“Monopoly Needs Competition:” Calls Mount Against Flawed NASCAR Entry System as Fans Await New OEM

When NASCAR first began, any local racer could ‘buy into NASCAR’ for a nominal fee. In early stock-car racing’s formative years, entry barriers were minimal. Regional drivers would bring modified production cars to tracks and, after meeting basic safety requirements, race alongside established names. As Jimmie Lewallen recounted, Bill France Sr. once offered him the chance to “buy into NASCAR” for $500 at NASCAR’s founding meetings, an anecdote that illustrates how accessible the series was to passionate independents.

By contrast, NASCAR’s current OEM approval process is significantly more rigorous than in its early decades. The transformation began gradually as NASCAR pursued manufacturer involvement, homologation standards, and parity requirements. Where once a driver’s determination and a trusty stock body sufficed, now prospective manufacturers must design bodies with “elements of a passenger vehicle,” endure wind-tunnel and computational fluid dynamics testing, and demonstrate parity in extensive testing cycles. This shift coincided with the introduction of charters in 2016, Next Gen car templates, and centralized R&D, measures aimed at cost control and competitive balance.

“Our goal is to get to Cup a year after that (Truck return). Now, everybody has told me we’re crazy, there’s no way you’re gonna get there, but we think there’s a couple of things from our legacy that might speed that development time up,” Ram CEO Tim Kuniskis said in an interview with Kevin Harvick. Although Ram is expected to turn up at Daytona in the Truck Series next year, a return to the big leagues might be a steep climb. 18 months to be exact and they also need a team that they can rely on.

As Bob Pockrass noted on X, “18-month process to get NASCAR approval to race because of the requirements that the proposed body has elements of a passenger vehicle and then wind tunnel and parity testing to make sure equal to other manufacturers. Plus the other manufacturers have simulators/tech centers.” This lengthy, resource-intensive process favors deep-pocketed OEMs and entrenched teams, undermining opportunities for smaller entrants.

Possible avenues to introduce competition might include revisiting the extent of parity constraints, e.g., offering scaled wind-tunnel allowances or tiered testing paths for new OEMs, or creating a transparent manufacturer-entry framework with milestones and shared R&D facilities. Historical OEM entries illustrate both sides. Toyota’s 2007 Cup debut required clean-sheet engine development and initial struggles (only one top-five finish in 36 races), yet their long-term progress validated that new entrants can succeed if given structured support.

Now Ram’s arrival marks the entry of the fourth manufacturer in the national series, yet given the lengthy process, they aren’t likely to return to Cup racing in 2027. Remember, they will need to match the resources and the facilities provided by the likes of Toyota, Chevrolet, and Ford, and without a team ready to bank on them, it can be a herculean task. Every OEM has a big brother team, and Ram would want a solid project that they can trust. But the fans didn’t understand the forced delay to an engine manufacturer who is likely to add value and competitiveness within the Cup garage.

Fans debating over NASCAR’s entry monopoly

“All for equal fairness but the NASCAR monopoly needs competition!” reflects a widespread sentiment about how the current structure favors incumbents. The charter system (introduced in 2016) guarantees spots for 36 charters, making it difficult for new teams to secure consistent entry. Purchasing a charter can cost upward of $15 million, erecting a steep financial barrier. Fans see this as a form of monopoly. Without easier paths, emerging teams or OEMs cannot challenge the status quo.

“Come on already. This sport has been hemorrhaging fans for the past 15 years.” Behind this frustration lie documented viewership declines. NASCAR Cup averages fell from over 7 million viewers in the mid-2010s to around 3 million by 2023, and season finales reached record-low ratings in 2018. Fans attribute part of the decline to repetitive fields and a lack of new brands or independent teams challenging established outfits, reducing unpredictability that once drew wider interest.

This reaction targets the requirement that race bodies resemble production models. “‘Elements of a passenger vehicle’—this is complete Bullsh–! Toyota don’t have a passenger car like they race at all! And look at the Supra in Xfinity! This is a damn JOKE! C’mon, do better.” In reality, NASCAR uses silhouette templates. The Next Gen Cup car preserves OEM “DNA” in styling cues, though underlying chassis and aero are standardized. The Toyota Supra in Xfinity is a silhouette body built abroad, but NASCAR mandates that the external sheet metal reflect production likeness. While fans see hypocrisy, the rule aims to maintain brand identity. However, stricter clarity or relaxed windows for new entrants could address perception gaps.

“More NASCAR, stupid. Sounds like a government, not a racing organization.” This criticism references the extensive rulebook, wind-tunnel limits, and parity enforcement, which can feel bureaucratic. NASCAR’s regulations (published internally) cover every facet, from chassis templates to aerodynamic coefficients. While these aim to ensure competitive balance and safety, fans argue the layers of approval for new entries contradict racing’s open-competition ethos. Historical contrast- early NASCAR’s minimal oversight fostered innovation, today’s heavy regulation is seen as overreach.

One fan reaction echoes Bob Pockrass’s point about lengthy approval. “They want more manufacturers so bad that they’ll sabotage the cars but won’t take steps to expedite the process of getting on track because ‘parity’ or something. News flash: Toyota sucked when they first started too and we got to watch them learn and get better.” This echoes Bob Pockrass’s point about lengthy approval. Toyota’s entry story, initial struggles followed by gradual improvement, demonstrates that early underperformance is acceptable if a clear development path exists. Fans argue NASCAR should design entry policies that allow similar “learning curves” for new OEMs rather than imposing prohibitive up-front requirements under the banner of parity.