The Next Gen era in NASCAR reads like a manifesto for reinvention. It was a multi-year project born at NASCAR’s Research & Development center that aimed to drag the Cup car out of the incremental updates and into a single-spec, manufacturer-styling, cost-controlled future. What began as sketches and prototype “P3” tubs in 2019 culminated in the public unveiling of the Camaro ZL1, Mustang, and Camry bodies in 2021 and a full Series debut in 2022. It was a wholesale shift that replaced the Gen-6 era’s piecemeal evolution with one common chassis, independent rear suspension, etc., intended to cut costs and broaden manufacturer relevance. NASCAR and the OEMs trading data, late-stage tests at Richmond and Charlotte, and teams learning how to tune geometry and aerodynamics for a car that was intentionally less forgiving in close quarters became the norm. The second act was the chorus of drivers and teams saying whether the change improved racing or not.

In 2025, the Next Gen car is no longer an experiment; it is the baseline across the Cup garage. On one hand, the car produced a wider set of winners and more manufacturer-style competition, and NASCAR’s new “Insights” analytics have leaned into metrics that show tighter qualifying spreads at many circuits. On the other hand, vocal veterans have repeatedly argued that the car traded driver control and tactile feedback for mechanical equality. Denny Hamlin said that the Next Gen behaved “horrendous” at times and asked NASCAR before rollout if the package was really right. Kyle Busch and others have echoed concerns about the car’s aero sensitivity and composite-body behavior in dirty air. Through the 2025 season, the Cup list shows multiple first-time winners and a season where short-run parity rose compared with pre-Next-Gen years. These season stats explain why social debate around tumbling poll rates for races suddenly mattered.

On X, Jeff Gluck’s simple social-media provocation: “Was Watkins Glen a good race?” and the conversation that exploded from that binary poll made rounds on NASCAR forums. The split in responses laid the issue bare, with 72.1% voting “No” and just 27.9% siding with “Yes.” The poll history shows that Gluck’s question routinely surfaces split feelings, and at Glen, it compressed a season’s worth of technical threads. Some praised the tight battles and the emergence of drivers like Shane van Gisbergen, while others pointed to processions, weird wrecks, and incidents that looked more like parts failures or aero-induced separations than the kind of wheel-to-wheel skill that purists crave. And when you take that social verdict and open the box of what happened at Watkins Glen, the race itself reads like a case study for both sides of the Next Gen debate.

At the “Go Bowling at the Glen” Cup race in Watkins Glen, Shane van Gisbergen executed a clinical, measured road-course masterclass, building an 11.1-second margin, while other contenders ran into mechanical demons or simply couldn’t stick in the turbulence his car cleaved through. A pole by Ryan Blaney set an early tempo of the weekend, SVG’s pace and ability to extract consistent tire life turned into sustained green-flag dominance. One fan wrote, “One caution 5 mins after the spin I applaud the drivers for tight racing but that was boring as s— these cars need more HP they eleimanted all variables. pit road issues are the biggest game changer no bueno.” And that is exactly the growing concern of the community.

But finally, the human moments keep pulling the story back into perspective. Watkins Glen didn’t just produce a state sheet; it produced small, vivid anecdotes that underline the stakes. For many fans, the Next-Gen’s promise must be balanced against whether the on-track product gives viewers the drama they tune in for. Metrics and machine design suggest improvements in parity and wholesale modernization, but the lived race-day experience is what convinces fans week after week. For now, they don’t look very satisfied.

When polls speak louder than engines

One fan’s frustration cuts to the chase, saying, “Anyone tired of SVG will definitely vote no, but if you accept SVG as it is, as a true Nascar fan, you’ll still vote no Why? Simple: the car sucks. Xfinity was over a second faster in qualifying, truck half a second faster. It’s ridiculous that the premier class is the slowest. And yes there were some good battles, but the overall pace was truly awful.” For instance, at the Circuit of the Americas earlier in 2025, a Next-Gen Cup car clocked a pole lap of 1:38.08, while the Xfinity car outpaced it with 1:37.26. But there’s a reason for this. The Next-gen hardware generally runs slower pole speeds at road courses compared to the Gen-6 cars, like at Watkins Glen in 2023, which saw a pole at 125.298 mph, down from 129.466 mph in the Gen-6 car. These stats give real weight to the fan’s observation.

Another fan opined, “I get Gen 7 sucks, but so did COT. We are nearing that time frame where the next Gen car comes out aren’t we? Wasn’t it about 3-4 years until they switched?” The Car of Tomorrow debuted in 2007 and ran through 2012, with its formal replacement, the Gen-6 car, arriving in 2013. When COT first appeared at Bristol in March 2007, Kyle Busch, despite winning that race, famously griped that “it’s terrible… it’s hard to drive and hard to set up,” setting the tone for years of driver criticism.

Some others felt the frustration rooted in many insiders are observing, “I’m voting no this week and it has nothing to do with svg winning, he’s a great road course racer and deserves respect for that . I’m voting no cause of this car week after week we see it on ovals and road courses where this car can not pass it has become which crew chief can call the right strategy at which time and it falls less and less on the drivers cause what can they do when the car in front always has the advantage.” Crew chief Chris Gabehart bluntly explained that, “the car that’s leading is going to have an advantage over the car that’s in second,” because of the car’s aerodynamic design. Likewise, detailing how dramatically things have changed, Phil Surgen, crew chief of Ross Chastain‘s No. 1 car, noted that while the Next-Gen parts are standardized, the fine-tuning is anything but effortless.

But a growing chorus of discontent framed it as engineering failures rather than the track or driver, saying, “Next Gen is garbage, so until they decide to actually fix and improve the car, every race is a no. Saturday was awesome, nobody was surprised yesterday blew. Happy for Shane, but the car itself is the problem not any of the tracks.” Dale Earnhardt Jr., for instance, pointed out that components like low-profile tires, rear diffusers, and fade-resistant brakes erase the strategic elements that once made road-course battles thrilling.

These critiques echo what many fans feel: until NASCAR addresses the Next Gen’s intrinsic shortcomings, no amount of track wizardry or exciting events on the weekends will change the perception that the car itself still needs serious fix-up.