The NASCAR world was shaken after Connor Zilisch used a popular racing podcast to question FOX’s broadcast team and Kevin Harvick over controversial technical advice aired during recent races, especially involving the Kevin Harvick NASCAR controversy. Zilisch criticized the on-air claims regarding throttle use in Ford cars, arguing that misinformation could mislead both fans and professionals alike.
Controversial Claims on FOX’s NASCAR Broadcasts Spark Backlash
During a recent episode of the Door Bumper Clear podcast, the spotlight shifted to Kevin Harvick, a notable presence in NASCAR and former champion, after he suggested on a FOX broadcast that drivers were intentionally running corners at “90 percent throttle,” supposedly gaining horsepower by not holding the throttle fully open. This statement rapidly gained traction in the NASCAR fan community and led many viewers to regard it as technical fact.
Connor Zilisch directly addressed these claims, stating that such advice is outdated and inaccurate in the modern era of NASCAR. He emphasized that the era of carbureted engines is long gone, and today’s race cars simply do not benefit from partial throttle application in corners as suggested. Zilisch used the platform to dispel myths and assert that all Ford drivers are in fact running at wide open throttle during races, countering Harvick’s and FOX’s assertions.
“Can we talk about the broadcast and qualifying and the fact that the Fords are all doing 90 percent? Don’t get me wrong, but Kevin’s raced for 25 years and for him to be saying, ‘The Fords are running 90 percent throttle; they get more horsepower at 90 percent throttle.’ We don’t have carburetors anymore. Dude, they are wide open.”
— Connor Zilisch, NASCAR Driver
This quote captured the growing frustration felt by drivers and insiders, who believe the network’s misrepresentation of technology clouds the reality of racing, especially for newcomers and long-time fans alike.
Dissecting the Data: FOX Graphics and Throttle Myths Challenged
Zilisch continued his critique by digging into FOX’s on-screen graphics, spotlighting the segment which displays the throttle percentage used by drivers during qualifying and races. Specifically, he flagged the misleading nature of the SMT data (Sports Media Technology telemetry), arguing that these numbers do not reflect real throttle inputs but rather inaccurate telemetry, especially for everything except the Cup Series vehicles.
He explained how, for Truck Series and O’Reilly Auto Parts events, the broadcasted throttle data is generated from GPS estimates, not actual measurements. This misleads the audience and creates confusion about how drivers are actually performing, leading to erroneous conclusions about teams’ strategies and car performance.
“But at least, I mean, the Fords have been 90 percent throttle for years. Can we at least just calibrate them so they show 100 percent throttle and don’t throw everyone for a loop?”
— Connor Zilisch, NASCAR Driver
Zilisch’s comments highlighted not just frustration with misinformation, but also the technical errors behind the scenes, emphasizing that simply recalibrating sensors could solve the public confusion. For several years, as he explained, the use of so-called “fake” data has complicated fan understanding of what actually happens on the track.
“Why did the Truck broadcasts and qualifying still have the SMT fake throttle percentage? Like, when they lift in the middle of the corner to 75 percent throttle on the data and it shows on TV, why are we showing that?”
— Connor Zilisch, NASCAR Driver
Adding to the mounting criticism, Zilisch questioned why broadcasters would continue to air dubious data, knowing it does not reflect the real-time telemetry from the actual cars—particularly those outside the premier Cup Series, such as the Trucks and Xfinity Series. Instead of representing the nuances of modern motorsport, he argues, FOX’s approach only confuses the issue further.
“FOX, if you are listening, you have to get rid of the SMT data for qualifying. That’s not real, the throttle percentage. Only Cup has the real data, where it’s like the real throttle percentage; the Trucks and Xfinity cars—it’s literally just a made-up thing. So, like when they slow down into the corner, because the cars slow down, SMT thinks you are lifting. It’s all GPS. When they show that, in qualifying, it’s not real data.”
— Connor Zilisch, NASCAR Driver
The Science and Misconceptions Behind the “90 Percent Throttle” Theory
FOX’s insistence on broadcasting incomplete or inaccurate telemetry has reignited debate about how NASCAR teams and media outlets explain technology. According to Zilisch, the idea that Ford or any other team would deliberately run at 90 percent throttle for performance gains is a myth. Instead, he argues, the actual confusion arises from the way telemetry sensors—specifically, the Throttle Position Sensor (TPS)—are calibrated in the cars.
In many cases, the telemetry displayed to fans is based on the butterfly valve angle inside the throttle body, which controls airflow into the engine. When the TPS reads a 90-degree angle, the valve is fully open, but the broadcast may show this as “90 percent” rather than “100 percent,” because of how the data is interpreted and displayed. As a result, fans might falsely believe drivers are deliberately holding back the last 10 percent of pedal travel for a performance edge.
Within the Ford camp, it is believed that their TPS calibration sometimes leads to the “90 percent” figure showing on broadcasts. Yet, this is not a conscious strategy by drivers, nor is it a performance trick; it simply reflects calibration differences, not real world racing decisions. Therefore, Harvick’s comment and the subsequent broadcast graphics have only added to the haze, with no confirmation or clarification coming from Ford, Ford Racing, or NASCAR officials themselves.
While there is some technical merit in exploring throttle modulation for fuel saving during certain race laps, Zilisch emphasized that there is no universal advantage and that engine performance curves are highly non-linear, varying with events, car setups, and even specific engine RPM ranges. In theory, running at “90 percent” could aid fuel consumption, but it is not a widely-used or proven approach.
The absence of a clear statement from Ford—whose iconic Mustang entries and V8 engines, like the older Roush Yates units on display in Mooresville, North Carolina, remain a focal point for fans—means that rumors about pedal tricks continue to swirl. However, the broader consensus among drivers and engineers is that current telemetry issues originate from calibration, not secret technical advantages or skillful pedal work hidden from the cameras.
Broader Impact and What Comes Next in the Kevin Harvick NASCAR Controversy
The broader debate over the Kevin Harvick NASCAR controversy reveals enduring questions about how motorsport stories are communicated to the public. With teams like Team Penske, Roush Fenway Keselowski Racing, and legendary drivers such as Joey Logano, Ryan Blaney, and Kevin Harvick himself at the forefront of the sport, clarity and accuracy in technical details are of paramount importance for both fans and professionals.
Persistent confusion from the misreporting of telemetry data, especially around high-profile events like those at Homestead-Miami Speedway or Daytona International Speedway, suggests a need for improved cooperation between broadcasters, NASCAR officials, and the manufacturers. Ensuring that the truth about car performance is accurately presented not only maintains fan trust but also protects teams’ competitive strategies from unnecessary scrutiny or distortion.
In the coming months, with the build-up to major races and championships, stakeholders across the sport—including corporate arms like Ford Racing, technical staff, drivers such as Chris Buescher, and fans—will be watching closely for substantive explanations or changes in how television broadcasts handle complex data such as throttle metrics. Should Ford or NASCAR release a clear statement, or if FOX overhauls their approach to data graphics, the landscape of broadcasted motorsport analysis could change significantly.
Until then, the dialogue between experienced racers, broadcast teams, and fans will likely remain contentious—amplified by emotional and turbulent outbursts from those directly affected by misleading information. The Kevin Harvick NASCAR controversy serves as a timely reminder of the need for precision, honesty, and a focus on educating as well as engaging those who care most about racing, from Daytona Beach to the stands at Homestead and beyond.
