How would you suggest controlling costs in NASCAR without affecting racing quality?

With gas prices like this its costing teams millions to drive all over the country back and forth like they too.

Group the tracks in regions. Make 2 trips to each region and then move on to the next region. They would still run all the same tracks so nobody loses a race. Start in the south run once at those tracks. Move out west run them once. Then up to the 2 midwest and east trips in the summer. Back to the south and west in the fall. This makes sure you have warm weather in the spring and fall and cooler weather in the summer.

West: Cali (2 races), Vegas (1 race), Phoenix (2 races), Texas (2 races), Infineon (1 race)

Midwest: Mich (2 races), Chicago (1 race), Kansas (1 race), Indy (1 race)

East: NH (2 races), Pocono (2 races), Dover (2 races), Watkins Glen (1 race)

South: Daytona (2 races), Talledaga (2 races), Bristol (2 races), Darlington (1 race), Richmond (2 races), Atlanta (2 races), Lowes (2 races), Homested (1 race)

Part of the concept behind the COT was to control costs for teams. They have one chassis that is run at all the tracks. Before, the teams would have a chassis for short tracks, a chassis for road courses, one for super speedways, one for restrictor plate racing...etc. The bigger teams would have an advantage over the smaller teams, since they could spend more money for all the different cars. But the problem is that the COT (with the exception of the short tracks) has not produced all that exciting of racing, and spending is more rampant than ever. So it seems that every time NASCAR tries to regulate things, something is taken away from the racing.

Teams spending money has led to the competition being tougher than ever before, which is a good thing for race fans. Back in the late 90's there was a tough rivalry between Earnhardt Sr and Jeff Gordon. Fans would fill the grandstands each week to see them have it out on the track. I doubt the two of them would have a following if they ran in 23rd place every week. So Hendrick and Childress had to keep up with the spending to keep their drivers up front. Rewind the clock even further to the 60's when anyone could show up with a car and race it. The problem was that teams would dominate a race. Ned Jarrett once won a Martinsville race by 11 laps. How boring would that be? Seeing a driver lap the field 11 times is not a good race.

Lastly, the smarter teams have taken on wealthy investors to help with the cost. (Gellette/Evernham, Rousch/Fenway...) This is the way the sport is evolving and teams have to evolve with it, otherwise they will get left behind. Take for example Petty Enterprises - The Wood Brothers - Yates Racing. All were once dominate, and now some are struggling to make races each week. But I won't stop watching NASCAR just because Kenny Schrader doesn't bring the 21 car to victory lane once in a while.

Bottom line - spending money has led to better racing, and any attempt by NASCAR to regulate this has either failed or taken something away from racing.

The COTs are all basically the same exact racecar except for the noses. So i think we are moving toward an IROC style racing series. The best way to control costs in my opinion is to make the manufacturers build the engines and put them in the cars when they arrive at the track on thursdays. That way all the Chevy's would have the same engines and the fords that same and so on. The specific teams wouldn't have any hands on the engines. This would result in the manufacturer flipping the engine bill. Thus controlling costs. I realize that this idea would be a problem for testing and stuff, but NASCAR is pretty smart, they can figure it out.

That was the whole thought process behind the new C.O.T Car...To help the 1 car owners and keep the cost down by having a cookie cutter car.

The biggest expense in my opinion was all the R&D that teams like, Hendrick, Rousch, RCR, JGR where putting in to thier programs and the 1 or 2 car teams couldnt keep up.

Has the racing gottin better? Some have and some have not.

But Nascar is working around the clock to improve the racing with-out compromising cost.

Go # 9 Kasey Kahne

Green Power racing. Would be fun to watch new race cars powered in a different way with new rules. Nascar supplier across all vehicles, buy from same place, tires give to central Nascar recycler. Schedules that involve tracks closer to one another to reduce travel costs & divisions like NHL within Nascar, where cars compete in their area for an equal purse & later come together for finals so you don't seem to have hundreds of drivers at the start line. More qualifiers in each division so more racers in that area. Promoting other drivers not just pretty ones or same winners so people get local heros or think they might try going. Edmonton, Canada hosted a race and people came out in droves, even more the second time & there is no Nascar racing here. (Cascar yes, but it isn't promoted much even if you have a winner in your home city. If there is no promotion of the "personality" of drivers, why should companies endorse cars when there is nothing in it for them. One of the hardest things for a young (even older) driver is to get a sponsor. Have to find ways to prove to companies that it is high profile & that more people

will watch it.."if you build it they will come" as it was said in field of dreams. Need an intro like some driver talking to a kid and explaining something about racing each week. Something basic so maybe non-watchers might think.."could be something to this sport"

Each of us will have different ideas,each good and each valid in it's own way.

I was not a proponent of "crate engines" until I heard a crew chief on a radio show explaining how his team does makes certain engine modifications that are NASCAR gray areas.He even said if caught they would throw the gray area defense out to NASCAR.

Well this made me think that the crate engines would be the right way to go.Once the cars are inspected then an engine is issued at random,It being a sealed engine any tampering would be caught.

You cant-- And not Hurt some of the teams-- The very definition of racing is to race to the finish and to be able to do that you have to do what you must to make your car Faster and or better handling to get there 1st. This means spending Money-Manpower-Time to accomplish this!!!!! Every Sport Has Perennial Cream of the Crop Teams and Cellar Dwellers. Why Should the Better Funded teams who have spent Millions on Research and Development-Hiring the Best Drivers and so forth be Brought down to a lower Level for Parities Sake?????--- The Lower level teams need to Beat the Bushes Harder to find more money to make themselves Better and elevate their Programs to a higher level. Maybe Nascar can get themselves and Track owners to agree to donate a Percentage of Profits into a Money Fund to be awarded to the Teams who finish out of the Top 20!!!!!-- But then you will have some teams Deliberately finish lower to win the Money and the quality of racing will drop!!!!!!!

Spec motors. Every team runs the same motor, built by the same company. They do it in the Whelen Modifieds, many dirt racing series and short track asphalt. It would drastically cut down on the research and development in the garages. And racing would probably be at it's best. You wouldn't worry about getting beat by a better car, just a better driver.

Good answer by someone that said races could be run in a better geographical order across the country.

Another (radical?) idea would be to only run each track once. Instead of running two races at places like Atlanta, California and Texas.

"Nationalize" the cars into making them have to run the same engines and cars, much like the IROC races of yesteryear. Everyone gets the same equipment and talent is all that matters.

I would probably limit the number of cars the teams could have any one time - that is, there can only be a total of x 00 cars back at the shop, in the truck, and at the track.

The problem with that is that it would be pretty impossible to enforce.