The "Good ole days"

The "Good ole days"

Post by Anna Khond » Sat, 14 Aug 2010 00:06:11


Just recently, as does happen every couple of months or so,
a comment comes up about how racing should be like it used to be.
Obviously when "it used to be" is a pretty vague timeline...
Of course everyone's opininon may vary,
that is what makes discussions possible.

But last evening on Classic, there was a replay of the 1983 N.
Wilksboro 400.

But I saw nothing there, other than perhaps another short track,
that I considered 'better' than today.

There were 26,500 people in the stands, a new record.
5 cars finished on the lead lap, with Waltrip winning by a half a
lap.
Only ten cars were within 2 laps.
22 running at the end.
Ricky Rudd was driving #3, but crashed
Dale Earnhardt was driving #15, but blew a motor.
Pit stops that took longer than getting your plates at DMV.
And the cars looked like bread boxes.
One consistent was guys were still obsessed with points.
After only 5 races, Waltrip said he wasn't that far out of it and
could
still catch up, even though he was "ONLY"  some 200 points out.
After 5 races!

Funny how when you don't see something for a while,
things 'can' seem to be different from a
"what I think happened" as to "what did happen" perspective.

I'm not saying it was worse, I'm not saying today is better.
Just sayin'.   -Pauly Walnuts

 
 
 

The "Good ole days"

Post by John McCo » Sat, 14 Aug 2010 01:13:42


Quote:
> Just recently, as does happen every couple of months or so,
> a comment comes up about how racing should be like it used to be.
> Obviously when "it used to be" is a pretty vague timeline...
> Of course everyone's opininon may vary,
> that is what makes discussions possible.

Discussion is good :-)

Not to say that it's the only "golden age", but to me the
late 80's, early 90's where a high point for NASCAR racing.
Aero was developed enough that the cars were fast on the
big tracks, but not so developed that the cars couldn't get
close to each other.  There was enough sponsor money in the
sport that there were many competitive teams, yet not so
much that guys had to have 4 or 5 sponsors, and change paint
schemes every week.  Reliabilty of parts, especially engines,
was high enough that most cars finished most weeks, yet the
occasional element of bad luck was still common enough that
you never took a finish for granted.  NASCAR hadn't yet
become an overbearing tyrant on rules, and guys like Runt
Pittman could still make things interesting with new designs.

It's probably not possible to go back to that, even if NASCAR
wanted to (which they don't, they like the "overbearing tyrant"
role).  In particular, I don't see a way to fix the money and
sponsorship issue - as long as there are companies willing
(and silly enough) to pay multiple millions for 8 races on a
Roush or Childress car, instead of a whole season on someone
else's, I think we're stuck with a few teams with vast amounts
of money, and the rest with very much less.

John

 
 
 

The "Good ole days"

Post by dead-guy- » Sat, 14 Aug 2010 01:58:41

Quote:



>> [5 quoted lines suppressed]

> Discussion is good :-)

> Not to say that it's the only "golden age", but to me the
> late 80's, early 90's where a high point for NASCAR racing.
> Aero was developed enough that the cars were fast on the
> big tracks, but not so developed that the cars couldn't get
> close to each other.  There was enough sponsor money in the
> sport that there were many competitive teams, yet not so
> much that guys had to have 4 or 5 sponsors, and change paint
> schemes every week.  Reliabilty of parts, especially engines,
> was high enough that most cars finished most weeks, yet the
> occasional element of bad luck was still common enough that
> you never took a finish for granted.  NASCAR hadn't yet
> become an overbearing tyrant on rules, and guys like Runt
> Pittman could still make things interesting with new designs.

> It's probably not possible to go back to that, even if NASCAR
> wanted to (which they don't, they like the "overbearing tyrant"
> role).  In particular, I don't see a way to fix the money and
> sponsorship issue - as long as there are companies willing
> (and silly enough) to pay multiple millions for 8 races on a
> Roush or Childress car, instead of a whole season on someone
> else's, I think we're stuck with a few teams with vast amounts
> of money, and the rest with very much less.

> John

if they ran real stock cars, they would not need million dollar
sponsorship.

 
 
 

The "Good ole days"

Post by RickyBobb » Sat, 14 Aug 2010 02:01:16


Quote:
> Just recently, as does happen every couple of months or so,
> a comment comes up about how racing should be like it used to be.
> Obviously when "it used to be" is a pretty vague timeline...
> Of course everyone's opininon may vary,
> that is what makes discussions possible.

> But last evening on Classic, there was a replay of the 1983 N. Wilksboro
> 400.

> But I saw nothing there, other than perhaps another short track,
> that I considered 'better' than today.

> There were 26,500 people in the stands, a new record.
> 5 cars finished on the lead lap, with Waltrip winning by a half a lap.
> Only ten cars were within 2 laps.
> 22 running at the end.
> Ricky Rudd was driving #3, but crashed
> Dale Earnhardt was driving #15, but blew a motor.
> Pit stops that took longer than getting your plates at DMV.
> And the cars looked like bread boxes.
> One consistent was guys were still obsessed with points.
> After only 5 races, Waltrip said he wasn't that far out of it and could
> still catch up, even though he was "ONLY"  some 200 points out.
> After 5 races!

> Funny how when you don't see something for a while,
> things 'can' seem to be different from a
> "what I think happened" as to "what did happen" perspective.

> I'm not saying it was worse, I'm not saying today is better.
> Just sayin'.   -Pauly Walnuts

NASCAR has an aging fan base and to older folks the days when they were
younger and happier will always be the good old days.

The real good old days were from the 1950's to the early 1970's.  Once they
started putting those ugly ass 5 MPH bumpers and air pumps and catalytic
converters and fuelie injection on stock cars things have never been as
good.  And they never will be as good either because everything is going to
hell.  Even in the great state of California they have decided that
*** smoking and people who are not husband and wife getting married
are good things.  Just about the only thing from the golden age that has not
been ruined is fishing.  Fishing is still fishing.  Most everything else has
been changed for the worse.  Even the 257 channels of pay teevee garbage do
not have anything on any of them as good as Bonanza used to be.  Or Gunsmoke
if you liked more shooting.

 
 
 

The "Good ole days"

Post by Anna Khond » Sat, 14 Aug 2010 04:13:28

Quote:

> .....Even the 257 channels of pay teevee garbage do not have
> anything on any of them as good as Bonanza used to be.  Or
> Gunsmoke if you liked more shooting.

Or Lucas McCain (my favorite) if you REALLY liked shooting...


 
 
 

The "Good ole days"

Post by Anna Khond » Sat, 14 Aug 2010 04:15:23

Quote:

> if they ran real stock cars, they would not need million dollar
> sponsorship.

But the Daytona 500 would take 6 hours...


 
 
 

The "Good ole days"

Post by dead-guy- » Sat, 14 Aug 2010 05:59:49

Quote:


>> [3 quoted lines suppressed]

> But the Daytona 500 would take 6 hours...



500km
 
 
 

The "Good ole days"

Post by Anna Khond » Sat, 14 Aug 2010 06:34:43


Quote:

>> But the Daytona 500 would take 6 hours...
> 500km

I hate metric.


 
 
 

The "Good ole days"

Post by John McCo » Sat, 14 Aug 2010 06:39:00


Quote:


>> if they ran real stock cars, they would not need million dollar
>> sponsorship.

> But the Daytona 500 would take 6 hours...

I know you're joking but...

This year the 500 was run at an average speed of 137.2 mph and
took approx 3:45 to run.

In 1959 the 500 was run at an average speed of 135.5 mph and
took approx 3:45 to run.

Granted the cars weren't pure stock in 1959, but they weren't
that far removed from it, either.  I'd bet Frank Kimmel could
bring his Street Stock series down to Daytona and run 500 miles
in less than 4 hours.

John

 
 
 

The "Good ole days"

Post by John McCo » Sat, 14 Aug 2010 06:41:23



Quote:
>  Just about the only
> thing from the golden age that has not been ruined is fishing.
> Fishing is still fishing.

Guess you didn't see the news about the guy in the bass fishing
competition who was caught forcing lead weights down the throats
of the fish he caught, so they'd weigh in heavier.

Sorry if that spoilt your day or whatever.

John

 
 
 

The "Good ole days"

Post by John McCo » Sat, 14 Aug 2010 09:08:22



Quote:



>>> if they ran real stock cars, they would not need million dollar
>>> sponsorship.

>> But the Daytona 500 would take 6 hours...

> I know you're joking but...

> This year the 500 was run at an average speed of 137.2 mph and
> took approx 3:45 to run.

> In 1959 the 500 was run at an average speed of 135.5 mph and
> took approx 3:45 to run.

> Granted the cars weren't pure stock in 1959, but they weren't
> that far removed from it, either.  I'd bet Frank Kimmel could
> bring his Street Stock series down to Daytona and run 500 miles
> in less than 4 hours.

Y'know, it gets worse.  I got curious enough to drag up the
numbers.  The average race speed from 2000-2010 (ll races) was
145.5.  The average race speed from 1959-1969 (11 races) was
147.1.  Even tho todays sophisticated cars and high power
engines are capable of going much faster than the 1960's
stock cars (pole speed is ~40 mph faster) we're actually
racing slower than the old-timers did.

That ought to bother someone.

John

 
 
 

The "Good ole days"

Post by Anna Khond » Sat, 14 Aug 2010 09:36:05

Quote:


>> But the Daytona 500 would take 6 hours...
> I know you're joking but...
> This year the 500 was run at an average speed of 137.2 mph and
> took approx 3:45 to run.
> In 1959 the 500 was run at an average speed of 135.5 mph and
> took approx 3:45 to run.
> John

And I know you aren't trying to say they are the same.... but...

Okay John.... let's tell more of the story...
In 1959 there were NO caution laps.
They went green the whole way.
In 2010 there were  NINE (9) yellows for FORTY (40) snail laps...

Also, up until the pit road speed limits came into effect,
when they were racing at 185mph, their caution laps were ~100,
not 70 like they do today.

1/5th of the race at 70 mph will certainly drop the average!


 
 
 

The "Good ole days"

Post by dead-guy- » Sat, 14 Aug 2010 14:10:56

Quote:


>> [8 quoted lines suppressed]

> And I know you aren't trying to say they are the same.... but...

> Okay John.... let's tell more of the story...
> In 1959 there were NO caution laps.
> They went green the whole way.
> In 2010 there were  NINE (9) yellows for FORTY (40) snail laps...

> Also, up until the pit road speed limits came into effect,
> when they were racing at 185mph, their caution laps were ~100,
> not 70 like they do today.

> 1/5th of the race at 70 mph will certainly drop the average!



gotta make some time fer dem dar teevee comurshells.
 
 
 

The "Good ole days"

Post by RickyBobb » Sun, 15 Aug 2010 03:02:31


Quote:


>>  Just about the only
>> thing from the golden age that has not been ruined is fishing.
>> Fishing is still fishing.

> Guess you didn't see the news about the guy in the bass fishing
> competition who was caught forcing lead weights down the throats
> of the fish he caught, so they'd weigh in heavier.

> Sorry if that spoilt your day or whatever.

> John

Oh, man, people have been telling fibs about the size of their catch
forever.  It is just another part of fishing.
 
 
 

The "Good ole days"

Post by Anna Khond » Sun, 15 Aug 2010 04:13:54

Quote:

> Oh, man, people have been telling fibs about the size of their
> catch forever.  It is just another part of fishing.

This was a little more than fibbing....
It was a $100,000 tournament, with 40 grand for the winner...
He weighted each fish he caught with 2oz. of lead.
Nine in all, which is over a pound..