My Thoughts on the IndyCar Racing Memorabilia Market

By David G. Firestone

I had a thought this last weekend, and I have to ask this question. Does IndyCar know that the race-used memorabilia market exists? Based on the research I’ve done over the past few years, I don’t know it they do. NASCAR, the NHRA, Formula 1, ARCA, and even the SCCA have not only figured out that the market exists, but they’ve embraced it. IndyCar is so far behind, that I’m not sure the league, the teams or the drivers really understand that there is a market for race-used equipment and uniforms.

I wrote about this some time ago, and I wondered then, as I wonder now. What amazes me here is that not only do the teams not seem to understand that fans want race-used memorabilia, they don’t seem to understand that fans want team BRANDED items. HALF of the team websites don’t have store options, and of the ones that do, only one, Team Penske, doesn’t link to IndyCar’s website. Am I missing something here? Why wouldn’t teams want to sell their own merch?

Above and beyond the obvious, one would think that tires, the most expendable part of the race car, would make their way on to eBay. You would think that, but it never happens. I don’t understand this. What happens to all the used tires from IndyCar races? I’m not saying that every tire should be sold, but you would think that one or two might get sold to fans! As of this writing, of the hundreds of race-used tires on eBay, THREE OF THEM are IndyCar tires!

I’d like someone, and I don’t care who to explain this to me! Could someone from IndyCar, one of the teams, or Firestone to get in touch with me, and tell me why the race-used tires don’t get sold as memorabilia to fans. Do NOT try and tell me that you think fans wouldn’t buy them! NASCAR and the NHRA have shown that there is a market for race-used tires! EVEN FORMULA ONE SELLS OFF TIRES!

IndyCar and their teams should be run by smart people, yet whoever is in charge doesn’t seem to understand that there is money to be made from race-used memorabilia. It goes further than just tires. Engine parts, pit crew uniforms, driver uniforms, and damaged body panels all are in demand by fans and collectors, yet little, if anything ever comes to the regular market. Occasionally, teams and/or drivers will donate items to charity auctions and raffles, but a lot of memorabilia never sees the light of day.

This isn’t a situation where teams would lose money either. Race-used memorabilia is in such short supply, and much of the stuff that is on eBay has questionable authentication, if any. Teams could sell used racing parts, and uniforms with good authentication and make a killing! Yet only a few teams take advantage of the market. Do you know how much money you are leaving on the table?

I’m saying this because I’m a racing uniform guy, and a racing memorabilia guy. I would love to have more IndyCar stuff in my collection, but I can’t, because nothing is hitting the market. Every other sport in America has embraced the game-used memorabilia market, yet IndyCar, one of the most technologically advanced forms of motorsports in the United States doesn’t grasp this. If they don’t, it will be just another bad decision from an organization that has made so many over recent years. I really hope someone will wake up…but I’m not betting the farm on it.

My Thoughts On A Few Subjects

By David G. Firestone

Just a short one this week. A new development has me concerned. Last week, Jayski, which is my go-to site for paint schemes and NASCAR news became a part of the ESPN webpage. I’ve been going there every day, and they don’t seem to be updating their paint scheme link pages. I’m not that worried, I still have team sites, Facebook, NASCAR, and Twitter, so the tracker, and the grades will continue. I hope they start fixing the links soon.

I’ve also been working on a new website schedule. Basically everything is going to remain the same, but I’m going to compress my work setup, so I can get more done in less time. It’s been working well, I’m happy with it.

As I’m typing this, I’m watching Spring Training baseball. I’ve said before that I LOVE Spring Training baseball. It’s the MLB equivalent of getting a bunch of kids together and hitting the ball around in the street. It’s very laid back, and everyone is just there for fun. Stats and standings don’t matter. It’s simply fun baseball. I also love the road sign patches on the uniforms.

Lastly, for you energy drink drinkers out there, I have a new recommendation. Get some Kickstart Mango Lime. I didn’t expect much, but it won me over. It has a really good mango flavor, and the lime isn’t overpowering. It’s my new favorite energy drink.

My Thoughts On Why I HATE Watching Sports On Apps

By David G. Firestone

Streaming sports on app seems like a great idea. The capacity to watch the game on a phone, tablet, or computer when you are not at home for whatever reason should be a great thing. Over the last few weeks, I watched a few events via streaming, and I discovered that Fox Sports found a great way to fuck this up.

Whoever is in charge of the app streaming division at Fox Sports should be fired. After streaming three different events, two races, and the Super Bowl, I’ve realized that whoever is in charge over at Fox Sports either doesn’t understand the basics of advertising revenue, or if they do, they don’t care.

The first race I watched was the Rolex 24. I watched all 24 hours. Fox Sports Go had a setup where if you had a streaming service with Fox Sports, you could watch the whole race. Now this seems like a good idea, but after midnight, the commercials shifted to something called “Fox Sports Racing” which is little more than a Velocity rip off. It’s a channel that has auto racing, and car customization shows. I’m not going to watch it, but there are plenty of car guy and gals who might like to watch it. Here’s the problem: IT’S NOT AVAILABLE IN THE UNITED STATES!

Could someone please explain to me why in the world I had to sit through commercials for a product I can’t buy? Again, it isn’t my thing, but I would bet that there are people who would. To have to watch 3 or 4 of these promos every commercial break was enraging. It’s one thing to show commercials for stuff I don’t want, but can buy, but to force me to watch commercials for something I can’t buy is insulting. The thing is, as bad as this was, this wasn’t the worst.

Next, I watched the Super Bowl in its entirety on the NFL Mobile app. Now I get that while there are plenty of national commercials, but if you are going to put something in place of them on an app, could you pick more than two TV show promos? Every commercial break there was one promo for Empire, or 24. Apparently Fox doesn’t have any other television shows that they felt should be promoted during the biggest television show of the year. Watching the same two promos was enraging. Rather than alternating the two, Fox would play the Empire one over, and over, occasionally replacing it with the 24 promo. This was actually not as bad as what happened next.

On the way home on Amtrak, I was attempting to watch the NHRA Winternationals, and I had to turn it off. The Fox Sports Go app should be an easy thing to do. Just show the national telecast, with local commercials. This generates ad revenue, and keeps sponsors happy. Leave it to Fox to mess this up in the most idiotic way possible. Instead of showing said commercials, for whatever reason, the app would replace them with local Fox promos.

Again, why would you screw over advertisers in order to promote local programming? This makes no sense, it screws over and enrages sponsors, and fans hate it. It’s so nonsensical, it’s mind boggling! Who at Fox thought this was a good idea? Why was this approved? If the plan was to destroy the Fox Sports Go app, then it’s going well. I’m NEVER watching any Fox Sports programming on the Fox Sports Go app again EVER! I hope that whoever is in charge over at Fox Sports gets fired.

My Thoughts on Traveling in 2017

By David G. Firestone

For the last week, I’ve been in Tucson, Arizona. I go down there for a week to visit my family. I enjoy the trip down there, but I don’t travel much aside from that. For me, traveling is fun once in a while, but on a regular basis, it’s not for me.

Anyone who knows me knows that I traveled a lot when I was younger. While I did enjoy it, I don’t like sleeping somewhere that I’m not used to. My parents have a nice condo in Tucson, and it has a really nice bed, but I’m so used to The Hauler back in Evanston, that it’s hard for me to sleep. I’m also not used to giving up my night owl tendencies, since my job usually has me clocking out at midnight. I love my shifts at work, so clocking out late doesn’t bother me.

I also detest flying. I HATE FLYING! Flying is my big fear in life, and since September 11, everything good about flying has gone away. That is why I prefer Amtrak for traveling. All the stuff that is awful about flying doesn’t exist on Amtrak. The seats are big, and they are roomy. There are no restrictions on when you can use electronics, or go to the bathroom. You can bring your own food, and they serve meals. But my favorite part is the fact that the trip is much more relaxed, and you get to see a lot of cool stuff on your trip.

I take the Texas Eagle, which travels from Chicago to Los Angeles, and has a number of stops. You see a lot of rural areas, and a lot of stuff that you would never see flying. I made a video of part of my journey from Chi-Town to Tucson, and you can see it below.

Coming home from traveling is one of my favorite parts, because I can get back to my home, and see Alejandro, the official mascot and paint scheme consultant of The Driver Suit Blog. I’ll discuss my trip further over the next couple of weeks. The project that I was worried about actually happened, and I promise that racing fans will love it! Everything is back to normal, in terms of The Driver Suit Blog.

My Thoughts on NASCAR Changes For 2017, and a Site Announcement

By David G. Firestone

Last week, NASCAR announced that effective in 2017, races would have a new format. Instead of just running a 400 or 500 mile race, the new format states that:

• Races will now consist of three stages, with championship implications in each stage.

• The top-10 finishers of the first two stages will be awarded additional championship points.

• The winner of the first two stages of each race will receive one playoff point, and the race winner will receive five playoff points. Each playoff point will be added to his or her reset total following race No. 26, if that competitor makes the playoffs.

• All playoff points will carry through to the end of the third round of the playoffs (Round of 8), with the Championship 4 racing straight-up at Homestead-Miami Speedway for the title.

• Championship points following the first two stages will be awarded on a descending scale, with the stage winner receiving 10 points, second receiving 9 points, and so on.

• The race winner following the final stage will now receive 40 points, second-place will receive 35, third-place 34, fourth-place 33, and so on.

This is designed to make the races more exciting, and instead of just one race, there are three races in one event. Obviously, old school fans aren’t too happy about this, but let’s be honest, the old way wasn’t working. Race attendance and television ratings are down across the board. What that tells me, and tells most people, is that the on-track product is stale. As I said with the Days of Our Lives Vs. Megyn Kelly column, if the old format was working, NASCAR would go out of their way to defend it. NASCAR is a multi-national, multi-billion dollar corporation. They don’t have to lose money to make you happy.

I’m going to reserve my judgment on the changes themselves until midway through the racing season. I want to see the changes on track, and how the racing is, and then make my decision. This could be a boost that NASCAR needs.

Also this week, I’m going to Tucson for my annual visit. I leave on Friday, and I will return after a week. For that week, I will have a Friday Feature, and a Throwback Thursday, but My Thoughts On, the Tracker, and Paint Scheme Grades will skip a week. I may have a project for The Driver Suit Blog again, but I’m not 100% sure. I hope this works. I’ll see you when I get home.

My Thoughts on Presidential Signatures

By David G. Firestone

So in honor of the inauguration, and politics being the topic of discussion, I felt the need to do something, but I didn’t want to do anything political. I’m not political, but I am an autograph collector. I’ve been noticing that the quality of signatures have gone downhill, and I had an idea. I’m going to grade every president on how their signature looks. It’s a handwriting grade.

1. George Washington-The first of what is going to be a trend here, signatures that don’t look like the name of the person signing them. If I showed you this signature, and I didn’t tell you who it was, you would have no idea what you were looking at. I can kind of make out Washington, but it could be several other things. I don’t see “George” but I do see a “G.” I give it a D-.

2. John Adams-It’s a great signature, the handwriting looks good, and I can easily tell who signed this. I give it an A.

3. Thomas Jefferson-The man who wrote the Declaration of Independence apparently didn’t feel the need to add the “omas” in Thomas Jefferson. The signature reads “TH Jefferson.” The argument that the H was a middle initial isn’t valid, since Jefferson didn’t have one. Still the Jefferson is easy to make out, and it’s not that terrible, so I’ll give it a B-

4. James Madison-Ok, I can see that it’s James Madison. The “mes” looks like one scribble. Madison looks really good. All in all, it’s a decent signature. B+

5. James Monroe-Everything that I said about James Madison also applies here. B+

6. John Quincy Adams-Is that JQ Adams, or JJ Adams? It’s hard to tell. The Adams looks decent, but the penmanship does need some work. I’ll give it a B.

7. Andrew Jackson-Can I ask a question? Why do people feel the need to underline their signatures? It serves no purpose, adds an extra step, and it never looks good. Andrew Jackson has a great signature, but I don’t like the underline. It takes an A signature down to a B+

8. Martin Van Buren-Really? M. Van Buren? Is Martin too hard of a word to write? I get if this was a signature used occasionally, but I’ve been able to find no evidence that he ever signed his name as Martin.

9. William Henry Harrison-The penmanship is really good here, but, again, why would you not write “William Henry?”  Why just watch WH?  I would like to give this signature a higher grade, but our shortest-reigning President gets a C-

10. John Tyler-Why in the world are the J and the O below the rest of the signature? It looks really odd. The signature itself isn’t terrible, but the odd placement of the first two letters gives it a weird look. I’ll give it a B-

11. James K Polk-Huh? What am I looking at here? Like George Washington, if I didn’t tell you who this is, you wouldn’t be able to figure it out. I know that the letter in the middle is supposed to be a K but nobody would be able to identify that as a K. It’s an F signature for sure.

12. Zachary Taylor-Another thing that annoys me is a signature where two names become one word. Taylor signed his name while never taking the pen off the page. It looks odd though. It’s not terrible, but it looks odd. B+

13. Millard Filmore-You can tell who it is, but I’m a little put off by the fact that the FI sort of looks like a swastika. Yes I’m aware the swastika didn’t become the official symbol of the Nazi Party until 1920, but it still looks odd. Still it’s not terrible, so I’ll give it a B

14. Franklin Pierce-A little hard to make out with some pointless flourish on the F and E will take a B scheme down to a C+.

15. James Buchanan-One of my all time favorite presidential signatures. It has a nice look, you can tell who signed it, and every letter is easy to see. I give it an A.

16. Abraham Lincoln-It’s a good signature, every letter is clear, and it looks good. Another A scheme.

17. Andrew Johnson-While every letter is clear, and you can tell who signed it, the penmanship could use a little work. It’s still a solid A- signature though.

18. Ulysses S Grant-Let’s take every thing that annoys me about signatures, unreadable, you can’t tell who wrote it, can’t write the whole name, pointless flourish, and underlining and compress them in to one signature, and you have a signature worth an F.

19. Rutherford B Hayes-R.B. Hayes. While you can see every letter, it’s a little difficult to tell who signed it, since the R and the B look a little similar. Points are also deducted for not writing Rutherford, choosing instead to write simply R. All things considered, it’s worth a C-

20. James A Garfield-I don’t like the fact that the A and G are connected. The signature is good but those two little details take it from an A to a A-.

21. Chester A Arthur-Pointless flourish and a little too hard to read. It’s an A- scheme.

22/24. Grover Cleveland-While he did write every letter in his name, it’s a little hard to make out those letters. You can tell who it is, but the penmanship needs work. I’ll give it B+

23. Benjamin Harrison-I can make out the Harrison fine, but I have a lot of trouble with the Benjamin, since it doesn’t look like it says Benjamin. The penmanship needs work too. I’ll give it a C-

25. William McKinley-Why can’t people sign their whole first name? Why is that so hard of a concept? Add to that the fact that the last name would be unreadable if you didn’t know who had signed this, and you have an F signature for sure.

26. Theodore Roosevelt-He did write his whole name, but it’s such a jumbled mess that you can’t really tell the name. I can’t tell what the last letters are supposed to be. It’s not a good signature at all. F

27. William H Taft-Virtually unreadable is all that needs to be said here. It’s an F signature, and I’m being kind.

28. Woodrow Wilson-It’s a little hard to read, and while he does write every letter in his name, the penmanship does need a little work. I also don’t like the line on the N. I’ll give it a C+

29. Warren Harding-While it is technically possible to figure out who signed this, It takes some work, and since the penmanship is terrible, that makes it more difficult. While he does sign every letter in is name, its not easy to read. It’s a D+ graded signature.

30. Calvin Coolidge-While I can tell that there are two C’s, the rest of the signature is unreadable. The flourish on the E is annoying, and I give the signature a D+

31. Herbert Hoover-While he does write every letter in his name, it is a little hard to read, and the fact that it’s one word, with the cross of the T leading into the H is a little off-putting. The letters at the end of the name are a little jumbled as well. I’ll give it a C+.

32. Franklin D Roosevelt-The letters are all there, and it’s easy to read. My thing is with the R. Is that an R by itself, or is that an D and an R? It’s hard to tell. I’ts an B+ scheme.

33. Harry S Truman-While he does write every letter in his name, it’s not very readable, and the fact that it’s all one line is annoying me. I’ll give it a B-

34. Dwight D Eisenhower-This is an odd one, because for some reason Dwight and Eisenhower are two separate lines, but the end of Dwight and Eisenhower are connected. He does write every letter in his name, and it’s easy to see who wrote it, but the spacing is odd, and I’ll give it an A-

35. John F Kennedy-It’s next to impossible to figure out who signed this. I can kind of make out John, but Kennedy is next to impossible. Add to that odd spacing, and you have an F scheme for sure.

36. Lyndon B Johnson-Is that a signature or a cardiogram? It’s kind of hard to tell. It’s all one line, with scribbles for letters. I can’t tell who wrote this at all. I’ll give it an F.

37. Richard M Nixon-While the penmanship does need work, the letters are all there, it’s pretty easy to read, and it’s easy to read. No flourish, or underlining, and you have an A signature.

38. Gerald R Ford-It’s a little hard to read, but the letters are all there, and you can tell who wrote it. I’m a little confused by the left-to-right upward slant of the signature. It just looks odd. It’s worth a B.

39. Jimmy Carter-All the letters are there, it’s easy to read, the penmanship is good, the one thing that I find odd is how much higher the cross in the J is above the rest of the letter. Still, all things considered it’s worth an A.

40. Ronald Reagan-What I like about this signature is that the loops in the R’s remind me of Mickey Mantle’s signature. All the letters are there, and it’s easy to read. I give it an A.

41. George H.W. Bush-Unreadable, with a left-to-right upward slant. Another example of a signature that you can’t tell who signed it unless someone else tells you. I give it an F.

42. Bill Clinton-Yes, he wrote every letter in his name, and you can tell who wrote it, but the penmanship is awful, and both names are one word. I give it a C-

43. George W Bush-How can anyone tell that is supposed to spell George W Bush? It looks like a scribble. It’s unreadable, has a bad slant, and is all in all an F signature.

44. Barack Obama-I guess you could tell that is the signature of Barack Obama, because of the B and the O. The rounding of the B is odd, and the scribbles in “arack bama” aren’t good, so I’ll give it a C.

45.Donald Trump-Another example of “signature or cardiogram?” This one is much worse, because there is no way anyone could tell who signed it by looking at it. I’ll give it an F.

My Thoughts On Some Of The Sports News Pieces, And A Site Change.

By David G. Firestone

I’ve been following Carl Edwards’ retirement story since in broke on Tuesday. I knew I wanted to write about it, but as I was thinking, I realized that I had to say something to someone else. So I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to Brian Scott for what I said back in December.

For those who don’t remember, I slammed Brian Scott for walking away from his racing career to focus on “the next phase of his career.” I made my feelings known that I thought it wasn’t a great decision, and that he is making a serious mistake. After what happened with Carl Edwards, I realized how wrong he really was, and I felt bad for saying that. I realized that both Carl and Brian put a lot of thought into these decisions, they took what was the best decision, not just for them but their families. It seemed like a rash decision at the time, but with hindsight , it was the right decision. I wish them both the best.

The next item is the new blog format for The Driver Suit Blog. I thought the old format would work well, but what has been happening is that when I do paint schemes on different days, it changes the fonts. I hated the way it looked, and I tried everything to fix it. Seeing that the best option would be to change the entire layout, I made that decision. There are still some issues, but I’ll work around it.

Also, for the last bit this week, the San Diego Chargers became the LA Chargers. As such, they introduced a logo for the move, which didn’t go over too well. la-chargers-logo-2So since everyone else was having fun with their logo, I might as well too. Check it out.tdsb

My Thoughts On Outrage For Something Stupid

By David G. Firestone

I hate internet outrage! I don’t mind when the outrage is about a serious matter, but when the outrage is about something that doesn’t matter at all, it’s annoying as all hell! I read something earlier this week, and I heard the reaction surrounding it, and it boggles my mind on so many levels.

NBC is considering canceling Days Of Our Lives, which has been on since 1965 for a news show starring Megyn Kelly. For some reason, people are angry about this. Let me explain something to you who are mad: NBC doesn’t have to lose money to make you happy. The soap opera is a thing of the past, just like milkmen, and the evening newspaper. NBC is a for profit company, and if a show isn’t profitable, it goes away. If Days of Our Lives was as popular as people claim, wouldn’t NBC make every attempt to keep it on the air?

The television market is a constantly evolving market. Obviously the ratings matter. I’m amazed at people who think that what is profitable and what the market is showing to be profitable doesn’t matter because it’s not what they want. I’m sorry the world doesn’t work the way you want it to. Entertainment and technology are going to progress the way they are, and if you aren’t happy, then that’s too bad. Also, it’s not impossible that a cable channel could pick the series up. Stay tuned.

My Thoughts on 2017

By David G. Firestone

2017 is upon us. We all celebrated New Years in our own way. I celebrated my 35th birthday yesterday. I don’t make resolutions for myself, but I’m going to make some for The Driver Suit Blog.

*Politics is banned forever from The Driver Suit Blog. You come here to get away from the worries, and I will help you as I can.

*I will not make any major changes to the Driver Suit Blog formula. Everything will be the same.

*For current events, I will try to be as neutral as I possibly can.

*As promised, I will have a few Tailgating Time recipes for this year.

*I’m also going to work on a few videos as Friday Features. For some subjects, it’s easier to express certain things with a video than it can through text.

*If you send me an email, I will respond. I wasn’t as good as I could have been last year, you guys and gals rule, and I love looking up stuff for you!

*As always, I’m going to keep trying new projects, some for The Driver Suit Blog, some for my own enjoyment.

*Finally, as always, all are welcome here, no questions asked.

I wish you all the best 2017!

My Thoughts On NASCAR’s New Cup Series Name and Logo

By David G. Firestone

Big news yesterday, as not only was the new name for what was the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series was revealed, but NASCAR itself has a new logo. I can’t say I’m all that shocked about either, but I will say it did take NASCAR a lot longer than I thought it would to come up with a new logo.

Let’s discuss NASCAR’s new logo. The old setup was good, but it was designed in 1976, and really needed an update. It’s a much more minimalist logo, with a different font, and the color bar is much shorter. I have to say…I like it. The font looks much better, and while I liked the old color bar setup, this new design looks really good. It works well. I give it an A.

Now the new name…the “Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series.” I’m kind of surprised with that. It doesn’t roll of the tongue. It sounds almost like the name was a placeholder for something better. I thought they would have gone with the “NASCAR Monster Energy Series.” Traditionalists refer to it as the Cup series, and there had been discussions about removing the Cup from the name. In this case…it was the wrong move.

Also, why isn’t NASCAR the first word in the series title? Every series in NASCAR is the NASCAR X Series. In this case, Monster Energy is the first word in the title. Granted there is the Verizon IndyCar Series, but I’ve always thought it should be sanctioning body then sponsor. It sounds better, and works better.

Is the logo in the video the new series logo? Is the series logo going to be a black rectangle with the logo seen in the video? Is NASCAR moving away from the oval designs of the Xfinity Series, and Camping World Truck Series? If so, that would mark a return to the old Winston Cup logo patch design. This could work if the logo isn’t too big. But if the black rectangle is the new logo, it would have to be a little bigger for detail. This could work, or it could be disaster. I’ll reserve my judgment.

I also have to give NASCAR and Monster Energy credit for ruining what could have been a great press conference. NASCAR and Monster Energy held a massive press conference to reveal that a deal had been signed, but didn’t give any details on the series name or logo. Then, they basically used Facebook and Twitter to release a video declaring the new series name. It should have been reversed. They should have released a press release stating that a deal had been signed, and had the huge press conference to reveal the new series name and new NASCAR logo. I did not think they would mess this up as badly as they did.

We just can’t skip over this press conference thing. This should be the biggest moment of the off-season, and instead, it amounted to a little more than a press conference. The series could have had a great name and logo, but instead it has a terrible name, and a mediocre logo. NASCAR had so much opportunity to make this announcement great, but they screwed it up in every way possible. The new NASCAR logo is the only good thing about this. The ball was really dropped today. I can only hope that going forward, mistakes will be fixed.