Loose is Fast in Turn 3 at MIS

---

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)

---

Michigan International Speedway is my favorite NASCAR track. It doesn’t always feature the most exciting racing of the season. The races usually feature three or four main stories composed of different dominant cars separated by long, hot stretches of stock car endurance driving. But it’s fast. And it’s loud and it smells good. That’s what makes it number one in my book. The smell of rubber and racing fuel. And I’m there. I get to a fair number of events every year, but I always get to the Michigan races. I can count on the smells of MIS.

If you get Loose in Turn 3 at MIS - and don’t lose it - you will probably be fast. My cohorts - TZ at Do You NASCAR and Bruce of NASCAR Bits and Pieces - are always quick. Check out their comments on my Turn 3 question this week.

I’m stealing the theme for my question from a comment made on a post at Bench Racing by One Lugnut Short.

Would requiring race tracks that host multiple races, to have different race lengths for each race resolve the complaints of those who want to take races away from the Poconos and Californias?

Charlie: Actually, it would for me. Having one 500 mile race each at Pocono and California is fine. But make the other 400 or - as my buddy Steve-O wants - even 300. There is a big difference between 400 and 500 in strategy. One long, endurance test is fine. Make the other race something else. I know this won’t quell the clamor for taking races away from these tracks. But if that doesn’t happen - and it won’t at California I promise you - at least this solution creates variety.

Bruce: Would making different races at the same track different lengths resolve complaints? No, I don’t think so. Most detractors have their ulterior motives and I’m not sure race length is an issue with most. I have always thought that shortening up some of the events would be good though. It would be good for television ratings and good for the drone affect some races can develop on this viewer. I really like the length of the Nationwide races. Not too long, but not a dash and we still see mechanical failures at those set distances, so I’m not sure the overall affect would be detrimental. On the other hand, being shorter, you might see more aggressive strategies that would cause other physics issues (IE: 2 cars, one space). If I had a say, I’d say go for it.
TZ: I like the forward thinking in regards that diversity in the races themselves could make things a bit more exciting, but in all reality, no I don’t see that solving anything. Some people may tend to gripe about a track simply because they just got done watching a boring race, but for me, very seldom will hear me say anything good about the racing at California, Texas, or Michigan … why? Because whether it’s 200, 400, or 500 miles, the tracks themselves just simply do not alot for entertaining racing.

That’s what we think - how about you? Leave your thoughts in the comment section here, then check out the other blogs for our takes on TZ’s question…

Assuming that he was seriously contemplating the move, do the recent penalties awarded to Haas CNC Racing deter Tony Stewart from pursuing future ownership with that organization?

And make Bruce’s deal this week is…

So another Pocono race has come and gone. If NASCAR retains two races at Pocono, (And I don’t see why they won’t) do you think the track management should at least repave the track or is there something they can do to change up the action?