I don't agree with a lot of things NASCAR does, and it does bore the crap out of me. But I watch it....because its the only thing on. If Versus ran a dirt race opposite of a NASCAR race on Sunday, I think we all know what show we would be watching.
I think this fuel injection idea is being pushed by the big 3 car manufacturers. People look at Nascar as high performance, yet nothing on those cars are on the one they buy at the dealer.
To compare Nascar to what we watch at our local tracks is pointless. It's apples and oranges. No one would look at a cup car and a dirt late model and think they were the same. So why would you expect the same kind of racing? Cup cars are heavier, less horsepower (sometimes), smaller tires, different track surface and stricter rules. And all but 2 of the tracks they run are larger. So why would you expect the type of racing?
And for the people complaining that 10 cars finished from the 24 that started...... I did a google search for Nascar 1960's race results. Here is the first link I clicked.
http://fantasyracingcheatsheet.com/n...uthern-500/674
48 cars started and only 17 finished the race (I know it was a longer race). And 2 (yes I said 2) cars were on the lead lap. I don't see how anyone could say that is good racing. Who was the leader actually racing with. You can click around on that site and get more results from other tracks and years. And it's all pretty much the same. Never more than a handful of cars on the lead lap.
I don't think the racing has ever really changed. I think our standards have gotten higher and the racing just doesn't meet them anymore. We go to our local tracks and see 1 good race a month (be honest some of them are crashfests). And we expect to see it all the time.
I am not bashing anyone on here, not at all. I agree with almost everything you guys have said. Something needs to be done before network TV drops them and we are watching races on the History Channel. But to say it was better or different in the "old" days, just isn't true.