- Kimi Raikkonen will make his NASCAR debut at Charlotte Motor Speedway.
- He will race in the North Carolina Education Lottery 200, a Camping World Truck Series race.
- The 2007 Formula 1 champion will drive a Kyle Busch Motorsports Toyota Tundra.
CONCORD, North Carolina — Finnish racing star Kimi Raikkonen, the 2007 Formula 1 champion, will make an unlikely racing debut tonight in the North Carolina Education Lottery 200, a NASCAR Camping World Truck Series event, at Charlotte Motor Speedway.
He will drive a Toyota Tundra fielded by Kyle Busch Motorsports under entry of Raikkonen's ICE1 Racing organization.
Raikkonen, 31, is presently racing in the World Rally Championship, driving production compact cars modified for racing on roads of varying types in a variety of conditions, from snow and ice to winding mountain gravel roads.
Raikkonen has had two test sessions in NASCAR equipment, one at the half-mile Gresham Motorsports Park in Jefferson, Georgia, and another at the 1.017-mile Rockingham (North Carolina) Speedway.
The sessions were brief, but it didn't take long for veteran NASCAR crew chief Rick Ren to form an opinion.
"We only ran about 50 laps [at Rockingham] because it was obvious we didn't need to get much more out of this test," Ren said. "The kid definitely knows how to drive."
Raikkonen is hardly the first F1 driver, the first European or the first nontraditional stock car racer to give NASCAR a try. But he may well be the most intriguing, and not just because of his sponsor — Perky Jerky, "the ultra-premium jerky flavored with a hint of guarana," according to product promotion.
He walked away from F1 after the 2009 season, waiving the last year of his contract with Ferrari after three successful seasons with the Scuderia. He was replaced by Fernando Alonso. Since then, he has confined his racing to rallying.
Inside Line says: The Iceman earned his nickname both from his cool driving style and his even cooler, flat-line persona — which contrasts sharply with his reputation as a party animal. He's the polar opposite of the fan-friendly stereotype established in NASCAR by the likes of Richard Petty. — David Green, Correspondent
Add A Comment »
kikibobo says:
12:29 PM, 05/23/2011
I caught the initial practice on Friday for the truck series race.
Raikkonen's truck was wicked loose. A lesser driver would have crashed the thing numerous times.
It'll be interestine when Hamilton and Stewart trade cars at the Glen this year.
dgmail says:
03:19 AM, 05/23/2011
They put him in a Toyota?
He is DOOMED!
andy999 says:
08:43 PM, 05/22/2011
@ akula1 . . .
I think that "Rosetta Stone" may offer a "memory retention" and "comprehension" course that would benefit you tremendously!!!
At NO POINT AND TIME, have I ever suggested within my two comments previously submitted to this post, or any other post, that NASCAR drivers could automatically succeed or even effectively compete in F1!!!
The original comment which I posted, was simply describing the fact that many of the F1 loyal who use their daily energy "bashing" or "mocking" other racing series, most often NASCAR or others running mostly ovals, . . . generally suggest that "oval" drivers don't have to use high skill and that they simply "turn left", which "IS" ridiculous. At no point, have I ever suggested that a typical NASCAR driver would have an equal skill set to an F1 driver, . . . and I'm not quite certain as to where you've come up with that "dig". I did mention Raikkonen's 15th of 36 finishing position in his debut race, because it does illustrate that it takes more skill to finish well than simply "turning left". The "winning" vehicle for the same race was built, prepped, and set up by the exact same team, which clearly shows that he was driving top tier equipment. The crew chief which Raikkonen had been directly working with, Rick Ren, is likely the absolute best in that particular series, with numerous wins and championships with various drivers. If racing on an oval, and especially in NASCAR, happens to be as "skilless" as many people commenting on the blogs claim, then "WHY", after two separate test sessions prior to this race week, and then multiple practice sessions with a top tier team and equipment at Charlotte prior to the race, did Raikkonen not run in the top 5 throughout the race and compete for the win (when he WAS racing winning quality equipment)? THE ANSWER, . . . because it takes a high level of skill, talent, and specialized experience to run in the top 5 or win in a NASCAR event, or any professional oval racing series. Kimi did show a lot of promise and speed on the initial starts, which is critical to be competitive for wins in a NASCAR related series, and he certainly drove well throughout the race. If he chooses to run more races, and adjusts to the different driving style, he will probably win at some point, perhaps often.
High downforce, high speed racecars, like an F1 machine, do take extremely well skilled drivers to pilot them and be competitive. I, myself, have NEVER suggested or claimed any different.
There do happen to be, MANY persons who comment on the blogs, that claim that any series that is not F1 is sub par and irrelevant, and shouldn't be taken seriously or respected (and NASCAR related series typically get the most "bashing"). This would be similar to someone suggesting that a Corvette ZR1 is a horrific piece of trash, simply because it's not a Buggati Veyron or McLaren F1.
Every professional racing series requires highly skilled drivers to propel the vehicles at their highest possible competitive speed. High downforce and low downforce cars require completely different approaches, and obviously, ovals are driven completely different than an autocross style road course event. I do believe, that there are a handful of NASCAR drivers who could do well in an F1 machine with the proper development process. Regardless of how people view his personality, Kyle Busch has shown the best car control of any driver in NASCAR's modern era, has won road course races, he is abnormally driven to win in anything that he drives, and he's physically fit, as well. I think that AJ Allmendinger would be a great candidate as well, given his CART/Champ Car experience and clear talent shown when driving NASCAR race vehicles, which shows the ability to "adapt". Jimmie Johnson also shows great car control and reflexes when a race vehicle is set up "on a razors edge", so to speak, and he's shown talent in the Daytona Prototypes, which again shows the ability to adapt to a new situation. Certainly, not the majority of them. But, likewise, just because someone has driven an F1 car successfully, it doesn't necessarily indicate that they would have guaranteed positive results in a full bodied, heavy weight, low downforce car, even when the equipment and team is strong.
I do believe, that the entity of NASCAR itself, has chosen to allow over saturation with excessive pre race and post race coverage, and related television and radio shows literally EVERY day of the week. And, some of the promotion elements are "creative" at best. However, even those who watch NASCAR events, can choose how little or how much they want to watch or listen to.
Even the F1 series itself, which many claim as the holy grail of racing, has its fair share of "quirks". When reality TV gurus, Simon Fuller and Simon Cowell, are being summoned for their advice on how to approach and operate the dynamics of a race weekend, . . . well, . . . who knows.
I personally enjoy multiple forms of auto racing, including F1, . . . and I simply don't understand the extreme motivation that many show in expending extra effort to disparage or malign a racing series that doesn't directly cater to their interest.
akula1 says:
02:04 AM, 05/22/2011
@andy999
Get real. Comparing the amount of skill required to pilot an F1 car and a 'stock' car is ludicrous. Any F1 driver could step into a 'stock' car and not kill himself and likely even be competitive. Most NASCAR drivers could not do the same in F1, not a chance. Assuming they would even fit. There's perhaps a handful w/ actual open wheel experience and they coincidentally tend to do well versus the pack. Jeff Gordon, Tony Stewart, etc.
Using Raikkonen's race position or Montoya's to indicate their driving skill being on par w/ any NASCAR driver is so logically flawed it's ridiculous. So I guess we can just plop the fastest driver in a slow car w/ a slow team and win? Yeah right.
Stop equivocating. A chimp was the first American in space. I guess it was just as good an astronaut as John Glenn right? Your logic is RIDICULOUS!
Sorry but the one NASCAR event I've been to in my life was neither entertaining or exciting. I was at least expecting to be drawn in seeing it live. Sadly not so. The tech is dated and far from interesting apart from reading about Smokey Yunick's 'exploits' in a book.
Is NASCAR racing? Yes. Is it a competition? Yes. Does it require some skill? Yes. Is it comparable to F1? Hell NO!
I can tell you one way I can quantifiably compare the two series. By the number of squared off tires from Watkins Glen. Another is by putting the respective drivers on a scale!
It's nice you like your Crown Royal but don't pretend you're drinking Lagavulin.
andy999 says:
05:13 PM, 05/21/2011
NASCAR racing vehicles had to evolve, because of the fact that the speeds had increased rapidly. Yes, cars could be mostly "stock", and modified versions of "stock", when the speeds were well below 150mph, with lap speeds even much lower than that. If a genuinely "stock" car with a rollcage hits a wall at 180 to 200mph, the car will break up into sections, and large portions of that car will make their way past the catch fence and into the stands (injuring and killing spectators), your driver field will thin out very quickly by way of radical injury and death, . . . and then shortly thereafter, . . . that racing series will no longer exist. For those who aren't aware, . . . most NASCAR teams were starting to build tube frame chassis cars as of 1966 and onward. The "stock" looking bodies were simply reassembled over the framework of the chassis. Yes, it is certainly true, that the appearance was much more pleasing than what people have seen within recent years. But in all fairness, they are in the process of working toward more "stock" looking race vehices, with better individual brand identity. Individual brand identity has been lacking, really since the early 2000's, even well before the current COT platform car they are currently using had been implemented. The "Nationwide" Series cars are a strong step in a "better" direction, however, supposedly by 2013 the top tier NASCAR series will have vehicles which even much more strongly resemble cars on the dealer lots. I believe, that NASCAR understands that they went too far in an overly "bland" and "generic" direction with the original body constraints of the COT platform car, . . . but, they are working toward correcting that aspect. In a current time with heavy government regulation and intervention, as well as an endless supply of "hungry" lawyers, . . . you will likely never see genuinely "stock", or even heavily modified "stock" cars in a legitimately "high speed" oval racing series, at least not in the U.S. or Canada.
It's much more feasible for modified versions of "stock" looking cars to be used in road racing and autocross type series, (Grand Am, etc . . . ) where the cars rarely see excessive speed due to hard turns and braking zones. The spectators are usually not so close to the cars at speed, lowering the risk factor when a car destructs, and there is usually plenty of open space for the "energy" of an out of control racecar to dissipate, as opposed to an oval where the cars run very close to the wall and grandstands. The majority of the time, even during an intense crash, the largest portion of a modern chassis NASCAR race vehicle stays intact, even if smaller components come off. When the car stays mostly intact, it "usually" stays on the ground and out of the catch fence. Retaining walls, and catch fences work very well with open wheel type race cars which have a radically reduced "metals" content, mass, and weight. Where an open wheel car can break apart and be retained, it would be much more difficult to retain moving portions of a destructing genuinely "stock", or modified "stock" car which would weigh 3200 to 3500lbs. It's like catching a baseball at 100mph, versus catching a bowling ball at 100mph. A purpose built racecar is a "must" in current times.
High speed, full bodied vehicle oval racing has unique challenges to overcome in modern times. The fans demand maximum entertainment and speed, and the "powers that be" demand maximum safety for the drivers and spectators over vehicle appearance. Perhaps, there may be a "happy" medium in between.
Also, . . . I'm pretty certain, that the lackluster economy has been fairly influential in the attendance decline at NASCAR races. The top three racing series in NASCAR combined, run either side of 90 races per year. It's difficult to fill the seats for that many races. In contrast, it's relatively easy to gather a large crowd for an international racing series, which happens to run their race in a different country nearly every event, and also when the annual schedule is modest with race dates.
NASCAR is certainly flawed, . . . as is "EVERY" racing series on the planet ! ! !
Most people who watch NASCAR events do so, because of the fact that it's the most popular form of auto racing in North America, and they're entertained by it, . . . NOT because they have an illusion of the cars being stock. The upcoming racecars gaining a more "authentic" appearance will simply be a needed and welcomed bonus for those persons who enjoy it.
Just offering the facts . . .
cz_75 says:
01:36 PM, 05/21/2011
NASCAR is doing a lot to degrade itself, based on declining attendance, most of which is probably related to their focus on hokum and marketing products (i.e., the official pain reliever of NASCAR, etc.), as opposed to good racing. Their "car of tommorrow" is a joke and might have just reinforced in Bubba's mind that there's nothing even remotely "stock" about stock cars, as if RWD V-8 2-dr hardtop Camry and Taurus labeled race vehicles didn't before. Stock car racing started with real vehicles prepped for the track and should revert there.
andy999 says:
12:36 PM, 05/21/2011
" I think he means, he can turn left real good. "
So, . . . what, . . . we're suppose to mock any racing series that runs on an oval???
My observation has been, . . . that in order to keep any fast racecar (from nearly any series other than Indycar, perhaps) propelled in a forward and leftward turning direction, a driver has to make several quick right hand turns per lap, timed correctly, and without over-correcting. Suggesting that a professional driver who runs an oval doesn't have to use driving skill, because the car itself is not making right hand turns, . . . IS RIDICULOUS!!!
F1 great, Kimi Raikkonen, finished 15th (of 36 entries) in winning quality equipment in his first NASCAR racing event. Definitely, a respectable showing, . . . but it's not as "easy" or "skill free" as many of you claim it to be . . .
I'm sure that Mr. Raikkonen has a new respect for "turning left", as you call it.
Typically speaking, most NASCAR and other "oval" series supporters don't "bash" or "mock" F1 or other forms of international motorsports. However, it has become extremely popular for select groups to do everything within their power and influence to degrade NASCAR, and other series running mostly oval tracks. Double standard? Definitely.
Perhaps, some of you should cool off, while sitting underneath the "artificial rain" with Bernie!!!
gtrguy2012 says:
12:21 AM, 05/21/2011
He can drive? I think he means, he can turn left real good.
cz_75 says:
09:46 PM, 05/20/2011
Perhaps, but the money is definitely there and he won't be straining himself as much. I wonder if he'll fit Indy cars into his schedule too?
akula1 says:
01:24 PM, 05/20/2011
Oh god, what a waste of talent.