To those of you who say that running unrestricted will not work, if the cars are capable of running 230mph, and they can’t hold the corners going that fast then what will they do? They will have to let off. It’s the same principle as lowering the banking. Some of yall wan’t them to lower to banking so they will lift. Why not let them run as fast as possible to make them lift? That will definitely break up the big pack. But, make no mistake about it, letting off the throttle on a track this big is a big mistake. Thats what causes wrecks now. Drivers check-up which causes a chain reaction and then a wreck.

To Thejoker about Newmans car sunday, according to a an aerodynamicist that was on the radio, the wing IS the reason the car lifted off the ground. Once the car is traveling backwards, it takes on the same aerodynamic properties as an airplane wing.

Personally, I like the pack racing. It makes it more exciting. Does it risk a major wreck? Of course. But the fact is that these drivers chose this profession and, consequently, wrecks are sometimes a part of the job. If they are going to keep them restricted, the least they could do is remove the “no bump drafting” rule. Bump drafting does not cause a problem. Indecisive drivers who think they want to move to the outside/inside and then they jump back in line causes the problem.

Shame on you “lower the banking” guys. All lowering the banking would do is create another one groove race track.

NASCAR is really afraid sooner or later a car is going to fly into the crowd. We should remember that when we are condeming them. That’s why all the jacking with the rules.

Last comment…when Ryan’s car went airborne, it appeared to me as if the new wing kept air off the roof flaps and made them not really deploy. Did anyone else think that? I’ve always thought the roof flaps did more to stop those kind of crashes than all this other stuff.

In all seriousness, if NASCAR and the drivers were really interested in their own safety, they’d be taking this issue way more seriously. In 1960, the drivers got together and boycotted Talladega because they were concerned for their safety. NASCAR ran the race anyway, but today NASCAR has much more invested (like hundreds of millions of dollars) in keeping the top teams and drivers at the track every week. Let’s say for example Dale Earnhardt Jr. were to boycott the Daytona 500. Don’t you think NASCAR might take notice and try to do something to appease their biggest cash cow? Or maybe some of the more respected veterans like Jeff Gordon and Mark Martin could ban together and say they weren’t racing. Could NASCAR really survive that kind of embarrassment?

I think the teams have their own selfish interests in mind instead. The safety improvements NASCAR has made mean there is very little risk to the driver- in the last 3 restrictor-plate races, four cars have flipped and all four drivers walked away. Meanwhile, missing a race would mean lost winnings and lost points. While the drivers sound like they talk tough after these races, all they really say is, “Somebody has to do something or something bad will happen.” Maybe they should take their own advice. Continuing to race, even if it means making a farce of it for 450 miles and then putting on a show, will not get NASCAR to radically change anything. They seem pretty happy to let their product die slowly rather than make any big changes to save it.

Anyway, I think it was David Poole who made this point that really stuck with me. He noted that Talladega and Daytona were built for a different era and probably don’t suit the car of today very well. Maybe just like how NASCAR outgrew it’s dirt-track roots, it has actually outgrown it’s mega-super-speedway phase.

based on what i heard today they could easily run 220 around talladega without lifting which is why many contend removing the plates wouldn’t work. if a driver can flat foot it all the way around what would be the reason to lift?