Should start and park's be banned?

[NickFalzone]

I don't see why NASCAR feels that certain teams should be allowed to race their way in week in and week out when it's obvious that they're going to park it within the first 50 laps. I can't think of many or any other racing series where this kind of thing is tolerated, let alone accepted as part of racing. I see another article on NASCAR.com mentioning how Kelly Bires is hoping to move up from a "start and park" team. How is this accepted as a fair racing etiquette? Not that I think NASCAR needs any more authoritative rules on the field, but this is something they need to look into some more, not just in Cup but in Nationwide as well.

[Wade91]

theres really no way to ban start and parks, any team could still say they were gonna run the whole race, but then soon after the race started, park it and say somthing was wrong with car

[NickFalzone]

theres really no way to ban start and parks, any team could still say they were gonna run the whole race, but then soon after the race started, park it and say somthing was wrong with car

Wade, I'm aware of that. That's why they can get away with it. But nowadays it's pretty much out in the open, with drivers talking about their start and park rides and hoping to move up to getting to actually race. I don't know what NASCAR could do to prevent start and parks, but I'm sure there's some rule that basically makes it less fruitful to pull these anti-competitive racing deals.

[Jonesi]

Almost all the start & park teams want to race the whole race but don't have the money/resources to do so. If they get a sponsor for a race they buy the tires and have money for the engine rebuild, they go for it. If not they run to the 1st pit stop or so then pack it in and collect their money ($85k average in Cup so far). Right now there are about half a dozen cars doing it, if Nascar drove them away there would be less than 40 cars starting most races.
It's self correcting anyway, they tends to stay home when theyt see GOGH teams that are there to race (5th Hendrick, 4th Gibbs, RoadCourse ringers at SP & WG, #78 doing well enough to be top35 if full time and will be full time next year, etc)

[harvick#1]

the only way to stop "start and parks" is to lower the car count for each race, thats all that has to be done

[NickFalzone]

Harv, that's not the only way. I'm not offering this as a reasonable solution, but let's say the payout for "starting" the race of $85k was changed to being dependent upon % of laps completed? That would encourage teams to build cars that can fulfill the endurance requirement rather than just running laps and parking. I actually don't think that reducing the car count is a solution that would fix anything, though maybe in the short term.

[Oli_M]

I agree with Nick that the only way to reduce/eliminate start and parks is to only award prize money & points to cars who complete, say, 60% of the laps. The argument against this, of course, is it would/could take money and points from 'full' teams who are involved in an early accident in the race.

Or, perhaps work it so the race 'entry fee' (don't know exactly how it works in NASCAR) is increased significantly BUT includes X sets of tires, ie enough to qualify and run the race to almost 'force' people who enter to not be start and parks.

I wonder if removing/reducing the 'top 35' rule would also help, meaning perhaps smaller teams have a better shot at making the race, making it easier to attract sponsors, which in turn would allow them to actually run the whole race. But that's a different argument I guess.

Either way, yes you could say it might lower car counts, but does it really make any difference if you have, say, only 38 teams turn up but all 38 attempt to run the whole race, rather than 43 cars starting but 5 out after the first dozen laps?

[Lee Roy]

A lot of the start and parks are just trying to hang on and hope that they can get into a better position where they can run the whole race.

Kinda strange that people here want to punish poor teams that are just trying to hang on. If NASCAR were to do it (not pay start and parks) would these same people be the first ones to criticise NASCAR for doing that?

[Wade91]

the only two ways to do away with the start and parks, would be to lower the number of starting positions, or to only award prize money to teams who complete so many laps, which would put the start and park teams out of bussness, so eaither way nascar could end up with less than 43 cars starting the races, which would be damaging to the sport

[Mark in Oshawa]

Start and Park teams are a symptom of the economy. You kill off the 4 to 6 teams that are on the Start and Park teams, you are putting people out of work and you accomplish........what? You have killed off the last 6 of the field, which I suppose is no big deal except NASCAR pretty much promises in contracts to track owners 43 starters in Cup and Nationwide.

You also take away a chance for those teams to ever get sponsors, or those drivers to get seat time. The Start and Park teams DO get full practice sessions and tend to use them. If they are ever to become anything other than a start and park team, they need that track time, they need that test time ( no testing at Cup tracks means these teams need this time), and they need to stay active. No new sponsor coming in is going to put money into a team that isn't at the track. Small sponsors come and go all the time, and when a start and park team gets one, they race. TRG has shown this, and has used Bobby Labonte when he isn't in the HOF ride to make some noise.

Do I like start and parks? No....but they are what we have to deal with because with the economy, we have no other choice.

[Sparky1329]

If a team has the ability to pay the entrance fee, get their equipment to the track and pass inspection I see no reason to ban them from the race. Why anyone would want to ban them is the better question. Who are they bothering and why would anyone care?

[Jonesi]

If a team has the ability to pay the entrance fee, get their equipment to the track and pass inspection I see no reason to ban them from the race. Why anyone would want to ban them is the better question. Who are they bothering and why would anyone care?

I think the thought was that start & park are taking grid positions from some DNQ cars that are there to race the whole race.

[NickFalzone]

I think the thought was that start & park are taking grid positions from some DNQ cars that are there to race the whole race.

That's the main reason, although week to week it seems that most of the GOGH are going to park it. But yeah if these teams are keeping real racing teams out of the 43 then that's the worst case scenario. There are ways NASCAR could mandate that teams race, I don't know all of the ways that they could do it, but it would be possible. And don't tell me it's the economy because no other racing series I'm aware of has this kind of regular start and parks and most series are in worse shape than NASCAR, and these teams were parking it well before the economy took its nosedive last fall.

[Lee Roy]

I think the thought was that start & park are taking grid positions from some DNQ cars that are there to race the whole race.

Then the DNQ's need to step up their program.

[Copse]

Start and Park teams are a symptom of the economy. You kill off the 4 to 6 teams that are on the Start and Park teams, you are putting people out of work and you accomplish........what?

Well, it depends on if NASCAR is in the business of subsidising the wages of race shop employees, or putting on good stock car races. IMO, paying out $85k to teams not attempting to compete equals a hand-out. Afaik, it's the latter

Being a start and park team doesn't mean you are a struggling team deserving of support, it means you are gaming the system and deserves contempt.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well, it depends on if NASCAR is in the business of subsidising the wages of race shop employees, or putting on good stock car races. IMO, paying out $85k to teams not attempting to compete equals a hand-out. Afaik, it's the latter

Being a start and park team doesn't mean you are a struggling team deserving of support, it means you are gaming the system and deserves contempt.

You can see it that way, but if you push the start and park's out of business, you just killed 6 teams that were putting cars in your shows. NASCAR is all about making sure they have full fields and having teams show up week to week. If the economy improves, these teams don't start and park, they compete. No one save maybe MSRP motorsports runs a start and park program for the sake of doing it. You haven't heard the interviews of some of these guys obviously. If a local sponsor jumps in, they race. They are prepared to race, but these teams are businesses. You don't race if you are going to spend more money to race than to park. If you get the sponsors, you can cover the bills and risk blowing a motor or wrecking. If you are hanging on trying to stay alive, do you risk blowing up a motor and tearing up a car fighting to finish in the last 10 cars...where you likely would be if you just parked it? Small teams with no sponsors will survive until the economy picks up and THEN they will get sponsors and race. People like Richard Childress and Rick Hendrick started with one car teams and in the case of RCR, very limited funds. Not much different from a start and park and Iam sure there was races he was in where they finished at the back and parked for all intensive purposes because he couldn't afford a wreck or a engine going.

This has been part of NASCAR for as long as it has been around. Look up Herm "the Turtle" back in the sixties. The guy poked along just trying to finish, never raced anyone. Tell me how much you think THAT helps the sport?

[Mark in Oshawa]

What people miss with the start and parks is that NASCAR's form of team assistance IS the fact they don't punish teams for pulling out early. They cannot just hand money over so the teams can race, THAT wouldn't be fair. By insisting tracks have purses pay right through to 43rd place with decent money, you guarntee full fields, and if the economy is good, there is no start and park phenomena.

Perfect example tho may be this weekend in Kansas. 50 teams are taking a run at the Nationwide race. I suspect the start and parks may have to run harder than they like just to make the race and may lose money anyhow. It isn't an automatic thing....

[Sparky1329]

Then the DNQ's need to step up their program.

+1

[NickFalzone]

Rather than DNQ's stepping up their qualifying program, I'd rather have it so NASCAR promotes the GOGH teams that put their finances towards a good, solid endurance car for the race, rather than a car that can do 2 quick laps on its own but has zero handling in race conditions, and so gets parked soon after.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Rather than DNQ's stepping up their qualifying program, I'd rather have it so NASCAR promotes the GOGH teams that put their finances towards a good, solid endurance car for the race, rather than a car that can do 2 quick laps on its own but has zero handling in race conditions, and so gets parked soon after.

You don't get it do ya? If you are not financially able to race for the distance, you try to get in to at least get some income in to get you through to the next weekend where you just might land a sponsor. Many of the Start and Park guys are NOT there to do it if they can land a local sponsor, but to keep the team going, to keep the payroll met, they know if they can just make it into the race, they can survive. IF they stay home, and wait for a sponsor, they may never get one. The key to survival with a race team is to be there week in, week out, looking for local sponsors, and being around. NASCAR gets companies coming to them and asking for names of teams needing sponsors and NASCAR isn't going to favour a team that doesn't show up at the track. They will help the teams trying to make it.

All the cars that are in this situation usually are quite capable of running the distance, but it is being able to pay for the wear and tear and tires that causes the issue. This is a financial problem, not a problem of cars not being capable of running. IF all you are trying to do is make the grid, you have no incentive to run a setup to run long runs. If a sponsor comes, then you worry about it. These teams are trying to just stay alive in an economy where even big teams are losing sponsor money. Mark Martin will lose Kelloggs AND Car Quest this year. THe man is leading in the points!! This economy is causing a lot of companies to reevalute their sponsorships of sports entities and the victims are the smaller teams who might have had smaller companies buying in........

[NickFalzone]

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but to me, if you enter a race, the minimum expectation is that you will show up on race day and race from beginning to end, or as long as your car will last. Now it may not always work out that way, you may crash, run out of gas, or what have you. But I bet if you told many casual fans that some cars actually enter a race with no intention of running more than the first few laps to collect a paycheck from NASCAR, they would be pissed because it feels like unfair sportsmanship. That's my point. You're explaining to me reasons WHY they do it, and that doesn't really matter. If your team is in such financial straits that you can't actually run the races, even just at the back of the pack, then here's the reality, you shouldn't be running a race team unless you have the sponsorship to actually compete. As someone above said, it's "gaming the system". Many racing series have a "welfare" of sorts, but they are not as egregious in allowing this kind of unfair sportsmanship to occur. Once again, if I show up at a race track and am told that 43 cars will be on track to compete for the win, I fully expect that those 43 cars race until the end or as far as their cars will get them. If I was told that actually only 38 or 39 of those cars are actually there to race, others will be just doing a few laps for a paycheck, I will think that the event is kind of a sham. The promoter told me 43 cars will be racing, but actually only 38 or 39 will be. Maybe those cars are getting THEIR money's worth, but I'm not getting MY money's worth.

[Lee Roy]

Well Nick, if it bothered me that much I just wouldn't watch. I know that I absolutly despise Restrictor Plate racing and I no longer watch races from Daytona or Talladega. (Well, I may look at a little of the Daytona 500, but not very much.)

[Mark in Oshawa]

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but to me, if you enter a race, the minimum expectation is that you will show up on race day and race from beginning to end, or as long as your car will last. Now it may not always work out that way, you may crash, run out of gas, or what have you. But I bet if you told many casual fans that some cars actually enter a race with no intention of running more than the first few laps to collect a paycheck from NASCAR, they would be pissed because it feels like unfair sportsmanship. That's my point. You're explaining to me reasons WHY they do it, and that doesn't really matter. If your team is in such financial straits that you can't actually run the races, even just at the back of the pack, then here's the reality, you shouldn't be running a race team unless you have the sponsorship to actually compete. As someone above said, it's "gaming the system". Many racing series have a "welfare" of sorts, but they are not as egregious in allowing this kind of unfair sportsmanship to occur. Once again, if I show up at a race track and am told that 43 cars will be on track to compete for the win, I fully expect that those 43 cars race until the end or as far as their cars will get them. If I was told that actually only 38 or 39 of those cars are actually there to race, others will be just doing a few laps for a paycheck, I will think that the event is kind of a sham. The promoter told me 43 cars will be racing, but actually only 38 or 39 will be. Maybe those cars are getting THEIR money's worth, but I'm not getting MY money's worth.

Nick. You keep thinking those racecars at the back really matter. Lets face it, you didn't pay your money or tune in to watch Johnny Sauter fight it out for 40th, any more than I did. Furthermore, if no one told you they were start and parking, you would have no way of knowing why they are dropping out early. What is more, is racing is a business period. It is in the entertainment business, but the racing at the front of the field is what people pay to watch, and the networks pay to show. No one cares who finished 40th unless it is a big name who crashed out early.

These teams want to run the full race, but cannot afford to. PERIOD. However, if they don't show up, someone else will and do the same thing. None of the start and park teams save maybe one (and that is under conjecture) is doing this for reasons of just making money and not wanting to compete. This is what they HAVE to do however to be a race team. If they do 4 start and parks, they can race at the fifth appearence at the track.

Your offense at all of this is naive and comical. You keep failing to grasp is those teams are fighting to keep guys employed, and keep the doors open. If they don't show up at the track, they never will get a sponsor. People looking to invest money in race teams do NOT give them to guys who cant even prove whether they can make a race or not. Therefore, you have to show you have the car, you just need money...and hold the hold the hat out.

Its ugly, but last time I looked, there is a recession on.

[jeffconn]

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but to me, if you enter a race, the minimum expectation is that you will show up on race day and race from beginning to end, or as long as your car will last. Now it may not always work out that way, you may crash, run out of gas, or what have you. But I bet if you told many casual fans that some cars actually enter a race with no intention of running more than the first few laps to collect a paycheck from NASCAR, they would be pissed because it feels like unfair sportsmanship. That's my point. You're explaining to me reasons WHY they do it, and that doesn't really matter. If your team is in such financial straits that you can't actually run the races, even just at the back of the pack, then here's the reality, you shouldn't be running a race team unless you have the sponsorship to actually compete. As someone above said, it's "gaming the system". Many racing series have a "welfare" of sorts, but they are not as egregious in allowing this kind of unfair sportsmanship to occur. Once again, if I show up at a race track and am told that 43 cars will be on track to compete for the win, I fully expect that those 43 cars race until the end or as far as their cars will get them. If I was told that actually only 38 or 39 of those cars are actually there to race, others will be just doing a few laps for a paycheck, I will think that the event is kind of a sham. The promoter told me 43 cars will be racing, but actually only 38 or 39 will be. Maybe those cars are getting THEIR money's worth, but I'm not getting MY money's worth.

Are 38 cars going 190+ mph in a single pack at Talladega less exciting than 43 cars going 190+ mph in a single pack at Talladega?

[harvick#1]

Are 38 cars going 190+ mph in a single pack at Talladega less exciting than 43 cars going 190+ mph in a single pack at Talladega?

no cause they all wreck each other 20 laps :laugh: