I’m sorry, they just weren’t. After what happened last year at Montreal, and the debacle that took place on Sunday at the Circuit de Gilles Villeneuve, NASCAR needs to take a serious look at getting rid of racing in the rain.
There are some that disagree with me, and believe that not only should the Nationwide cars race in the rain on the road courses, but the Cup cars should as well. Having the NNS cars in the rain is bad enough, the much more top heavy Cup cars would be even worse.
The problem with this type of racing, is only the road course “ringers” have any experience doing it. Running a few laps of practice in the rain does not prepare an inexperienced driver for actual racing in the rain. The cars are difficult enough to handle on a road course when it’s dry; add rain and the degree of difficulty goes up exponentially.
This type of racing works in series like the IRL and Grand Am because the cars are much lighter and have a ton more down force. Nationwide cars on the other hand, have very little downforce, and the lack of grip with a rain tire turns the racing into a giant demolition derby.
Towards the end of the race Sunday, it appeared as though there wasn’t any car that didn’t have some sort of damage. The cars looked like they’d been through 1,000 laps at Martinsville.
The fans that show up to the race in Montreal are hardcore NASCAR fans. They love our sport. We need to do a better job of putting on a good show, and one that finishes in a reasonable amount of time. So please NASCAR, end racing in the rain.
As always, please feel free to share your thoughts. Should we be racing in the rain? Did you enjoy the Nationwide race at Montreal?
Loading ...
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 5:19 am
I agree with everything you said about not racing in the rain, race cars should never ever race in the rain in my opinion but one other thing is NASCAR should not be racing at that track in Montreal. That isn’t a track for stock cars, I live one hour away from that track and won’t waste my time going and I am a diehard NASCAR fan but going to see a race there is a joke.
NASCAR stay in the USA.
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 6:53 am
In the rain, it was comical. You mentioned that NASCAR needs to do a better job of putting on a good show. If I were a driver, I would be quite upset with have let’s say a good run, only to have my finish ruined by running on a wet track.
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 7:08 am
NASCAR should just say it was an experiment, one that did not work out well at all. We now see that switching to rain tires isn’t worth the time or effort or expense.
NASCAR could have easily called the race when the rains came, but the attitude was that we have the rain tires and the other stuff, so we might as well use them. The five-minute changeover was weird but fun, but to this fan the racing that followed was anything but enjoyable.
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 7:20 am
I make my living running sports cars, we race in the rain, the cars have proper screen wipers, screen demist systems, rain safety lights, etc. I enjoy watching Nascar races, but not in the rain, they are not designed for this and making a conversion kit is way to much money for the times when a road circuit is used and its raining.
But then, I dont think stock cars should have wings!
Its all about ISC making money.
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 8:48 am
The conditions were worse last year when they raced in the rain, and it was relatively uneventful until they called it, if memory serves. There was less than 20 laps left, everyone started racing alot harder than they should of in those conditions.
Maybe it was just me, but that was one of the best races I’ve watched in a long time.
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 9:04 am
Sunday’s race was already frustrating enough to watch BEFORE the rain came! Too many cautions-or should I say, cautions that were too LONG made for a tedious experience. Part of it was the track-the only passing at CGV is under hard braking or trying to squeeze past in tight chicanes; this, combined with the stock car norm of willingness to bang your way past some one (though there’s nothing wrong with that), just didn’t work there. Then you combine it with a wet track and drivers that don’t normally race in the wet and it became laughable. The road racing skills in NASCAR have greatly improved, but there are still too many guys that can barely manage it in the dry, the wet conditions showed how on the edge they were. I just wanted it to end.
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 9:16 am
“The problem with this type of racing, is only the road course “ringers” have any experience doing it. ” This says sooo much. It is not the car, it is the drivers (some ) who have the problems, not the car. I enjoy racing in the rain. As several regulars demonstrated yesterday, it is not just the ringers who can drive well in the rain. Should we use the same standards to determine if there should be short track racing, or restrictor plate? Same type of carnage, but no one is calling for those to stop. Part of racing is being able to handle different situations. The best can handle all kinds. Natural talent shows.
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 9:43 am
TC-guess we now have three things we don’t agree on. My dislike for mega-teams and spec-COT and our dislike for racing stock cars in the rain. I’m not sure I would consider Carl Edwards a “road course ringer” and he won the race….hmmmm? IMHO if you call yourself a professional racing driver, you and your team should be able to adapt to driving and wrenching in the wet. It’s just another changing condition like a greasy track on a hot day. Besides that, what do you tell your fans that paid good money to witness talent? Take off work and come back tomorrow “if” the weather permits? Us Southerners already catch heck for not being able to drive in a ¼” of snow. Imagine the Canadians reaction if we packed up and headed home because of some rain.
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 9:52 am
Real racers race in the rain and turn left as well. The cars should be set up for the beginning of a race in a compromise setup that will work wet or dry with wipers lights and any other paraphenalia that is needed for rain. Then the drivers decide when to come in for wets and do it as a normal pit stop without any red flags. By the way there never should be a full course yellow just local yellows and red only if the track is completely blocked. You want to pretend like you are in the big leagues then you have to play like the big leagues.
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 10:14 am
To those that think we should race in the rain, did you enjoy yesterday’s crash fest?
I don’t think that just because we “can” race in the rain, that we should race in the rain.
Another big difference between other series in the rain, and NASCAR in the rain is how often it happens. Other series could theoretically race in the rain every week. In NASCAR, it might only happen twice a year because of the road courses. It becomes part of the racing and teams are prepared for it. When it might happen twice a year, nobody is going to be prepared for that.
I don’t see anyone saying baseball should be played in the rain, just because it can be done…
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 10:40 am
Some race. Looked more like a demolition derby to me. These guys are great drivers in their element. That element is not in 3300 lb. stock cars in the rain. And what the heck was Helton thinking when he came on TV and was praising the show? I could’nt have disagreed with him more. Mike is a sharp guy, but the Kool-aid got to him on this one.
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 11:16 am
Oops…edit my comment #8 above to read “your dislike for racing stock cars in the rain.” I am in favor of racing in the rain. Must have been the rain on my keyboard!
Good point Mike Taylor. Limit the full course yellows. Local only.
BTW: where was Robby Gordon yesterday?
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 11:41 am
Agreed with everything T.C. said……but I enjoyed the race because the finish was awesome and I’m a fan of Carl Edwards and Roush.
As far as the wreak fest it was entertaining(IMO) but I felt really bad for the drivers. stupid Idea overall!
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 12:00 pm
I am not sure if stock cars should race in the rain. Yesterday was at times entertaining and at others very frustrating. T.C. your comparison to baseball is valid. You never see them play baseball in a down pour. Just look at last year’s World Series. It is not done because of saftey concerns. Nascar too has saftey concerns, however I think it would have been a lot safer without Steven Wallace yesterday. While I’m not sure if stock cars should race in the rain or not, I am very sure that Steven Wallace should NOT race in the rain.
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 12:18 pm
I think part of what added to the misery of the race in the rain was the TV coverage. ESPN did not do a very good job of keeping up with the status of the race, which made a long race even longer. The wreckfest that took place before the rain gear went on added to the challenge of driving in the rain. It’s hard enough to run a road course, then add rain to that, and pile beat up cars onto that and the result is…well, we all witnessed the result in Montreal on Sunday.
I think that racing in the rain is ridiculous. Racing in the rain should be left to the dirt track drivers–where it is actually fun and exciting! I understand that fans get frustrated with delays and trying to stretch their weekends for one more day because of the weather, but it’s the nature of the sport. Was the mess that we witnessed on Sunday seriously better than calling the race after halfway or even waiting to finish until Monday? As a fan, if I would have forked over hundreds of dollars for that caution marathon wreckfest, I would have demanded a refund.
Then again, I am just a girl!
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 12:22 pm
NASCAR drivers complain about the rain, sun, debris, traffic, and their cars constantly, while driving phony “stock” cars with decals for headlights. They apparently can’t be trusted not to wreck their cars if the track is wet (cancel the race) or too fast (put on restrictor plates to overcome their inability to slow down). No wonder nobody’s buying on Monday what wins on Sunday — there’s nothing there to relate to. The track is wet for everyone, so let the best driver win.
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Pardon me, but wasn’t it Carl Edwards who won the race?
I don’t remember Carl being a “road course ringer”. I far as I know Kyle Busch hasn’t run in Grand Am full time either. Brad Keselowki had a very good day as well, his talent and smarts are amazing. I don’t get where these issues about drivers not being able to drive a road course come from. And if they do “boohoo”, these are the drivers that boohoo on ovals as well.
As far as the race being “boring” in some sequences, well that’s on par for many auto races or any other sport for that matter. Maybe you should watch drag racing if you have that short of an attention span.
It was a shame that the downpour only lasted for a few minutes and Nascar decided to put on rain tires to prevent folks from having to sit for an hour or two to wait for the track to dry. It cause some havok and was hard on the drivers as it added another challenge. As far as I understood Mike Helton, racing in the rain like most of the road course racers do, is a work in progress. Nascar may do it and Nascar may not do it in the Cup.
Frankly, I enjoy road course races. I think they add a challenge for the team and test the driver’s skills at handling a car. That is what auto racing is about. Challenges and skills. Everyone seems to want to babify the Cup series.
You already have parity with the cars. How much more do you want to ruin Nascar?
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Ha!! at Neon RE: Carl Edwards being a road course ringer. Did you see the pace lap for the Rolex race? I’m not sure Marcos would agree that Carl is a ringer either.
Funny how the Busch race ended though with Marcos screwing himself out of a win with one mistake & turning the lead & win over to Carl.
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Here’s the bottom line..the racing sucked!!!!
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 2:18 pm
I think NASCAR should have just ended the race when the rain came. They were past the halfway point, it was an official race, and it had taken 3 hours as it was….the race overall was too long. I am all in favor of racing in Canada, but I think we need to find a faster track with better racing opportunities. This circuit is not right for stock car racing, whether it be in the rain or dry.
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 2:18 pm
I like watching races in the rain. Rain is the great equalizer. It takes away any the advantages of horsepower, aero, etc… and puts the talent back in the hands of the driver. Add in the strategy of when to change to wet/dry tires and it makes for a good race.
However, similar to what Tony Dowe said, that is with cars with proper systems. NASCAR does not have proper systems and it is not feasible to have proper systems. So, don’t do it halfway.
Steven Wallace – unsafe at any speed…any track condition. About the conversation a few weeks ago on drivers getting rides because of who they know, how much money they bring, etc…. Classic example of a driver that got to where he is because of $$$, not talent.
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 2:28 pm
TC, i know you’re not a journalist, but writing things like “did you enjoy sundays crashfest?” is only going to influence your readers to agree with you and not find many dissenting opinions. i expected the majority of ppl here to agree with your post, and i also found another blog entry from another reporter who liked the race. guess what their readers thought? they agreed. so, maybe you should work on being more neutral in posts like this, because i loved the race and i’m not going to change my mind. would i have preferred it stay dry? yeah, the watkins glen cup race was a lot of fun and it was dry the whole way. i love nascar on road courses, i think they need more of these races, and they should run them rain or shine IMO. and i also agree with the decision to call the race last year because the rain was just too much in some places.
i do think some sort of rule should be enacted, so that we don’t go 80% of the way dry then come back to a dry-wet course like we did for the last 19 laps or whatever. i think if rain comes that close to the end they should usually just call it to avoid having a wreckfest at the end as you put it. however, if it comes before the halfway point, they should continue on, rain or shine.
i personally loved the race last year despite it being fairly uneventful just because it was neat to see the teams have to deal with something new. they should find a way to do this in cup too, but i don’t think it would be nearly as interesting. with cup they always have monday to run the race if it rains, but the nationwide series can’t really afford that many saturday rainouts to a monday raceday, so they should probably continue developing the rain program.
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 2:29 pm
oh and i think the cup series would be less interesting simply because they are not designed in the least for the rain–much more horsepower and less downforce, so they would just slip and slide nonstop in the rain. if they could find some sort of solution to that, then by all means, get em out there in the wet!
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 3:22 pm
…..and they should also NOT race in the snow or on ice ( not that it ever much of a risk of occuring ), Im just sayin, Nascars are meant to do what they do, and that is dry track racing.
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 4:49 pm
T.C. – “To those that think we should race in the rain, did you enjoy yesterday’s crash fest?”
It was a race, so yes I did.
That said, what I didn’t enjoy, and never will, is full course cautions on road courses. NASCAR needs to get5 with the program like all other forms of road racing and utilize local cautions with the exceptions for “extreme cases,” i.e. course blockages.
As to the topic at hand, its not the track, not the drivers or the cars that have produced less than desirable results for some people.
Does Papis, Ranger, Villeneuve, Fellows, Ambrose, Said etc have trouble in the rain? Not much due to vast experience doing it. I liken it to when “ringers” were the exception in the early days of Riverside, there were only a couple and soon enough the “regular” NASCAR drivers made up their minds to be competitive and they had to go to school so to speak.
One of two things needs to happen, NASCAR plainly states there will be no more rain racing, or plainly state there will be and drivers need to get off their collective butts and learn what it takes.
As for the NNS car not being “able” to compete in the rain, I say poppycock.
No better example is Ambrose’s home series. The Aussie V8’s are just as “stock” as NNS, although the V8’s are approx 550lbs lighter due to less HP they have approx. the same power-to-weight ratio.
In summation, there’s nothing wrong with NNS running in the rain that practice can’t repair. Drivers want to race they need to get off their butts and learn to be competitive.
NOTE for Ron Shappy, your last line, “NASCAR stay in the USA,” seems to indicate your problem is not with the cars, fans or the track but NASCAR racing anywhere outside the US. IF that’s the caes, too bad, get over it.
And a further not for Candy Cain… “Racing in the rain should be left to the dirt track drivers–where it is actually fun and exciting!”
What planet do you watch dirt racing on? Because rain will stop/cancel a dirt race long before it will a race held on tarmac.
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Montreal puts on a great show, wet or dry. The guys who wrecked were the ones who didn’y have experience in the first place, but I mean they still would of found ways to smash them up if it was dry like we always see. Those guys need to understand that in wet ocnditions your braking points change as well as when you pick up the throttle. 2 of the accidents that happened in the rain werent even caused by the rain itself. Kesolowskis late cross-over/divebomb on papis was an error not caused by rain, as well as steven wallaces 3 wide grass runoff. Those are some of the wrecks that standout to me, and rain wasnt a factor.
But I agree in some aspects. Montreal does put on a good show wet or dry, its a fun track to watch. NASCAR just needs to do a better job with rainsetups. Something that can ride the condensation on the windshield better, and maybe have the light in the back of the cars blind in F! and IRL do. The only boring thing about yesterday was the caution laps. THey need to only run 2 caution laps at that roadcourse if they are only running 35mph under caution
I dont think we’ve gotten enough info from the nationwide cars to run rain races for the cup cars. So in my opinion its definately too early for the COT cars to run in the rain, but nationwide is fine with me
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 6:34 pm
It’s a weak argument. I drive in the rain & snow all the time. You have to slow down and be more careful. It’s not that hard and the same rules apply to any type of vehicle. Most road courses are designed with good drainage since so many other series do race in the rain. I find it very entertaining to see F1 race in the rain. Over the decades they have developed their tires and cars to perform in the rain. Drivers have learned how to handle it. It would be a shame to say our drivers aren’t good enough to do it and we’re too lazy to develop the technology to assist them. With proper drainage and some other considerations I think wet oval racing is entirely possible in the near future. Limiting speeds somehow would be key. If I can drive on the highway at 80Mph in the rain I think the professionals can probably handle it too.
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Larry- Doing 160 mph down one of the straights at Montreal and then dive bombing into a turn is a little different than doing 80 mph in your passenger car down the interstate (especially with modern amenities like traction control and anti-lock brakes; you also probably don’t have 800 hp to your rear wheels). That being said, the argument here isn’t so much about the feasibility, obviously they can do it. The question is do we want to do it? Montreal after the rain tires went on was a bit of a disaster.
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 7:35 pm
The problem with racing in the rain is that too many of the drivers don’t know how. Those last 10 laps were a joke. Yes they could see better than last year therefore they starting driving over their heads. How many cars got wrecked by the end, hell they were wrecking the before that, I was starting to think we were at Martinsville. If it was something they could practice or do on a regular basis I’d be all for it, they can’t and won’t (it’s way too expensive) so Nascar don’t do me any favors. I’m pretty sure I heard Marcos say somewhere that it rains so much back home that they had to race in the rain. I know the fans in the stands wanted the race to continue for those last 10 laps but really was that wreckfest racing? Not to mention that 5 minue stop, what was that about.
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 9:32 pm
TC, it’s obvious that you don’t like racing in the rain, but I have to totally disagree with you, being an ex-driver racing in the rain is a blast. The driver needs to use his head more than he does on a dry track if he wants to finish. yesterday was a prime example the top 6 driver came home clean, there was a huge battle going for the checkered flag. Now I do understand your thoughts with all the torn up cars, that was due to drivers not using their heads and lack of experence. Thats common with anything new to people in general. It happened when Cup started racing riverside and it happened last year at the glen. Whats the difference? a little water.
on Sep 1st, 2009 at 10:32 am
didnt even try to read the stuff above. the driver has a throttle and a brake. USE THEM. I remember when this was stock car racing. these people(drivers,crew members and the MEDIA) are getting to where if theres a lack of grip they whine about it. If it (rains,hot,slick,cold,snows,dark,dirty,weepers,chunks of concrete,walls too hard,surface problems etc) they WHINE. Its OK to talk about it I guess. but race at your ability. get it?(stock car)what your car is capable of.
on Sep 1st, 2009 at 1:57 pm
What do you mean “Stock Cars” were not meant to race in the rain?? Either NASCAR needs to change their name or more realistically get back to their roots. When it rains I drive my “Stock Car” in the rain. I don’t get to call in and say, I’ll drive to work tomorrow when the rain stops, I have to drive my “Stock Car” in all weather, rain, snow, sleet and even occasionally freezing rain!
Yes, I know that today’s Race Cars are no longer stock cars. I honestly don’t see how a race win by Jimmie Johnson’s Impala on Sunday translates into an Impala sale on Monday but imagine if Jimmie really did race a Stock Impala again. Wow, now there would be some serious sales gains.
I’ve always wanted to see a series where the racers have to press on regardless and race no matter the conditions. Use cars that you and I drive and use tires that you and I drive on and in the same conditions you and I drive. Not only that but it could very well have applications that could help real world drivers. Not to mention give us fans something to think about buying on Monday.
on Sep 1st, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Good arguments all around, but this fan thought it was a great race, and that the rain racing is an interesting change of pace. NASCAR cars aren’t made to run road courses, but I love watching ‘em try to do it. Hey, I’d watch them run on dirt or ice – anything other than a 1.5 mile paved oval for a change!