Welcome to Autoweek’s NASCAR Roundtable.
Prior to each Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series race weekend for the remainder of the season, Autoweek’s motorsport insiders will exchange notes to discuss the most polarizing topics in the industry today. From silly season to race control decisions, this post is intended to generate conversation and inspire dialogue, so join in on the debate via the comments section below or on Autoweek’s Facebook page.
Will Matt Kenseth make a difference for Roush and the 6 car?
Al Pearce, senior motorsports correspondent: Of course he will, but the question is, how big a difference? Matt is clearly more experienced than Bayne, and that alone should be enough to make the team better. But even a championship driver can do only so much in non-championship equipment. He’ll be an enormous asset in prerace preparation meetings and in postrace debriefs, but it’s up to the team to improve their cars so his insight and knowledge aren’t wasted. And I think it’s only a matter of time before Bayne’s role is diminished until it’s finally gone, maybe before Daytona Beach in July.
Matt Weaver, Autoweek associate motorsports editor: I’m of the opinion that Trevor Bayne may be racing for his career this weekend at Talladega Superspeedway. An upset restrictor-plate victory might be the only thing that preserves his full-time status since such a result would guarantee him a playoff berth. Beyond that, if Kenseth comes in and makes that car run equal or better to Ricky Stenhouse in equal performance, that’s probably it for the 2011 Daytona 500 winner. Jack Roush and company signing Kenseth to a part-time role is a clear sign that’s high time to figure out just how bad the equipment really is. It’s not everyday that a driver the caliber of Matt Kenseth becomes available to serve as a R&D driver and he’s going to potentially turn this opportunity into his next full-time deal. That’s how convinced I am that Kenseth will exceed the meager expectations in the No. 6.
Greg Engle, Autoweek weekend motorsports editor: He already has. Look at the attention the announcement got. Bringing in Mark Martin to introduce the new part-time driver of the No. 6 was brilliant. That press conference got the team more attention than they have had in a long time. Moving forward, I suspect that Trevor Bayne will have an extra bit of spark at Talladega this weekend, and the knowledge he gains from Matt will be invaluable, as long as he is open to it. Knowing Bayne, he will use this as a learning experience, and while it may not have been the best news he ever got, he will be a better driver in the future; and after all is said and done, Bayne should have many more years of racing than Kenseth. Can Kenseth improve the performance of the car? Maybe not at first but after a few races he should. And if the performance does not improve, the issue may not be the driver behind the wheel.
Does just two drivers (Kyle Busch and Kevin Harvick) winning a majority of the races detract from the overall racing product?
Al: I’m not a rabid fan, so the number of winners and losers isn’t an issue for me. The adage is that sanctioning bodies would rather have one or two big winners (can you say rivalry?) than, say, eight different winners in a nine-race stretch. That’s especially true when those two big winners drive different brands and neither is especially popular. Half the audience wants someone to beat them; the other half wants to see if one of those two can keep winning.
Matt: I was very surprised at the amount of vitriol Saturday’s race received. Much of the criticism surrounded the lack of cautions and some of it centered around the fact that some combination of Kevin Harvick and Kyle Busch was going to win again. But I thought the race was tremendous, with the top three often lined nose to tail and mixing it up in lap traffic. To me, again, the number of winners don’t matter if the on-track product is good.
Greg: Not at all. The racing has been great no matter who wins. Several of those wins have been hard fought, such as Busch’s win at Richmond. He started farther back than any Cup winner ever had at Richmond to win. The racing for positions in the pack have been thrilling and that should continue moving forward.
What is the best way to lower the cost of competition when it’s obvious that $20 million sponsorship deals are no longer a viable way to support teams?
Al: Owners will spend every dime they can get their hands on. NASCAR can legislate some money-saving policies — limit the number of crewmen on the road; no more huge money on custom-made pit guns just to gain a fraction of a second; on-the-road savings, etc. -– but it can’t force owners to spend less. This is an issue for them to figure out since NASCAR can’t do it. I mean, does Hendrick or Stewart Haas or Gibbs really need all those engineers?
Matt: This is obviously the largest issue facing the sport right now. The cost to participate continues to rise and the ROI goes down. One can’t legislate the evolution of technological progress, but the next generation of NASCAR Cup car has to feature some de-engineering, something to make these cars less technically advanced. However, we live in a world in which trophy truck teams take their windowless cars to the wind tunnel in the hopes to finding every possible advantage. Ultimately, the sanctioning body and RTA are working tirelessly to solve this problem.
Greg: I think if we knew that, we could become executives. The problem is that having the sanctioning body making decisions about lowering costs could result in disasters that will end with boring single-file racing where no one can pass. Lowering the costs shouldn’t fall on NASCAR’s shoulders. Sure, they can help, but the teams are, at the end of the day, a business. They need to learn how to do more with less, just like any business that weathers an economic downturn.
Is it a good thing when underdogs like David Ragan or rookie Brad Keselowski (with Finch/Phoenix Racing) win restrictor-plate races, especially now when it means one less playoff spot for a contender?
Al: It happens so rarely that it’s a cool change of pace from time to time. And it’s not just on plate tracks. When Chris Buescher won at Pocono a couple of years ago, he certainly didn’t need to apologize for taking a Playoff spot. On that day, he was just as much a contender as the two dozen or so other drivers who most of us considered more likely to win. I look forward to those days when someone wins from out in left field. To me, it gives the series a refreshing jolt
Matt: There are honestly too many drivers in the playoffs anyway. I personally find myself rooting for underdogs just because 1) It’s a cool story and a refreshing change of pace and 2) it creates a greater sense of urgency when there are less playoff spots available to good teams. Besides, I’m still awaiting the day that a small team’s driver wins a plate race to make the playoffs and a good team puts that driver in the playoffs and makes a run at it. I’m only half kidding!
Greg: With 30-plus cars entered, each should have a chance to win. Of course, on the 1.5-mile tracks, this is much more difficult than say Martinsville, but Talladega has been called “The Great Equalizer” for a reason. If a driver wins a race but has no chance to make it to the playoffs, the teams that do have a chance need to step it up. If those teams don’t make the playoffs, then so be it. Look at John Force in the NHRA. He has been struggling mightily this season — even failing to qualify for last week’s Springnationals. He is one of the biggest names in all of auto racing yet didn’t make the field last week. If he doesn’t make their version of the championship playoffs this season he and his team have no one to blame but themselves.
– Matt Weaver is an associate motorsports editor at Autoweek. Before becoming a journalist, he was a dirt track racer and short track cheeseburger connoisseur.
Be the first to comment