NASCAR Explores Loosening Next Gen Car's Specifications to Rekindle Engineering Competition

NASCAR is actively considering a shift away from the strictly standardized "spec" nature of its Next Gen Cup Series car, a move that could potentially reintroduce a greater degree of engineering innovation and strategic differentiation among teams. This consideration comes as the sport grapples with feedback, including that from prominent drivers, suggesting that the current level of parity, while intended to level the playing field and control costs, may be inadvertently stifling dynamic racing on certain track configurations.

The genesis of the Next Gen car was rooted in a desire to reduce costs for race teams and create a more equitable competition. However, even before its full implementation, some within the industry, such as four-time Cup Series champion Chase Elliott, voiced concerns about the potential for excessive standardization to lead to procedural racing. Elliott articulated this sentiment to Motorsport.com, stating, "We’ve talked about this before, but for sure, the more we’re the same, the harder it is to be different. Everyone at this level is really good at driving these cars. Most of the tracks we go to, there is a preferred lane, and when the track gets rubbered in over the second half of these races, it becomes really difficult to do something different than the guy ahead of you since he’s in the optimal line."

This perspective highlights a core tension: while NASCAR’s data indicates an increase in passing statistics with the Next Gen car, the qualitative racing experience, particularly on tracks with a single racing groove, can sometimes feel less unpredictable due to the cars’ inherent similarities. The argument is that when the cars are too alike, and the drivers and teams have mastered optimizing them within a tight rulebook, the primary differentiators become track position gained through qualifying, pit stop speed, and strategic race management.

NASCAR President Steve O’Donnell addressed this evolving discussion during an appearance on "The Dale Jr Download" in October. He acknowledged the organization’s openness to adjustments, stating, "We’re always open to changes. The one piece I really look at, and I think our group does, we have this car and some things contained from a cost standpoint but what does everyone really like? The ability to tweak on the car and find an advantage to do something cool. What’s the next iteration of that? Now that we have the parts and pieces long term, maybe we look at race teams are making some parts again, some things we can open up."

Related News :

O’Donnell elaborated on the strategic balance NASCAR is seeking. "We give it a cost cap where we can open it up. But we’ve at least stopped the wasteful spending and now we want to get it back to where an engineer can come in and tweak on a car or an OEM can say ‘this is our IP and we want to try something’ from a new technology standpoint. We’re open to tweaking on it. We had the mindset of needing to stop the bleeding so now what can we do to keep making the racing better?"

This potential pivot has been met with a mix of enthusiasm and cautious optimism from those directly involved in the competition. Chase Elliott, while acknowledging the current reality, expressed a pragmatic approach. "So now, we’ve never had a bigger emphasis on qualifying and your pit stall, how fast that last pit stop is, and all those things," he noted. "It’s for sure a different time in motorsports, regardless. So, in my view, you have to learn to appreciate the challenges that we have today, because I just think they’re probably going to be a little bit different and, and probably going to be different forever."

When directly asked about NASCAR’s consideration of loosening specifications, Elliott stated, "It’s just hard to speculate because I don’t know what specifically he is talking about. Like, super casually, yeah but I just don’t know what he means."

Similarly, two-time Cup Series champion Brad Keselowski echoed this sentiment, emphasizing the need for specifics. "It’s hard to provide an answer without knowing what exactly they would want to do," he commented.

However, some crew chiefs have expressed a more definitive desire for increased engineering latitude. Adam Stevens, crew chief for Christopher Bell and the Joe Gibbs Racing No. 20 team, voiced strong support for the idea. "I mean, that’s interesting and I hadn’t heard that OD said that at all," Stevens remarked. "I would certainly be in favor of it. Even if I remove myself from the crew chief chair, and take the 30,000 foot view, when you have the ability to work on the car beyond the shocks, and springs, and set-up parameters, it creates competition, right?"

Stevens elaborated on the historical context and the benefits of engineering variability. "Throughout the history of the sport, at least in my time, somebody has a hot hand and someone doesn’t. You can be on the leading edge of the development curve and everyone catches up and you have to get back to work. It creates comers and goers, and fast cars and slow cars, people on the way up and down, with more areas in which to compete."

Despite his enthusiasm, Stevens admitted that identifying specific areas for liberalization was challenging without further details from NASCAR. "I would certainly be in favor of it but as far as areas where, I don’t know, but I would love competing in any area of the car with the equipment that I would be allowed to," he said. "Selfishly, that is part of the sport that I enjoyed immensely that is kind of gone. I know a lot of talented engineers, racers and fabricators are the same way. I feel like we’re missing that. If they would sprinkle some of that back in, I would certainly enjoy that."

Chris Gayle, crew chief for Denny Hamlin and the No. 11 team at Joe Gibbs Racing, also expressed support for exploring modifications. "We need to look at some of our underbody stuff," Gayle suggested. "Do we need to sit on the shocks. There are some areas they could open up that wouldn’t cost anything, that might would create opportunities, but it’s so hard to say right now without having a lot of time to think about it."

Rudy Fugle, crew chief for William Byron at Hendrick Motorsports, was particularly critical of the current car’s limitations, specifically mentioning the shock parameters. "Absolutely, yes, 100 percent in favor of opening some things up," Fugle stated. "There are plenty areas of the car that you could say, ‘whatever you want to do but don’t do this’ and ‘don’t change that’ to make things way more open. Right now, the car and the setup has been developed around the shock limiters, really. That’s how we keep the cars off the track and that’s created the entire setup around that."

Fugle believes that targeted adjustments could inject renewed excitement and creativity into the teams. "There are some things I think we could do that wouldn’t be very expensive, in my opinion, it would just take some development. It would be running sim and tinkering — more time than anything else. And that would inspire some of the groups at these race teams too. We have some burnout, going through the year, and we are so limited on what we can change, and with just a little but more opening of the rule book, that could get us excited and it would be fun."

Paul Wolfe, crew chief for the Team Penske No. 22 team, while not having prior knowledge of O’Donnell’s comments, shared the sentiment that a return to greater engineering freedom would be beneficial. "Well, I hadn’t heard about that or considered that it would ever be on the radar to open some things back up so I need to put some more thoughts into it to give you better answer," Wolfe responded. "But generally, I enjoy change and I think it’s healthy for competition."

Wolfe elaborated on the cyclical nature of innovation in motorsports. "When the rule book changes and evolves, it creates opportunity, and creates some separation with teams finding that speed early and then others catching up and surpassing them. I support anything that allows for that kind of competition," he said. "We’ve gone quite a while now with this generation car with things being pretty stagnant. Those of us who have been in the sport a long time enjoy the competition and creativity and I think the racing would definitely benefit from giving teams a chance to make some things happen or find advantages, even if it’s just for a short period of time."

The discussion signifies a potential evolution in NASCAR’s approach to the Next Gen car, balancing the established goals of cost containment and parity with the enduring desire for engineering innovation and strategically varied racing outcomes. The specifics of any proposed changes remain to be seen, but the conversation itself indicates a willingness within NASCAR to explore avenues that could reintroduce a greater element of differentiation and creativity into the Cup Series.