> > I never understood that kind of race either. I don't get the point of giving all the drivers cars capable of *exactly* the same thing - as you've illustrated, that leads to races in which all of the cars are wont to be in the same place the whole time. Races are much more exciting - and, to my thinking, much less a matter of luck - if the drivers have a bit of freedom over their cars.
>
> The problem is, then the race gets won by whoever spends the most money on their car. This way (theoretically) the best driver should win as all other factors are equal.

The only problem with that is that racing is a sport that is heavily dominated by the equipment. Yes, the quality of the driver does make a difference, but if we assume that all of the drivers are "good" (and, for the most part, they tend to be), then I have a hard time believing that there will be so severe an impact that the "best driver" will necessarily overpower the others. I think my opinions on this are borne out by the way in which these races are run - as Howard said, they all travel in a tight little pack around the whole track.

As for being won by whomever spends the most money - I don't agree. There is a point after which it stops being how *much* money is spent and becomes in what *way* money is spent. Race car drivers are not exactly poor boys trying to scrape together money to build a car by selling lemonade and cookies by the side of the road. These cars are (correct me if I'm wrong) financed by all sorts of big companies, that being why they're always plastered with advertisements for those companies. The companies get a major advertising boost, and, as such, are not exactly reluctant to finance a car, especially if they think it will be a winner. Money is not likely to be in short supply.

I used to play in Magic: the Gathering tournaments (several years back), and the same argument was used. "The game always goes to the person who has spent the most money." So they try all kinds of things to restrict the card pool, so people can't use that as an advantage. They limit the tournament to recent sets, which changes it from "whomever spent the most money" to "whomever spent the most money *recently.*" They try "sealed deck" tournaments - at which everybody buys the cards to be used at the door - which introduces a heavy amount of luck. Altogether, there's no way to make sure that money and luck aren't going the be the deciding factors. And, personally, I'd rather it come down to the person who spent the most money improving his game than to the luck of the draw.