I would also like to apologise for grammar and typos as I’m about to rush out the door and when I typed the red mist had came down, I was slightly irritated to say the least

Toyota Ruins NASCAR: What Needs to Change

Watching yet another Toyota win in the Coke Zero 400 at Daytona was the final straw. Toyota has taken NASCAR’s top series by force with no hope for the other manufacturers.

Clint Bowyer said it best in the Nationwide race, yet another series dominated this year by the foreign manufacturer. Bowyer said that the Toyotas just have too much power.

What I want to know is what NASCAR will do. This sport was built by great American auto manufacturers.

Toyota came into NASCAR’s top two series in 2007. Toyota spent TOO much money and hired all of the sports brightest minds, just ask team owner Jack Roush. In 2007, NASCAR introduced the Car of Tomorrow (COT) with hopes of lowering the cost for owners. Instead, due to NASCAR’s partial schedule with the new car, it left teams spending even more money to gather data on the new car.

This led to one of the most lopsided seasons in recent years, giving Hendrick Motorsports almost half of NASCAR’s 36 Wins. This year, through 18 races, Toyota has won seven times, Chevy four times, Dodge four times, and Ford three times. Looking at these stats is not all that bad until you break it down by driver.

Kyle Busch leads the series with six wins, the next closest is Carl Edwards with three wins. NASCAR shouldn’t have to scratch their head to hard to see that TOYOTA is the difference maker.

I don’t blame Joe Gibbs Racing for making the switch, after all they will probably lose the only championship driver they have to Haas CNC. But NASCAR needs to take a look at their campaign slogan for 2008, “Back to Basics”, and do something about Toyota’s dominance in the sport…

HERE the link to the rest of the article.

You really don’t have the resources to be giving out pieces of your mind, because you might need that for regulating your body temperature or remembering how to breathe.

Grow a pair. I don’t like puppies or communism, but I don’t try and hide my prejudices behind my journalistic credentials. I’m not actually a journalist, so I’m forced to be upfront about it, but even if I was, I would not pretend to be a greener version of Jeremy Clarkson.

On the other hand, if all of your work is constructed out of vaguely-connected buzzwords that have been roughly arranged into sentences – like 95% of the filler in your article (which, in turn, made up about 95% of the article itself) – then I’m clearly crediting you with an over-abundance of schooling.

Are the end of the day, what I’m really asking is this: do you actually believe what you’re writing (if so, more power to you), or are you just using a politico-environmental soapbox as your ticket out of obscurity? Reading the other stuff that you’ve attached to the article, like Andre Agassi – why? I cannot think of a person with less of a connection to Formula One other than the Pope – it’s clear that you fall into the latter of the two categories.

A tip for later in life: don’t just regurgitate public sentiment onto the page and call it your own opinion, and then make your actual opinions out to be some kind of common belief even when no-one agrees with you. You are not the vox populi. It’s unattractive, and from reading the comments attached to your article, nobody agrees with you. Go back to whatever tabloid newspaper or current affairs programme you came from, because at the very least, you’ll have an audience more suited to your level of intellect.

Okay, you stop reading there. Everyone else with an IQ above room temperature, continue:

Go back to whatever tabloid newspaper or current affairs programme you came from, because at the very least, you’ll have an audience more suited to your level of intellect. This is largely due to the fact that they lack the capacity to form their own opinions, and will just substitute yours as their own. But at least you’ll feel appreciated.