The new truck series pit rules argument on TMD

DexterMorgan

Active Member
Oct 22, 2008
1,224
14
38
Edmonton, Alberta
Hey Mike, Im going to have to pull your pants down here big time. Why did you backtrack when Jeff Hammond said the exact same thing that the caller you yelled, screamed and hung up on. Why didnt you give Jeff the third degree? Why didnt you yell and scream at Hammond for being doom and gloom and getting up on the tree and yelling about something that hasnt happened yet?

This idea that Nascar has this rule to save teams money makes 0.0000000000% sense. The rule to pit twice for tires/feul is just a gimmick. Having less people at the track saves money, having trucks pit twice does not.
 
Last edited:

dpkimmel2001

Well-Known Member
Nov 6, 2008
2,876
53
48
PA
I didn't hear Hammond's opinion on this subject but I heard Poole on there this morning and he brought up a good point while Bagman was stating his case. Bagman's response to the callers opinions of changing the new pit rules for safety's sake was that this new rule needs to play out first. Wait until something happens first. IMO Poole stated the obvious that you need to be proactive, not reactive. I don't think that Bagman meant it to come out like it sounded. I think that he was caught up in the moment that Poole didn't seem to agree 100% with him. That kind of thinking in NASCAR was pre February 18, 2001 mentality.

So, later they have on NASACR Camping World Truck Series Director Wayne Auton. He, Bagman and Pete Pistone were on the same page on this subject.

I thought many of the people were making valid points today but for the most part each were getting shot down. Pete Pistone was in for David today and seemed to totally agree with Bagman. It seems to me that if the co hosts of TMD agree with each other and you call in with an opposing argument, you're just wasting your time. :(
 

Bagman

Member
Oct 15, 2008
55
4
8
The ATL
Hey Mike, Im going to have to pull your pants down here big time. Why did you backtrack when Jeff Hammond said the exact same thing that the caller you yelled, screamed and hung up on. Why didnt you give Jeff the third degree? Why didnt you yell and scream at Hammond for being doom and gloom and getting up on the tree and yelling about something that hasnt happened yet?

This idea that Nascar has this rule to save teams money makes 0.0000000000% sense. The rule to pit twice for tires/feul is just a gimmick. Having less people at the track saves money, having trucks pit twice does not.

Perhaps you need to edit your post, Dexter.

There was no yelling and screaming this morning... and I didn't hang up on anyone.

Prior to Jeff coming on, I stated my arguement, repeatedly. When I asked Jeff the question, he gave his take, as well as pointing out mine in the process. There was no need to repeat it.

Your last paragraph doesnt make any sense at all. Indulge me for a moment...

Let's say the average cost to transport a team person is $2,000 a weekend (you have to pay them, feed them, fly them, transport them, and house them). You have 25 races on the calendar... for 3 races (Charlotte and 2 Martinsvilles) lets reduce the number since many crew members drive there... say it costs you $1000 a crew person... here is how it breaks down.

1 person... $2,000 x 22 races = $44,000 + 3,000 (CLT and MAR x2) = $47,000.

2 people... (same math) = $94,000

3 people... (same math) = $141,000

While these numbers may sound small (compared to Cup), this money could mean the difference in racing or staying home... especially when you consider sponsorship is hard to find in the truck series right now.

Pitting 2x is a by product of the cost savings measure... because you are limited to only 5 people over the wall. You can't jack the truck, change the tires, and fuel the truck with 5 people.

Thoughts?
 

semipenguin

Cheeseburger Connoisseur
Oct 11, 2008
24,641
8,783
168
50
I'm not a Camping World Series Truck Owner, but I play one on TV...:right:

I never got that argument this morning. If the CWST Owner agreed to this, why does anyone have a problem with it?...:confused:
 

Bagman

Member
Oct 15, 2008
55
4
8
The ATL
I didn't hear Hammond's opinion on this subject but I heard Poole on there this morning and he brought up a good point while Bagman was stating his case. Bagman's response to the callers opinions of changing the new pit rules for safety's sake was that this new rule needs to play out first. Wait until something happens first. IMO Poole stated the obvious that you need to be proactive, not reactive. I don't think that Bagman meant it to come out like it sounded. I think that he was caught up in the moment that Poole didn't seem to agree 100% with him. That kind of thinking in NASCAR was pre February 18, 2001 mentality.

So, later they have on NASACR Camping World Truck Series Director Wayne Auton. He, Bagman and Pete Pistone were on the same page on this subject.

I thought many of the people were making valid points today but for the most part each were getting shot down. Pete Pistone was in for David today and seemed to totally agree with Bagman. It seems to me that if the co hosts of TMD agree with each other and you call in with an opposing argument, you're just wasting your time. :(

DP... Not at all. If someone would have presented a reasonable, valid arguement I would have acknowledged it.

Everyone called with... "We should'nt do this because what if this happens and what if that happens". That is not valid to me.

What if Dale Jr. or Smoke or J. Gordon wrecks on the 415th mile of the race Sunday? Is it NASCARs fault or the tracks fault because the distance is 427 miles this year instead of the 400 mile distance it usually is? No.

The rule was put in place to help teams survive, and in turn, the series survive. As I stated today (and gave credit to Moody for coming up with it)... Let's live in the land of IS not in the land of IF.

And also, NO ONE is putting a gun to the crew chiefs head forbidding them not to take tires or fuel. The team will decide it's fate. This is what racing is all about... competing within the rules of the sport... it's the same for all 36 teams that compete in the Camping World Truck Series every race.

If something goes askew and something happens, I am open to re-think this... and as Wayne Auton mentioned, so will NASCAR. But let's not change something that has yet to be proven ineffective... give the rule change time.
 

Bagman

Member
Oct 15, 2008
55
4
8
The ATL
I'm not a Camping World Series Truck Owner, but I play one on TV...:right:

I never got that argument this morning. If the CWST Owner agreed to this, why does anyone have a problem with it?...:confused:

Penguin... we dont know if there was a vote or if "majority ruled". NASCAR presented this to the owners and got buy-in from them... I dont know how many descented, if any. After that feedback session NASCAR made a judgement call that this was what was best for the series.

This is what Wayne Auton told us this morning.
 

semipenguin

Cheeseburger Connoisseur
Oct 11, 2008
24,641
8,783
168
50
Penguin... we dont know if there was a vote or if "majority ruled". NASCAR presented this to the owners and got buy-in from them... I dont know how many descented, if any. After that feedback session NASCAR made a judgement call that this was what was best for the series.

This is what Wayne Auton told us this morning.

Good Point. It was nice to have Wayne on this morning. I might have been distracted when that point was brought up...:)
 

jC...

Member
Oct 14, 2008
41
0
6
I love the fact they limit 12 people on the crew for the weekend. I think that is a great way to save the teams money. With that said......A normal pitstop allows 7 guys over the wall. That means there are still 5 guys on the other side of the wall to catch things. Its not like one of the tire changers throws his gun down and go gets ready to fill the truck up with fuel on the next lap. They already have 7 pit crew guys.....why make them go through this stupid gimmick?!?!?
 

SubmarineMike

Member
Oct 14, 2008
384
4
18
Jacksonville Fl
Bagman,

I only heard the first call on the subject today(stupid Turner Interactive and it's exclusivity online) I wil l say this he talked about allowing the same 5 guys to fuel ONLY after all 4 tires are changed on the sae stop. This achieves the same thing, less people at the track meaning less expenses throughout the weekend. I understand your point in letting this play out and to a point I agree but i would say if the most important people(the fans) don't like it it what good is the rule. That gentlemans point is valid woudl work and allow the cost savings. the byproduct of his change would be longer stops.
 
Last edited:

DexterMorgan

Active Member
Oct 22, 2008
1,224
14
38
Edmonton, Alberta
Perhaps yelling and screaming is an exageration. Raised voice and aggrivated would be more accurate. And "call us back when that happens, I dont want to hear it anymore. Line 1 your up" is pretty much hanging up on the guy isnt it? But with Jeff, I dont get why you didnt bring up the point of why the doom and gloom before it happens when you did with the caller before. Or why you didnt you get angry and tell him to call you back when somebody crashed his truck because of worn tires?

My thoughts regarding your math is that you are correct. Limiting the number of people you bring to the track and have on pit wall is fine. Up to the point where Nascar has the teams pit twice for feul and tires. Its like the yellow line rule, its a gimmick. You can pit the car in one stop for feul and tires. Once the team is done changing tires, you take 2 men and feul the car. It may take 35 seconds to do, but its doable. Everything up to pitting the truck makes sense except the coming down pit road twice. Its unneccsary.

Thoughts?
 

Sirius01_8

Member
Oct 14, 2008
284
0
16
why can't you have the guys changing the tires carry or roll the tires with them, the stop would take a lot longer but you could have the 2 guys that used to carry the tires, fueling the truck, may add 10 or 15 or more seconds to a stop, but you wouldn't have to make the second stop so when the rest of the field has to come in a second time you can stay out on the track.

Just a thought.
 

dpkimmel2001

Well-Known Member
Nov 6, 2008
2,876
53
48
PA
DP... Not at all. If someone would have presented a reasonable, valid arguement I would have acknowledged it.

Everyone called with... "We should'nt do this because what if this happens and what if that happens". That is not valid to me.

I never said that the rule should be changed. What I said was that IMO some of the callers had valid arguments and were being shot down. You can't argue that it make it more dangerous. More pit stops = more chances for something to happen. Racing is dangerous, period.

What if Dale Jr. or Smoke or J. Gordon wrecks on the 415th mile of the race Sunday? Is it NASCARs fault or the tracks fault because the distance is 427 miles this year instead of the 400 mile distance it usually is? No.

Doesn't have anything to do with this topic. If that's your argument, why race at all then?

Let's live in the land of IS not in the land of IF.

That's pretty much the definition of reactive! I'll say it again, that's NASCAR's pre February 18, 2001 mentality. I only wish that someone earlier than that would have said, What if we made the drivers wear the HAN's device? What if we installed these new SAFER barriers? What if we did more thorough inspections of drivers compartments? I hope that can put that in more perspective for you.
 

semipenguin

Cheeseburger Connoisseur
Oct 11, 2008
24,641
8,783
168
50
That's pretty much the definition of reactive! I'll say it again, that's NASCAR's pre February 18, 2001 mentality. I only wish that someone earlier than that would have said, What if we made the drivers wear the HAN's device? What if we installed these new SAFER barriers? What if we did more thorough inspections of drivers compartments? I hope that can put that in more perspective for you.

What about May 12, 2000? Or July 7, 2000? or October 13, 2000?...:confused:

Dale Earnhardt knew the safety benefits of the HANS device and closed face helmets, but chose not to use either...:worried:

I do agree with the SAFER Barriers. NASCAR was dragging there feet at the time, even after the deaths of Adam Petty, Kenny Irwin Jr., and Tony Roper.
 
Last edited:

yippeekyaa

Well-Known Member
Oct 21, 2008
1,107
64
48
I can see Uranus from here
Let's say the average cost to transport a team person is $2,000 a weekend (you have to pay them, feed them, fly them, transport them, and house them). You have 25 races on the calendar... for 3 races (Charlotte and 2 Martinsvilles) lets reduce the number since many crew members drive there... say it costs you $1000 a crew person... here is how it breaks down.

1 person... $2,000 x 22 races = $44,000 + 3,000 (CLT and MAR x2) = $47,000.

2 people... (same math) = $94,000

3 people... (same math) = $141,000

While these numbers may sound small (compared to Cup), this money could mean the difference in racing or staying home... especially when you consider sponsorship is hard to find in the truck series right now.

Pitting 2x is a by product of the cost savings measure... because you are limited to only 5 people over the wall. You can't jack the truck, change the tires, and fuel the truck with 5 people.

Thoughts?


All that math is great and cheap. But funny thing is i've watched the last 2 truck races and i've yet to see a single crew member changing tires while wearing the fueling apron and "sock" head protection required for the fuel man to wear. Do they change out of all that gear as needed between pit stops? If you say yes i'll publicly laugh at you. They still use 7 men pit crews, 5 for tires and 2 for fuel. I agree with this threads author that it was all a gimmick.
 

dpkimmel2001

Well-Known Member
Nov 6, 2008
2,876
53
48
PA
What about May 12, 2000? Or July 7, 2000? or October 13, 2000?...:confused:

Dale Earnhardt knew the safety benefits of the HANS device and closed face helmets, but chose not to use either...:worried:

I do agree with the SAFER Barriers. NASCAR was dragging there feet at the time, even after the deaths of Adam Petty, Kenny Irwin Jr., and Tony Roper.

I simply used that date to make a point. There are plenty of dates that could be used. There's no denying that it apparently took the death of Earnhardt for many of the things that I mentioned to happen. That's wrong that it took so long. It was that way because they only reacted rather than to look for ways to improve safety. It always seems to take tragedy in this sport to improve it.
 

DexterMorgan

Active Member
Oct 22, 2008
1,224
14
38
Edmonton, Alberta
All that math is great and cheap. But funny thing is i've watched the last 2 truck races and i've yet to see a single crew member changing tires while wearing the fueling apron and "sock" head protection required for the fuel man to wear. Do they change out of all that gear as needed between pit stops? If you say yes i'll publicly laugh at you. They still use 7 men pit crews, 5 for tires and 2 for fuel. I agree with this threads author that it was all a gimmick.

I agree with this. And not to mention if you have 12 people at the track, how is having only 5 people go over the wall saving money? The saving the money happens on the way to the track.

Oh yeah, and Rick Ren said the same thing Jeff Hammond said and the same thing that caller who got thrashed. I also liked how Rick talked about how the truck drivers are less experienced which may lead to more problems, a point that was brought up by a caller and deemed "offensive" by Mike and Pete.
 
Last edited:

mghtx

2000 Man
Oct 23, 2008
2,368
33
48
I really don't get the point of not being allowed to change tires and fuel on the same stop. So what if it takes longer because of less people on pit road? Why not a little longer pit stop instead of having to come in twice? Won't it even out anyway?

Frankly, the last two years, with the way nascar's been changing things.....I'm beginning to get a little worried about the truck series.