Copyright © 2008 Bench Racing Productions, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
If you are not reading this article in a news reader, the website you are viewing it on is guilty of copyright infringement.
Please report this site through the contact link on OnPitRow.com.
(digital signature: 0cfdbe0a46fcc45c1d0ce390e8adfabc)
Do you think that “the incident” at Richmond International Raceway Saturday night was evidence of the “vengeance of the Shrub”? After-all, Dale Earnhardt Jr did spin out of the lead because of contact with the guy who used to have his seat at Hendrick Motorsports.
Just about everybody that we have talked to in the last week - from Larry McReynolds to Joey Logano say that they think this was a racing deal. Plain fact. I just can’t find the stones to argue that.
I may not agree with Tim Zaegel or Bruce Simmons though, as we each give our opinions on three separate, NASCAR related topics in this week’s Loose In Turn 3 go-round. Here’s my question of the week.
Should NASCAR drop the “ruse” of team owners being allowed only four Cup teams?
Charlie: First, you have to believe that the present rule is a false one. The rule was written with a real intent to limit the size and power of the super-team organizations. The advent of satellite teams for the Hendrick, Gibbs and Roush’s of the NASCAR world has effectively circumvented the spirit, if not the actual law, of the original ruling. That said, there is still a limiting effect on the big teams which gives an impression that teams like Hall of Fame Racing and Yates Racing are maintaining independence. I say let the ruse continue.
Bruce: I think it’s ridiculous that they pretend to have a team limit. First, owners, their wives, their kids, heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone’s dog shows up as an owner some day. Now that we have satellite teams forming with partnerships, it’s getting even more complicated. (I’ll avoid the ridiculous term here for the moment) So if a team has a limit, is there a limit to how many satellite teams a team can have a team under with a team? (Look out Dr Seuss)
TZ: I think that between the both of you, you two hit the nail on the head on this topic. There is one thing Charlie said though, about Yates Racing maintaining independence, because they would actually be involved in the basis of my argument on this. Yates is the beneficiary of Roush-Fenway in so many ways, it’s not even funny. Roush plays a huge role in their engines, they’ve been trying to help them lock on some sponsorship deals, and in 2010, they’ll probably be handing them a driver. To answer the question though, not only should they “continue the ruse” as Charlie put it, but I would actually like to see them limit it to three teams - that’ll never happen though.
There you have it. That’s what we think. What do you think?
Continue the discussion with Tim’s post:
Do you think that the Nationwide Series will ever truly develop its own identity and if so, what will it be?
Bruce’s post asks for comment on this:
Denny Hamlin is having the worst luck in the world.
Photo credit: Icon Sports Media, Inc.
comments (1) write a comment »
write a new comment
5 months ago
It's Yates engines and Roush chassis.
Robert Yates was the premier Ford engine builder for decades. The Ford engine department that he set up is the best in Cup, Busch and Trucks. His chassis program had fallen down and with the loss of sponsers he hooked up with Roush's Chassis program.
write a new comment