Jump to content

Talk:Criticism of NASCAR

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The "criticism" components of the parent NASCAR article had become dominant in that text. This varies quite a bit from the other professional league and sanctioning body articles. The issues raised there certainly bare documenting, but seemed to detract from what should be the NASCAR-focus of that article. I've created this NASCAR Criticism article to address that, and moved those sections here. - Thaimoss (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the section that deals with how bloody boring it is? Comradeash (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look under baseball or cricket. TREKphiler 18:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. ZappaOMati 21:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can you have a NASCAR criticisms page and not address two of it's biggest abominations: Green, White, Checkers, which basically says 'screw whomever is leading at the designated race distance, a green flag finish is more important than the integrity of the sport', and "the Chase".

Funny, I see green, white, checker finishes as upholding the "integrity of the sport" as a yellow flag finish doesn't give the win to the person "leading at the designated race distance" but to the person leading when the caution occurs. I would prefer to have stops in the race instead of yellow flag laps, so that all laps would be competitive. --Khajidha (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The statement under "fuel consumption" that fuel rate remains constant regardless of speed is dubious. Even if the engine RPM is the same, as changing gear ratios may achieve, the drag at lower speeds is much less. Further, this claim is contradicted by the statement that race MPG is 2-5, while caution MPG is 14-18. If fuel rate was constant, miliage would be lower at lower speeds. --STM 2018-07-27 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:98B:C200:15A0:ACF9:15A7:7F91:FB1F (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "tends to be the same", not "is constant", but I'll address the broader point. "Rate of fuel consumption" is volume per unit time and is directly linked to engine RPM. Drag is irrelevant: an engine at a certain RPM consumes a certain amount of fuel per minute, whether it's on a test stand, or in a power generator, or in a moving car. Consumption is lower under caution because the engine RPM is much lower. Mileage differences are clearly borne out by fuel windows at different tracks. Simishag (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect. At a higher load, the engine must burn more fuel to maintain the same RPM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:98B:C200:15A0:60DD:899B:AC7:5443 (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are conflating vehicle efficiency with engine efficiency. A higher load requires more power to maintain the same vehicle speed. Simishag (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a candidate for deletion

[edit]

Note sure why Sawblade05 has tagged this page for deletion, but I do not think deletion is appropriate. I created this specific article by extracting these sections (in their entirety) from the NASCAR article, of which the "criticism of NASCAR" section had grown too large. The topics covered here are relevant, and value-added. My intention for moving them here was to consolidate this section, and tighten up the main NASCAR article. I see no reason, in the Reasons for deletion (included here for convenience):

See also: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion
Shortcut

Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following:

In no way do I think the content in this excerpted sub-topic article should be deleted - Thaimoss (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

News articles that might fit here

[edit]

The following articles relate the beginning of what might be a long running suit or series of suits alleging racial and sexual harassment within the NASCAR organization. I include them here for consideration; perhaps at a later date (couple of years maybe) when the entire thing comes to completion, a paragraph might be suitable for inclusion here.

  • Jenna Fryer (2008-06-11). "Female official suing NASCAR". Delaware News-Journal. Gannett Company. Retrieved 2008-06-12. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Jenna Fryer (2008-06-11). "NASCAR: Ex-official didn't report alleged harassment". Delaware News-Journal. Gannett Company. Retrieved 2008-06-12. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it safe?

[edit]

Not to knock NASCAR for being slow to adopt, but if you're going to, it needs some perspective. Since Fireball was killed in '64, when did fuel cells become mandatory? Kill switches? TREKphiler 22:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dang furriners

[edit]

Seeing MG ran in the 500 in '62, can somebody have a look & see if the past claim here for an entry is legit or not? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 22:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NAMRF?

[edit]

There should be a section on them, as they caused quite the stir 'bout racism in late 2004 --raganbaby_6 20:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raganbaby 6 (talk • contribs)

Crash Fetishism? ... how to term it?

[edit]

Curious as to the extent that some criticism might assert NASCAR audiences are attracted by the possibility/promise of crashes. RomaC (talk) 10:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference this article in SI. RomaC (talk) 09:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Part Time Racers

[edit]

I forgot what the term is for it, but there is no mention of the drivers who enter a given race with no intention/ability to finish the race. They have no pit crew and no extra set of tires, but they do pick up a check just by racing for a few laps. These teams (really not a team as the driver is the owner of the car and only member of the "team") always bow out of the race when they need to refuel (no pit crew or fuel), yet always have another reason listed by NASCAR as to why they are out of a race (engine, suspension, etc.) NASCAR has been criticized for allowing these teams to participate in Nextel Cup races and in giving false reasons for the retirement of these cars.65.123.238.246 (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its called start and park. Jason Shew (shewy) (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest changing the title of this section to "Start and Park" as it's current name suggest an issue/criticism of drivers who do not have a "full time ride". Full time ride = a driver who has an team, car, and these days likely a charter. Also is this worth a full section as it seems to be more limited in the Cup Series. Any objections? Preston A. Vickrey (humbly) (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of sophistication

[edit]

Are these really criticisms made by fans of other types of racing? I know I've heard people who are not fans of auto racing at all make some of these claims, but I don't think I've heard fans of other types of racing using these arguments. I mean, drag racing is even simpler and the Indianapolis 500 uses the same track as some NASCAR events (complete with no right turns) and it is called "the Greatest Spectacle in Racing". --Khajidha (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this counts, but on numerous F1/drift/rally/other non-NASCAR forums, it is not uncommon to find threads bashing NASCAR. Yahoo Answers is full of F1 trolls who make outlandish claims. A Google search brings out thousands of anti-NASCAR results. 71.60.118.86 (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was stuff like carburettors and pushrod valve gear that drew the flak from fans of other series. Mr Larrington (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Network

[edit]

Under "Business structure and decision-making policies" heading, there is a sentence at the end of the section, reading: "Because of Fox Sports' heavy affiliation with NASCAR, a fair amount of the network's programming is NASCAR-related." There is no reference for this. As Fox Sports carries several different sporting events, and races are carried on ABC, ESPN, as well as Fox's main programming channel, I don't see how this sentence is valid. Fox Sports does carry the pre- and post-race programs, as well as practice and most qualifying (some qualifying is carried by ESPN), and at least two of the talk show format shows. Looking on my programming list on my cable provider (Direct TV, but programming is the same across all carriers that carry Fox Sports 1 and 2), I see UFC, Fox Sports Live (their version of SportsCenter), a replay of various weekend college football games, MLB Playoff games, and late in the week comes the NASCAR programming. During this same period, NBC's sports channel has a NASCAR news and interview show, as does ESPN. This, to me, makes the sentence invalid and untrue, mainly because (1) there is no reference to show this, and (2) there is no definition of what is a "fair amount of the network's programming." Without a reference, can this sentence be deleted? The way it reads, to me, when I look at Fox Sports 1 or 2, I should have a couple of programs per day that are NASCAR related. 108.90.81.144 (talk) 06:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Criticism of NASCAR. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Criticism of NASCAR. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Criticism of NASCAR. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance at an all time low in 2018? All time?

[edit]

Attendance at an all time low in 2018? All time? So it was higher in 1950? 1940? Doesn’t seem possible. 2600:1003:B84D:2A07:D4AF:7AE3:177B:FEB1 (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_NASCAR&oldid=1201239017"