Nascar

Home  \  Motorsports  \  Nascar

.
.
Someone please help me understand this racing. I don't follow much of any car racing and am quite ignorant to these rules in NASCAR. I comment on NASCAR as I recently viewed a "documentary" on this sport and only caught some of it.

:2cents: Why is it so intriguing to follow this racing that restricts horsepower...is so regimented in body size, and SHAPE...and all that goes with it? It doesn't grab my attention as it seems the participants are all out racing in essentially the same car? What is the point the manufacturers see in this (other than the "fame" in being that the NASCAR champ drove a car badged with Ford or Chevy...) venture? To see who can better tune a car that can only have a certain amount of horsepower and weight?

It would seem to me (as ignorant as I am to this racing stuff) that a more interesting style of racing of the NASCAR style would be to lift all restrictions except those that limit engine size (V8's, V6's, V4's) and have the manufacturers tune their cars to their liking...no limits on horsepower...suspensions...mods.

The only restriction is that it should all fit into a body and frame that is a production car. (crash safety in racing included obviously) If Team Hyundai keeps killing off their drivers for lack of safety, then it would presume their lack of knowledge in the safety side of manufacturing and hence the population would shy away from Hyundai's...and so on.

Am I too far off here? Give me some comments and tell me where I'm off on this. There is certainly a lot more to this than I have alluded to...I'm just getting the conv. started.

Thx. Bav.
.
.

posted by  BavarianWheels

It's just anotyher one of the racing sports that grab attention because of the speeds they race. Some tracks they can reach speeds up to 200+mph and others (like Daytona and Talledega) are ristrictor plate races that restricts the amount of air flow into the carb limiting horsepower and speed. It does get boring because they only turn left (unless they're racing on one of the 3 road courses) and most of all, It's actually kinda fun yto watch them crash. Every race is almost garenteed to have either a breakdown, blown engine, or crash. Some of the crashes are huge (like at Daytona in 2001 when Dale Earnhardt Sr. died) and some are just fun to watch. depending on the area, it will be fun to watch really fast cars take 40 degree banked turns at well over 100mph. Atleast this is why I watch it. And yes, I'm a Dale Earnhardt Jr. fan. I used to be a fan of Sr. but now he's gone (RIP).

posted by  Satty101

.
.
My point is not that they go around in circles (although it is valid) but that all the cars are the same. How does a fan say...Chevy is better...when the Fords are set up the same and just happened to cross the finishline on the bumper of the Chevy? Both cars a doing well over 200mph...but the real race would be to see that Chevy engines are tuned better and just blow out the competition both in horsepower (speed) and handling.

This cannot be said in the different manufacturers since they are all essentially the same under the body.
.
.

posted by  BavarianWheels

Actually the engines have different makers. Ford engines are made by Rouch, The Dodges are Mopar, and some of the Chevys are running Hentrich (I think. see Quaker State oil commercial to see the name) and the rest are running Chevy crate engines I believe. Not sure about the ci's though.

posted by  Satty101

So then where is the "pride" in Ford or Chevy if the engines are made by aftermarket tuners? I don't understand.
.

posted by  BavarianWheels

I really don't think there is any pride in it except for knowing the driver you spent millions of dollars on for the sponsership won the race.

posted by  Satty101

I'm just sad about north american racing now days. Due to my age i missed out on when it was good back in the old school days, where the term "stock car" actualy meant a stock car that you could go buy at a lot and race. I don't really know why they even call it stock car racing anymore, the cars are pretty much as far from stock as you can get. I'm hoping that one day they will bring back true stock car racing, although if ever they do, i seriously doubt it will be as competative as it originally was. Also I don't think that companies will make cars specifically for racing like they did before just to beat out the competition.

posted by  Vaspier

no, they are not the same, they all have to adhere to certain rules, but they are far from copy-cat cars with different engines stuffed into them


because they are still Ford or chebby engines? because anyone can buy those same parts from those manufacturers?


there has never, ever been anything "stock" about a stock car, you could never buy one of those same cars off of the lot and expect the exact same thing from it

posted by  asa67_stang

.
.
Never? Where and why do you think it came to be known as "stock" car racing? Did stock have a different meaning back in the day?

And you can't tell me they're not the same cars under the skin. If a Chevy is limited to 400hp and a Ford is limited to 400hp...don't you think the team is going to get it right at 400hp? And what about those restrictor plates? Why "restrict" a race car? Where is the logic in that?

They may be made up of different manufacturer parts, but all the engines are essentially doing the same amount of work and producing the same amount of power.
.

posted by  BavarianWheels

Stock car racing was started by moonshiners who modded their cars to outrun the law, so while the body was stock the motor and suspension were not, as you know if you put two guys together who both think they have fast cars their gonna run 'em(thats how nascar was started).There is also no limit on horsepower just the components you can use to make that horsepower.

posted by  itslow

I like how when Ford intoduced the Taurus Nascar, NASCAR officials made Chevy tune down their engines because Ford couldn't keep up. I think NASCAR made both Ford and Chevy tune down their engines when Dodge came back into the race. :screwy:

posted by  Satty101

.
.
Tune down a race car. Hmm...now what logic is there in that? :screwy: :banghead:
.

posted by  BavarianWheels

my thoughts exactly... isnt the point to have a more powerful, and faster car? if ford cant keep up, isnt that their problem?

posted by  mazda6man

Whats a V4 dude ive heard of a Stright 4 and Flat 4 but never a V4 care to explain and if there is such thing can you give me a car that has a "V4"

posted by  Car Guy

I'm not spending my money on V4 to give to you :fu: I'll give you an example of a V4 though - Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4 Turbo.

posted by  snoopewite

the reason ford was given help, is because they haven't had a new cylinder head design in around eleven years(because nascar wouldn't allow it) they are supposed to introduce a new design this year that Nascar finally said they could do. It's basically a play by their rules or don't play at all, where else are teams, drivers, and manufacturers gonna go where they can get this kind of money and exposure. I agree they should be more leniency in what they're allowed to do, but if they did that the big money teams would walk all over the smaller teams, they're has to be rules. :mrgreen:

posted by  itslow

Not only that, but aftey is at stake too. They have to limit speeds and dangerous driving (cutting people off, passing below the yellow line, etc.) so people don't die in every race.

posted by  Satty101

Safety will always be a big issue and the danger will be there no matter what improvements they make. Hopefully with the new "soft wall" technology and the improvements they've made to the cars we won't see too many more deaths. What I find intriguing about stock car racing is that the best man should win, the cars are as equal as they can get them so in theory the best drivers will rise to the top. I see no fun in watching cars just following each other, I want to see side by side with the cars banging the hell out of each other and thats what nascar offers. The biggest problem I have with nascar is that the people in charge don't always have the same rules for all drivers but anytime you have humans involved your going to have inconsistencies(did I spell that right :doh: ) Oh well I guess i'm done babbling.

posted by  itslow

Here you go "Car Guy"...next time ask a sarcastic question you know there is no answer to. Never heard of a V4? Probably because you still have no pubic hair!

http://home.clara.net/peterfrost/zaz.html

Also...apparently Ford made a V4 that Saab used back in the 60's in one of their vehicles. O will find a link on that for you also.

Safety in racing...why is it that the Europeans can put on a race with 3 or 4 different categories of cars...some quite a bit faster than others...and still remain just as safe...if not safer...in doing so? It shouldn't be an issue. If there is a car dominating the field because of better engineering or whatever, it shouldn't be penalized because it is better. The losers will soon learn and catch up. And really...so what if there are a lot of crashes and deaths...this would only weed out the weak...it's called survival of the fittest.

Edit: added link http://www.saab-v4.co.uk/images/engine/gallery.htm for a Saab V4 engine.
.

posted by  BavarianWheels

whats intriguing about watching one car dominate a race,the nascar rules aren't perfect but it keeps a pretty level playing field.

posted by  itslow

Dude im 16 and ive heard of a Stright 4 Flat 4 V6 Stright 6 V8 V10 V12 V16 W8 and Chevys new Stright 5 but i never head of a V4 but i was wrong pretty cool ....Im assuming its no longer in production?

Edit: added link http://www.saab-v4.co.uk/images/engine/gallery.htm for a Saab V4 engine.
.[/QUOTE]

posted by  Car Guy

Car Guy, how about a straight-three, a flat-six, a straight-eight and a W16?

posted by  snoopewite

yep, the Geo Metro 3 cylinder. BIG POWER!!!! :doh:

posted by  Satty101

Satty101, I was talking to Car Guy about engine configurations and not the ****ing power output of the Geo Metro :fu: Please don't butt into a discussion when you don't fully understand the finer points :doh:

posted by  snoopewite

otay :cry:

posted by  Satty101

Oh yea the new Honda gas/electric cars have a stright 3 and i remembers the W16 but i never knew there was a stright 8 cool know of any car that had that engine?

posted by  Car Guy

it depends on your meaning of "stock"
http://www.nascar.com/2002/kyn/history/evolution/02/06/stockcar/
there has always been tweaking and tuning, but if you don't count that, then yes, you could say they were stock

and different engines make power different ways
they might have a peak power of 400, but one might top out at 7000 RPMs while the other might top at 6000, what about the torque curves? etc.
plus there are things like how well the builder does on putting it together, and when i said they aren't the same underneath i was talking about everything, suspension, frame, drivetrain, everything

posted by  asa67_stang

google is your friend

posted by  asa67_stang

Damn, I didn't mean to make you cry... sorry :ohcrap:



Here's the straight-eight engine that was used in 1934-1936 Cadillac La Salle models.
http://www.car-nection.com/yann/Dbas_eng/ENG36LS8.JPG

Buick, Bentley, Mercedes and Daimler are other companies that I know of that have produced cars with straight-eight engines, but I don't know of any straight-eight models that are rolling off the production lines today.

Here's another "straight eight" :laughing:
http://altura.speedera.net/ccimg.catalogcity.com/210000/210900/210906/Produ cts/7064925.jpg

posted by  snoopewite

First you begin with some attitude...and when your shone the light, you hide behind your "age" and claim ignorance when "authority" was in your tone above.


Maybe you can start realizing why you get picked on...and I'd go as far as to say that you get picked on by your classmates too.

Are you a red-head and a step-child too?
.

posted by  BavarianWheels

IT was not moonshiners that started stock car racing, although some were experienced runners/drivers/mechanics. :laughing: This is a long link to read, but I'm sure some of you have read it.
http://www.decadesofracing.net/TheBeginning.htm

posted by  lectroid

1st of all I dident have any attitude I was just wondering what a V4 was. I only said i was 16 to answer your childish remark regaurding pubic hair! 2nd of all I am not picked on at school stupid ***. And NO I do not have red hair and both my parents are still together and they both are my birth parents ***!!! :fu:

posted by  Car Guy

.
.
Back to the topic of NASCAR...
.

posted by  BavarianWheels

did anyone watch the race or even catch the ending of it yesterday? Thats why I watch Nascar it doesn't get any closer than that.

posted by  itslow

I was watching my 33 TIVO'd Seinfeld shows yesterday.

Tell us and if there are pics...post them. :)
.

posted by  BavarianWheels

hit up ESPN sportcenter
it was a win by literally several inches

posted by  asa67_stang

Good close race, but how long did the second place car trail the leader by inches before pulling to the side for a pass?

The frustration with me is that I can only watch circular follow the leader so long. There has to be some sort of passing going on...and not passing dependant on the number of followers that allow the leader to be overtaken by simple aerodynamics in otherwise equal cars.

BORING

IMHO :)
.

posted by  BavarianWheels

It was side by side racing the whole day, 2 and 3 wide, the last 30 laps kept me on the edge of my seat, but I guess you gotta be into there is a helluva lot more than just running in circles all day as some people think. :mrgreen:

posted by  itslow

Oh yeah, and aero does not play a very big part at smaller tracks such as Rockingham there were several cars that were beat up and still able to run fast.

posted by  itslow

don't forget Bristol

posted by  Satty101

basically any track a mile or shorter, aero is not nearly as important as it is at the superspeedways. I went to the Bristol night race one year it was killer, we were front row right before the start/finish line. I had rubber all over me it was great.

posted by  itslow

I wont even comment...it's just too easy. :banghead:
.
.

posted by  BavarianWheels

Rubber from the tires, their Hotshot :oops:

posted by  itslow

As a road racer and autocrosser, I shouldn't like NASCAR, but I do. NASCAR is ostensibly about the cars, but the fact remains, it is, and always has been about the drivers, and the fans.

Rules for NASCAR, as are rules for pretty much every racing class, are designed to keep the cars pretty even so that driving is the focus, not who has the most dominating car. To this end, specifications are drawn up to keep power to weight pretty similar, engine types similar, etc. If youcan't unsderstand why everyone runs what sems to you to be an identical car, then you probably have a problem watching Formula Mazda, Formula Ford (ine of the more important breeding grounds for road racers worldwide), Formula Atlantic, Spec RX7, Rabbit Cup, Porsche Cup, etc.

As for going around in circles, That's for spectators. Just like the old Roman Chariot races, an oval or circular amphitheater is easiest to seat people in to see the whole event. And at the local level it is easier to set up a circular or oval track in a small footprint at a county fairgrounds. It can then take on the same kind of feel as a horse racing event, a dog track, a human foot race, etc. By keeping the racing similar as you come up from easy-to-set-up local tracks to major national level super speedways, fan bases for particular drivers can easily grow, as well, and the drivers remain easy to talk to. That's part of the huge popularity of the sport. The drivers may be good driveers, but unlike, say F1, where the drivers are verging on being primadonnas and divas, the NASCAR racers are still the "guy next door."

posted by  ChrisV

Oh, and speaking of engines, besides the Ford V4 mentioned (used in a lot of European Ford cars, such as the early Taunus and the early Capri, as well as in a number of older SAABS), there was a series of Lancia V4s, most famously in the Fulvia series. The engine in the Fulvia was a lot like the VR6 in the new VWs, as it was a narrow enough V as to have only one head. This is unlike the Ford/Saab unit that was essentially a shortened V6.

As for straight 8s, in the early '30s, both Deusenberg and Stutz had aluminum inline 8 cyl engines with DOHC and 4 valves per cylinder. In production in the US! So anyone saying aluminum multi cam, multi valve engines are high tech and modern is wrong. ;)

posted by  ChrisV

Maybe initially...but it progressed to include manufacturers bragging rights.


My point is that keeping this uniformity is boring. For now...they are "experts" at setting up a boring looking "town-car" to race. Indy, at least it seems, is the epitome of true racing as those designs are the best design for speed, handling, efficiency, while still incorporating the mechanics to do it all. (of course this is only my ignorance speaking as to being "the best" design.)

IMHO, NASCAR should be about racing "stock" cars that are production vehicles. The body should be altered to make racing safer, but not changed so much as to not be able to tell what make/model it is. Teams (if not directly under a certain manufacturer) should freely choose their make/model of their choice and stick to solely that manufacturers parts/engineering. If I'm going to race a BMW e28 M5 on the NASCAR circuit, it better damn well look like an e28 unmistakeably (sp?). It better be using 100% BMW parts and engineering. Things like tires aside...I think you know what I mean.


I understand the circles thing. What I find boring is watching the "same" car 40x going in circles and passing only because there's some cars behind the passer "helping with aerodynamics" and 90% of passing is in the same part of the track.

I hope you understand my position better. I don't "hate" NASCAR, but I do find it a bit annoying. If I come across it on TV...I normally stay and watch.
.
.

posted by  BavarianWheels

I understand. But then, it's far less uniform than Formula Mazda, Formula Atlantic, Spec RX7, Rabbit Cup, or Porsche Cup, where all the cars actually are the same. What you see is who is the best driver, not who has the most to spend on their car.



Fair enough. Although I see the "stock car" nomenclature as a way of differentiation it from the Modifieds, Super Modifieds, and sprint cars. Kind of like in road racing, how the "production class" sports cars have very little production car in them anymore, but they are still not formula cars or sports racers.

GT cars used to be closed cars based on street cars in road racing. So were the Trans Am racers. Now they are fiberglass bodied, tube frame cars that barely look like the production cars they are supposed to look like. But they are still differentiated from the formula cars and prototypes.

DTM did the same thing. Originally ,they were production cars with racing bits. now they are barely similar to the street cars visually, and pretty much not at all mechanically.

Pro Stock drag cars are the same way. Pro Stocks used to be factory based, now, not even close. Funny cars used to be factory cars wityh altered wheelbases. Now, one body shell can be stickered to look like just about any car on the market.

That's the way racing goes, regardless of what genre.

posted by  ChrisV

Agreed.

While the banter of differentiating opinions is fun, I in no way am trying to say "NASCAR sucks" in my opinion(s). It is merely what I would find as more interesting competition in racing. It could very well have a different "flag" waving over it. I could be watching the wrong racing and need some more channels added to my cable line up...
.
.

posted by  BavarianWheels

Hehehehe. As long as it's cars competing, I'll probably find it interesting. But even to me, most racing is interesting to do, and not as interesting to watch. I love autocrossing, but don't really like watching it. Usually, watching racing just makes me want to be behind the wheel... ;)

My favorite to watch is WRC, but I don't follow it close enough to discuss it formally. I watch NASCAR, but I don't have favorites. I just understand what it takes to be successful at it, and enjoy watching them battle for that success.

posted by  ChrisV

Hey Bav, Im a pretty big NASCAR fan, and somehow, I managed to read this whole thread before I posted in order to gain hindsight. Yes, Ford, Dodge, and Chevy (and even Toyota in the truck racing) are all after bragging rights. BUT.....

1)Why they arent stock cars anymore.
This is of course because of performance ceilings setup by NASCAR officials. For example the air hoses of trucks were I think limited to only 2.75 inches in diameter instead of 3.75. This was done because the 2003 Dodge was owning everyone and other trucks couldnt keep up. So what I mean by this, is that they are not stock because, youre right, they want to adhere as perfectly as they can to performance restraints, obviously a stock car cant so this. For real when was the last time you saw a 2004 Taurus with a carburetor. As a result engineers make everything but a stock car.

2)Why there are performance caps?
1. Safety, at some tracks cars can reach 205 miles per hour, it doesnt take a physicist to know that a collision at those speeds stands a good chance of killing someone, I mean do the math 205 mph is more than a quarter the speed of sound. By having a car that could go, say 300mph, at Kansas Citys track you could not mathematically stay on the track due to centrifugal acceleration (I did the physics behind this), you would need a kinetic friction coefficient of 1.26 (which is impossible you cant have more than one), and be right at the bottom of the track in one of the turns to not the wall, since this cant happen , performance restraints keep Dale Earnhardt Jr. from seeing his dad again too soon.
2. Nascar takes many other things into account than, for example, German touring races. On those kind of races the car is generally put through much less stress. Speeds can vary between 45-250 mph depending on the class as you were talking about earlier. But Nascar races rarelygo below 160. Thats pretty damn rough on an engine if youre driving 400 miles in an afternoon. SOOOO, the pit crews, fuel technicians, mechanics, and all the other people involved in racing have to work fast too. Sure touring cars get new tires in the middle of a race, but how often do they get almost entire overhauls in a 14 second period during a pit stop. Matt Kenseth, even admitted on Wind Tunnel (Speed Channel) that he was an average driver. He said he won because his pit crew almost always got the job done in less than 16 seconds every time, so that he could get back on the track. Pits are yet only one other factor that lies outside of racing, directly.

SO, yes theyre not stock, and yes, they have performance caps. But those are all done to encourage engineering strategies, pit crew work, and most importantly safety. TO conclude, I dont care what anyone says NASCAR kicks ass, and so does Harvick.

posted by  67Pony

First of all, thanks for taking the time to address this.

Ok...do you realize that "performance restraints" is an oxymoron of sorts in auto racing? My point is why limit performance. If the Dodge was dominating the race, that simply means Dodge is doing something that is better and shouldn't be hindered. Seems pretty silly to "restrain" a car in RACING because it might leave the rest behind. I think rest of the field would be "up to speed" the next season...or even the next race. Makes for better racing.

"Safety?." You mean to say that these "professional" race car drivers can not control the power of the race car that they are driving? You mean to say that because they have the power and speed to do well over 200mph on the track that they will "lead foot it" all the way around the track? Please, give me a break!!! I drive a car that has the potential of doing well in excess of 130mph and I've been driving for a few years now. No accidents, no speeding tickets...Do you get my point? If Dale Ernie's dad was killed in an accident due to high speeds...it must be chalked up to a dangerous choice in careers. Nothing else. There could be fault placed on other drivers...certainly...but that is the chance he or any race car driver...from the novice up to and including the professional takes each and every time they hop into the driver's seat of that race car.

"Racing is rough on the engine." Now that is a good one! Now along side P.E.T.A. (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals)...we can have the first office of P.E.T.E. (People for the Ethical Treatment of Engines).

"All done to encourage engineering strategies." It seems it's all done to discourage engineering strategies. NASCAR is trying to keep racing (their racing) in "their" box. The forumla for better racing should be to let physics and human capabilities dictate the limits.

I hope you realize that I am not trying in any form to say that NASCAR sucks...I quite enjoy watching from time to time. I just have a hard time understanding the logic behind the limits placed on racing.
.
.

posted by  BavarianWheels

Hopefully I can address some of your questions...




You might think so, but the point is not to promote higher and higher costs, but to keep the cars fairly even so that the focus is more on drivers and teams, rather than equipment. While there are manufacturer based rivalries, this is still a sport where the drivers are followed from local fairgrounds events through regional and then national venues.

Again, think of it as a national level version of spec racing, like Porsche GT3 cup, or Rabbit Cup, or Formula Mazda, or even Formula Atlantic, where the rules are meant to make the cars not only equal , but identical. That's still racing, even if it doesn't encourage individual manufacturers to make cars better.

Every race series where the rules allow equipment manufacturers to play on a relatively unregulated playing field watches costs go through the roof. NASCAR rules keep costs down considerably, especially when you look at the costs of fielding a comptetetive team for it vs, say, F1.



Your concerns are not those of the regulating bodies in ANY racing field. Sorry, but safety needs are part of every racing series. Grooved tires are meant to slow F1 cars down.Same with any number of other rules they have (like no ground effects, etc). Groub B cars were banned from World Rallying.

Safety to the driver and safety to others at or near the track is a big part of rules regulations. Youre statemtns about car control mean that you think no good driver has ever crashed in ANY racing venue. Watch F1. The supposedly best drivers in the world with the biggest budgets and best teasms. often they can't get through the first turn of the race without a major pileup. Yes they ALL can control their cars. But thay all are also racing.

What do you mean "give you a break?" ALL rqacing driver giving 100-110% are going to be not only ON the edge, but PAST it, and accidents happen! Are you saying becaeu you haven't crashed a race car, you're a better driver than Ayrton Senna? Nikki Lauda? Gilles Villeneuve? Mario Andretti? Dale Ernheardt?

Here's a quote from Gilles Villeneuve:

http://www.ddavid.com/formula1/images/vill14.jpghttp://www.ddavid.com/formu la1/images/vill_txt.gif

posted by  ChrisV

Bav, i know exactly where you are coming from. I feel the exact same way. I just can't seem to understand why they limit everything like they do. If one of the major factors in nascar is seeing your favorite auto manufacturer win and beat out the others, then why limit them to be nearly identical? I know when I heard that dodge was getting back into nascar, I got excited because my favorite company was gonna be racing again. After about a day that wore off because i realized that it really doesn't matter, the cars all look the same, sound the same, drive the same, and go the same speed. That is why I said in my previous post that that is why i miss old stock car racing. The companies fighting it out with eachother to get the better car and engines and win the races. It wasn't just a bunch of guys racing identical cars on a oval over and over. It had another layer to it. That is my opinion though, and why I disllike NASCAR as it is today.

posted by  Vaspier

Apparently you didn't get the point. The point being is that I know I have the power and speed under the hood to do 130mph (at least), but when and where to use it is the difference between intelligencia and idiocy!

To give "110%" I hope you don't mean wreckless. And who gives a rip if there are pile ups coming to the first corner...the intelligent driver/team would either have the power to muscle to the front...or...God forbid, wait for the idiots to crash and go around and catch up...seems quite logical to me...OH but wait...all the cars are exactly the same so there would be no chance of relying on engineering superiority would there?

Higher costs? To whom? To me, the fan? I watch it for free on the tube.

If the focus "should" be, as you put it, on the drivers and the team...why don't those drivers and teams race at the L.A. Marathon instead of using cars as their medium...if that is the priority? Or...hey I have an idea...instead of engines...lets have the team push the car for the duration of the race and the driver just sits inside and directs the car around the track at the "teams" top speed! That then would make it all about the team and the driver.

Here's my favorite:

Isn't that the whole point? Another oxymoron of the thinking of NASCAR racing.

I'll restate my point on safety. Add as much safety as you want to racing...add it into the racetrack...the car...but to limit the cars ability TO RACE is simply against the whole point in racing.

As for the quote from Gilles Villeneuve...He needs a translator following every time he opens his mouth to speak English.

Please take this as me playing the Devil's Advocate on this. I don't have any "beef" against you personally or your thoughts. (as they do seem to sit comfortably on the side of the typical NASCAR enthusiast)
.
.

posted by  BavarianWheels

OPINION ON NASCAR RESTRICTIONS

1. Vehicle body size,LxWxH and tire size must meet safety standards
2. Frame construction must meet safety standards
3. Driver safety restraints must meet safety standards
4. Head gear and body suits for driver must meet safety standards
5. Any driver must be 21 years of age and submit to grueling psychological and physical exams

Leave the power plant out of the equation, and then I would LOVE to watch NASCAR :2cents: I shouldn't say power plant :oops: The gasoline engine is what I meant.

posted by  lectroid

I dont think I understand Bavs point and vice versa. If you dont like the racing that Nascar does, then change the channel, BOTTOM LINE. If youd rather see higher performance cars competing in touring races watch those on speed channel. If you like following a specific driver over the course of a season where his average score detemines his success than watch NASCAR on a local channel. There is no reason to argue or indict someones intelligence (Bav!) over a fricking race that most likely none of us will ever compete in. So forget about and let us enjoy NASCAR in peace.

posted by  67Pony

You're not understanding the difference between an argument and a discussion/"debate"...I've already mentioned I like NASCAR and watching it...I don't, however, UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC!

Either discuss -- or don't engage and make it out to be an argument.
.
.

posted by  BavarianWheels

And drivers on the track tend to drive past the limits. Any that don't, don't win. Period. How much on track racing have you done, again? Hey, I have a great idea! Since drivers are supposed to be in such perfect control, lets just do away with ALL safety features, like helmets and roll cages! Nothing should happen to drivers in perfect control at 200 mph!

Dude, if you're on the track, your'e pushing it, and when you're pushing it, feces happens.



So, now none of the top drivers and teams in the world are not intelligent? I'm just telling you what teh top teams and drivers DO. Apparenty, you don't have enough racing experience to know how to race, otherwise YOU'D be a top driver there, sitting in the back of the pack, dawdling aloing at 8/10s waiting for everyone else to crash out of the race.

I was talking about F1, unlimited budgets and open rules, and yet they still crash. Who cares if they pile up in the first corner? The rules makers, that's who. So the rules makers in EVERY effin racing series SLOW THE CARS DOWN! You think it's retarded, but it's a fact of ALL top racing. But apparently now, you consider yourself more intelligent than the rulesmakers, teams, drivers, and manufacturers in FIA, NASCAR, SCCA, IMSA, WRC, etc.



Just like Formula Atlantic, Porsche Cup, Spec mazda, Formula Mazda, Formula SAAB, Rabbit Cup (aka Bilstein Cup), Kafer Kup, Formula 440, Formula Ford, or any number of other major motorsports series worldwide. Why have you YET to fecking adress this? becaeu you KNOW your position is indefensable? because you KNOW you don't know enough about racing to offer intelligent rebuttal?



To the teams, And if the teams can't afford to play, you don't have squat to watch on the tube. Sorry, but it's ALL a business. This is the economic reality. I fail to find any intelligent rebuttal that shows you actually know enough about motorsports in general to be able to make accurate determination of what happens and why. And worse, you argue with every factual reason that the rules IN EVERY MOTORSPORT exist.



Maybe because they like to drive? Don't be an ass. Even if all the cars were actually identical (as in IROC), driving them is a tad bit different than running in a footrace, doncha think? Now you've entered the bizzaro world where instead of learning any goddamn thing, you want to play as retarded as the people you dislike on this board that make shit up then defend their fantasy world as though everyone else is an asshole to them.

I HAD respect for you as openminded. But you're turning out to be as closedminded a child as any other here.




Gilles has been dead for a while. Just like Ayrton.



If you want to play Devil's advocate, you NEED to actually know what you're talking about. You apparently conveniently ignore ever other fecking racing series that has either a single spec chassis, or uses a single type of car in road racing, around the world, that uses that chassis to let people race cars where the CAR is not the deciding factor, but the DRIVING. They all have different levels of difficulty, but the driving is the key. And no, it ISN'T like not fecking driving at all, just because the guy you're trying to beat has a substantially identical car!

posted by  ChrisV

You don't understand the logic because you refuse to try to understand the answers when given in plain english.

Once you enter into the concept that I mentioned of spec racing in all those other venues, and you spend some time reading about various racing series and why the rules are what they are for them, you might, just might, start to understand how rules in NASCAR mirror rules in most other racing venues.

I tried to explain it in clear english, why EVERY major racing series strives for parity between cars, including creating spec chassis and sealed engine. I tried to explain how top rules makers for NASCAR and FIA, like others, actively TRY to slow cars down.

Every time, you came back with "well why do they drive then? It isn't racing if they aren't allowed unlimited modifications and may the best team win." It IS racing if the drivers are limited to substantially identical cars. You just want to remain closed minded about the definition. And the fact is, you're wrong on this one.

posted by  ChrisV

CHRISV I THANK YOU FOR YOUR POINT. Bav I thought this was a car forum, not a debate platform. Sorry for not wanting to argue enough (afterall I did debate in High School for four years and got to Semi Finals at NFL nationals, afterall a while it gets kind of boring).

posted by  67Pony

.
.
Oh...I'll admit much sarcasm in the last post, but I never...ever...claimed grand racing knowledge.

You (and it seems others as well) are not listening to my words, rather you are reading into my words what you think I'm saying.

In essence, what I'm getting at is this: Slowing down racing is no longer racing but (as you even alluded to) a test of driver ability only. IMHO

True racing would be to build the absolute best car a team can build...AND a car that their top driver can control and control well.

I'll go over the rest of you post now...I just had to make this a bit more clear.

And I apologize for going over on the sarcasm.
.
.

posted by  BavarianWheels

Hence the quotes on "debate". If it were a true debate, I wouldn't be the one debating as my knowledge is not up to par...as I've mentioned.

Please re-read post number 1 on this thread...especially the first short paragraph.
.
.

posted by  BavarianWheels

It's a humble opinion that isn't built on knowledge. the cars are still faster than is safe at the venues. Since they STILL have to slow down for corners, it still requires huge amounts of skill necessary to do good out there. It's still racing, just like it's racing in every one of those spec classes I mentioned. You're the one with the wrong definition of racing if you think that equal cars but different drivers is NOT racing. They are racing drivers, not racing passengers, after all.



Most top racing drivers and racing organizations, who have thought about this for decades, disagree with you. I have to go with the more knowledgeable racers on this one, my friend. Your definition is wrong.

posted by  ChrisV

Agreed. Race drivers push the limits. On track time for me?--plenty...relevance=none to the point. I never called for perfect control, just enough intelligence to know the car cannot drive around the track at top speed the whole way.

Helmets...roll cages...? Hey if the team/driver want to take that chance, and possibly win...isn't that their perogative? Their intelligence, or lack thereof, would certainly weed them out of competition pretty quick.



No, I'm not out there because I don't have someone willing to put financial backing to a "nobody."

The drivers out there are (apparently) intelligent. It seems that NASCAR cannot trust their "intelligence"---is my point. So then intelligence is relative.

Our topic of concern is NASCAR. I'll once again refer you (and others) to post number 1 of this thread.


I just put my opinions and thoughts up for ponder. They are not there to attempt replacement of NASCAR's rules. I opine for lack of understanding as it seems to me that "Performance Restrictions" is paradoxical to say the least.


Exactly, but instead of seeing the point behind the "metaphor", you choose to revert to calling me an a$$ and suggesting I refuse to learn from others experience just because I don't see it like you do.


Now who is being close-minded when one cannot see how silly it is to slow racing. Racing, by definition, is about speed. You can't see the paradox and hence my initial question?


I don't ignore them out of convenience, but out of ignorance (as already made clear) and I don't think their rules are relevant to the topic of NASCAR.

Thanks for making an otherwise great conversation of give and take come down to me being an a$$ for a difference of opinion or even admitted ignorance on my part.
.
.

posted by  BavarianWheels

idon'tlikenascar :sleep:

posted by  lectroid

So, you can't take a lesson learned in one area and apply it in another? I've seen a number of kids like that. They can't take lessons learned in one class on how to study, and apply them to all classes in school. Or they can't take the knowledge of how one software package works and apply it to a similar software package, if the buttons that run similar commands look different or are in a different location...

The other racing series are relevant because they expand on and illuminate the reasons for similar rules in NASCAR.



Because you refused to listen to facts, and apply them to your unsderstanding. You admitted ignorance, but then argued about it. That wasn't MY fault. After repeatedly trying to get you to see WHY teh rules are what they are, yo uydecided that your ignorant definition was a defensable point that you dindt need to change.

If an opinion doesn't match the facts, change the opinion instead of disregarding and arguing with the facts. Just because it's an opinion doesn't mean it's not worth changing or at least examining, especially if it's one that was admittedly based on not knowing!

Sheesh!

If I said it was my opinion that all BMWs are slow, rusty, POS because I have a slow, rusty BMW, even if that fact was true my opinion would NOT be, and a BMW expert with more knowledge would have the reason to correct me. If I then argued and said, "I don't want to change my mind, because it's my opinion!" then *I* would be the ignorant narrowminded a$$, not the person telling me I was wrong, or telling me I was being narrowminded.

Telling you you're being narrowminded for not opening up your mind to knowledge you admit you lack, is not being narrowminded itself!

if you say it's your opinion that lung cancer can be cured by rubbing grape jelly on your chest, then your opinion is wrong.

posted by  ChrisV

Again you fail to see the point. The point is not that racing would be better if...The point is I (me...Bav...) would like it better if...yada yada...

I'm "arguing" from the point of a bystander and not a fan. Can you not see this as I've had to spell out numerous times? I like the racing as it is now. I enjoy watching it on the tube. I would like it more if there weren't so many "idiotic rules" that to me seem a paradox.

One more time, I'll ask: You can't see anything silly about slowing down a race car...at the professional level even? Why limit the speed of the car, when the limiting factor (among possible others) should be the track, the weather, the traffic, and most importantly, the experience of the driver. I put the "speed limit" on par with taking out good comedy from a comedy sketch for the sake of not causing the audience a belly ache from laughing so much or the satisfaction it brings the thespian(s) in providing the BEST possible perfomance. It goes against the root meaning.

I'm willing to learn and eventually as I grow to like the sport, I will be able to embrace the rules as part of the game -- as it comes natural to do so...but again, you've labeled me as a child, unwilling to change my opinion.

I again apologize if I've sounded as I'm not willing to learn and my tempered writing. But you are the one that started with the name calling. I'm willing to learn the game and apply the knowledge for my enjoyment. For now I'm finding difficulty understanding this conundrum.

I thought discussing it would be fun and bring about good conversation...maybe even a little friendly rivalry. But all it's done is make me an a$$ and apparently a child unwilling to learn and you, ChrisV, right on all points.

I concede that ChrisV's knowledge of racing and car mechanics far exceeds that of my own and that through his knowledge my opinion has changed.

It is my new opinion that racing should be slowed and further limited in the future...for reasons of equality, safety, money, team spirit, fan appreciation, and Dale, Jr. (sarcasm at its best.)
.
.

posted by  BavarianWheels

what an interesting topic this has become... :screwy:

posted by  Satty101

That's one way of putting it Satty101.

From post 1 I started out with as little knowledge on NASCAR as BavarianWheels and I found it boring to watch just like many other people do e.g. lectroid. I've followed this thread as BavarianWheels has been playing the devils advocate so to speak. I think that he's done a good job of getting the NASCAR fans to explain it but I still couldn't give a shit about watching it. It's been an enlightening thread for people like BavarianWheels and myself but I can't see there being anything else productive to add to this discussion. Thanks NASCAR fans for sharing your knowledge.

I'm now closing this thread.




"Ignorance is not knowing, stupid is not caring"

posted by  snoopewite

that would be my job snoope... :laughing:

Edit by Bav.: As "owner" of this thread, I protest the closing of it. I think there is much more that could be gained if not for learning purposes, for reading entertainment. Although ChrisV and I got a bit heated, (and I blame my initial sarcasm) it can produce more information to those like me that truly have an interest, but may find it a bit perplexing.

My opinion on the matter based solely on my own thoughts. I'm open for correction.
.
.

posted by  SuperJew

reopening due to popular demand. sorry bout that folks. :oops:

posted by  SuperJew

Big men apologize :thumbs: (not to be referenced to size or age)

posted by  lectroid

hey satty 101 i think you suck saying its awsome to see the crashes and if you put two guys inthe same car it adds a diffrent type of compatition

posted by  camaro67

for years dodge and yes plymouth were dominating the sport the reason they have restrictor plates is due to this duo they created the best engine the HEMIchevy and ford had nothing on this duo

posted by  camaro67

If you like to see crashes then the nicest way I can say this is, you are a moron.


Restrictor plates came along well after the Hemi, and all big blocks for that matter, were outlawed from NASCAR Grand National competition. So how are they related? Comments?

posted by  vwhobo

Restrictor plates came about in 1988 after Bobby Allison hit a fence at 210 MPH. It wasn't driver safety they were worried about, but spectator safety.

Just curious, but what was the hemi chevy? I've never heard of it.

But, I do know for a fact that ford put out a hemi for NASCAR. It was a SOHC 427FE with full hemispherical combustion chambers, known as the "cammer". The single quad put out 616 HP at 7000RPM and the dual quad put out 658 hp at 7500 RPM. The single cranked out 515 ft/lbs at 3800 RPM and the dual pumpped 550 lbs to the dirt at 4000.

It's timing chain was over SIX FEET long. The cams had to be retarded something along the lines of 5* static so they'd be straight up at 7500 RPM after taking the chain stretch into account.

Ford began production in 1964 as a "race only" option, but it could be dealer installed into ANYTHING that came with an FE block, for $2500 extra.

Ford was ready to run it for the '65 season but it was banned before it hit the track. NASCAR put their "minimum production" rule into effect to get rid of the Hemi and the Cammer. They re-allowed the Hemi in late '65, but still refused to allow the Cammer for having too much of an advantage (even though it never actually ran a sanctioned NASCAR race) :screwy: .

Justin

posted by  Hoxviii

Your Message