100% Defined

[Panther_99FS]

-> http://msn.foxsports.com/nascar/story/lee-spencer-brad-keselowski%3A-define-100-percent-racing-intentional-wrecking-kyle-busch-100713#!k9Qr7


..“Any competitor who takes action with the intent to artificially alter the finishing positions of the event or encourages, persuades or induces others to artificially alter the finishing position of the event shall be subject to a penalty from NASCAR.“Artificially altered shall be defined as actions by any competitor that show or suggest that the competitor did not race at 100 percent of their ability for the purpose of changing finishing positions in the event at NASCAR’s sole discretion.”...

Hmmm....start n' parks anyone :ques:

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

Are you kidding? Start an parks are irrelevant racing at this level. They are not trying to alter the race outcome just get enough money to get to next week. You are not going to see chase drivers (cept maybe Kyle:icon_lol:) crash before the start an parks are out of it. Not gonna happen - rule it out as even a consideration.

-Ed-

[Daveroo]

there have been weekends where start n parkers have out quilified other cars that would have made a full run..for this i will continue to push my distain for the SnP cars to my council people...

[Panther_99FS]

there have been weekends where start n parkers have out quilified other cars that would have made a full run...

Good point...

[stansdds]

I posed the question of start and parks when NASCAR announced the 100% rule. I understand that racing at this level is insanely expensive and that small teams can put together a car and qualify it, but do not have the resources to repair or replace a wrecked car. So instead of risking a wrecked car, the start, run a few laps, park it and collect the money for participating in the race. NASCAR is a big money sport, this is a side effect.

[Panther_99FS]

NASCAR is a big money sport, this is a side effect.

There are other big and bigger money motorsports without start n' parks...

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

What other bigger auto sport puts 43 cars on the track for 36 races a year? 43 cars has everything to do with the King.

-Ed-

[Terry]

I suspect NASCAR has more s&p's because the last several places pay more than other motor sports. Also it (may be) far more expensive, everything considered to field an F1 or even an Indy car.

[Panther_99FS]

I suspect NASCAR has more s&p's because the last several places pay more than other motor sports. Also it (may be) far more expensive, everything considered to field an F1 or even an Indy car.

The 2016 F1 team prize "pot" money will be around 1,500 Billion Euro....

[Panther_99FS]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nascar/story/sprint-cup-series-drivers-talk-100-percent-rule-deal-making-ahead-of-race-at-talladega-superspeedway-101713#!lJEvu

[stansdds]

I cannot see how dropping to the back at Talladega would violate the rule. Dropping to the back and just riding around for most of the race is a strategy for self-preservation and maintaining your car until the final laps of the race. To race full-bore at Talladega for 500 miles would probably result in a whole lot of wrecks instead of just one or two. Personally, I do not care for super speedway racing. Other than wrecking, there is little excitement. The 1 1/2 mile or shorter tracks are the action tracks, places where there is a lot of side-by-side racing, passing, and all around excitement.

[PRB]

The problem with a "100% rule" is that it's impossible to define or enforce. Nobody can race "at 100%" for the entire race, and nobody can determine whether or not a paricular race car driver is at 85% or 98%. It's just silly. They were trying to "define" what was wrong with what happened at Richmond, so that they could make a rule against it. Unfortunately the definition they decided on was a vague and "squishy" non-precise "they weren't driving at 100%", so now, that's against the rules. What? I don't blame drivers for asking NASCAR stupid questions like "soooo, if I go to the back at 'Dega, is THAT driving at less than 100%, hmmm?" Serves em right, hehe.

[stansdds]

I agree, naming it the 100% rule and stating that drivers are to drive at 100% is silly. This was quickly written rule to counter a really bad action. Perhaps during the off season NASCAR can revisit this issue, refine the language and change the name of the rule.

[Terry]

The problem with a "100% rule" is that it's impossible to define or enforce. Nobody can race "at 100%" for the entire race, and nobody can determine whether or not a paricular race car driver is at 85% or 98%. It's just silly. They were trying to "define" what was wrong with what happened at Richmond, so that they could make a rule against it. Unfortunately the definition they decided on was a vague and "squishy" non-precise "they weren't driving at 100%", so now, that's against the rules. What? I don't blame drivers for asking NASCAR stupid questions like "soooo, if I go to the back at 'Dega, is THAT driving at less than 100%, hmmm?" Serves em right, hehe.


In NASCAR's defense, Helton did say that determining if a car is at 100% is totally subjective on their part. Which means to me if the car looks like its running slow and may make some type of gain for the team by doing so NASCAR may call it and penalize them.