from. The graphics are better than recent NASCAR games and the gameplay is better. It’s not fair to dock NASCAR games for not allowing you to compete head-to-head with V8 Supercars, GT cars, IndyCars or the like, but if you’re someone that wants to give that a go, Forza Motorsport 6’s NASCAR expansion lets you have at it.

There are many worse ways that you could part with your $20 than to buy the NASCAR expansion. Just don’t go in expecting to have a perfect game. Hopefully, updates to fix some of the issues will be incorporated in the near future.

NASCAR’s Biggest Threat? NASCAR

In a season where the on track entertainment has been on unparalleled levels, off the track NASCAR has not missed an opportunity to shoot itself in the foot.

Killing the momentum of the great start to the season was NASCAR president (and public face) Brian France endorsing, with present and former NASCAR drivers, Donald Trump for President. Their personal opinions are fine to have, but you can’t do something as the president of NASCAR and not have media and fans associate NASCAR with it. The move led Marcus Lemonis, CEO of Camping World, to publicly call France an idiot for making an uniformed decision; and that’s from a company that gives money to NASCAR as a series sponsor.

Then there was the invocation debacle at Texas where a character (Phil Robertson) on the TV show Duck Dynasty thought it was a great platform to preach about what the country needs, all while alienating half its audience. Again, fine that he has that opinion, but in that forum it is unacceptable and something NASCAR should have seen coming. While they do not run the Texas Motor Speedway (who has a history of making bad decisions on controversial issues), they could have had some say in how the invocation should be done. Mainly, don’t talk guns and having a “Jesus man” in the oval office.

Then we go to last week during the media obligation for Ryan Blaney that has again brought NASCAR into the spotlight for not a good reason. Blaney did nothing like pledge his vote for Trump or swearing loudly into the microphone, instead he said the word “velvet” over…and over…and over. Did Blaney watch Super Troops recently and think it’d be fun to do this? Of course not! NASCAR instructed Blaney to do so.

While I’ve been in on some media sessions where the conversations with drivers have gone to silly areas, they at least were not staged conversations. Had Blaney thought of this on his own, it would be one thing, but specific instructions from the sanctioning body on what to do during his session is eye-rollingly appalling to those trying to write actual stories.

Such tactics shouldn’t be so surprising. FOX has nearly daily pieces on Danica Patrick’s yoga poses, so I guess NASCAR is just pandering to its supposed audience. Oddly there are some journalists out there who are actually journalists (not that I claim to be one) and for NASCAR to try to be “catchy” or all the buzz on social media is just sad.

Once you think that three strikes would be enough for NASCAR to wake up, this week happens. The sport welcomed back three time champion and star Tony Stewart, who has recovered from a broken back, for his final season. Prior to that announcement, Stewart “told it like it is” about the sport’s lug nut policy, and after his announcement NASCAR welcomed him back: with a $35,000 fine for speaking out against the sport. Let’s look past Greg Biffle saying the same thing earlier in the week, but really? You’re going to shadow over a big story like Stewart returning with some B.S. fine because you don’t like what he had to say (when it was the truth).

To add more layers on to this delicious cake of stupidity, was NASCAR Competition VP Scott Miller announcing yesterday the sport would look into their lug nut rules. What? So what Stewart said resonated so much with the higher ups in NASCAR that they both fined him and now realize their rule needs to be changed? They need to walk a fine line on this one, as we’ve seen the NASCAR driver council speak up and defend Stewart. How many more times will it take before drivers say “enough is enough” and stage some sort of strike? (Highly unlikely, but drivers and owners seem to be growing bigger balls when it comes to telling NASCAR what they’re doing isn’t right).

The easiest thing NASCAR can do is not another snap chat or dub smash, but let the racing do the talking. If they did that, there would be nothing but great things to be said.

Pushing It To The Limit Is On Crews, Not NASCAR To Police

The sport of auto racing is built on the idea of men pushing machines to the extreme in order to achieve victory. In the world of NASCAR it is no different that teams will do everything in their power to become faster in all aspects, including pit stops by not tightening all five lug nuts on a tire.

New for 2016 was NASCAR no longer mandating that a team needs five lug nuts before a car exits the pits. The justification was with new equipment to monitor pit road, there was no need for the extra officials to be there counting lug nuts. This was also coupled with the idea that if not all were tight, the driver would either have to come back in or would crash, thus the incentive would not be there for teams to push the envelope. It would be self-policing, should you pit or crash, any gains by making the move would be wiped out and then some.

Apparently, the risk of additional pit stops or bodily harm to drivers is not enough for some teams not to try and short their pit stops. That was the focus of Tony Stewart’s complaints this past week, where he urged NASCAR to step in and go back to the old rule because “someone will get hurt or worse.”

This is a very valid point by Stewart, but the blame should not be on NASCAR failure to enforce the rule anymore, the blame should be on the crew chiefs and tire changers. Stewart’s lecture should have been saved for his crew, not for NASCAR, they are the ones making the decision during pit stops.

To me, it is baffling the idea that teams need NASCAR save them from themselves. We see rules like that all the time, minimum roll bar thickness and minimum tire pressures come to mind. If left in the hands of some crews, drivers would be strapped inside nothing more than tin cans with seat belts and engine because it would go fast.

In this instance, it should be the teams stepping up and doing the right thing. If you cheat on a tire change and it works, suddenly you’re the hero. If it bites you, then you’re the goat, but that is your choice as a tire changer or crew chief to roll the dice. This isn’t on NASCAR to be the angel on your shoulder saying “you shouldn’t do that.”

That is out of the driver’s hand during a pit stop, but they should have dialogue to be on the same page. Should a driver not feel comfortable about rolling the dice in this fashion, as Kurt Busch told media members earlier today when he suggested that media members wouldn’t like having their passenger car with only a few lug nuts on it, he should voice that and let it be known. Same for it they are willing to risk it all for some spots on pit road, they should explain that and own that they are will to do that.

I understand that someone could get hurt or worse, as Stewart suggested, but that is part of the game when it’s pushing a stock car to the limit. If all parties are alright pushing it that far in pursuit of glory, then that is on them to reap what they sow.