In reply to Joe Gearin:
I doubt anything of that magnitude could ever happen again...maybe in rally.
But yes, I think you are right. They play off of the thrill of death at the expense of the drivers to boost their own sales and popularity. But its a double edged sword because every precaution they take to make things safer is usually seen by fans as "killing the sport". At least thats how a lot of F1 fans are.
I've never been to a NASCAR event. I usually find it boring on TV, with the exception of the road courses and exciting tracks like Martinsville and Dover.
I think if I actually went to an event I'd enjoy it, just like how baseball at the ballpark is a totally different experience than baseball on TV.
dean1484 wrote: It seems that when ever a NASCAR thread comes up people can not help them self's and they always have to interject there displeasure with...
It's not their fault:
The GRM Forum Handbook said: The things you like are better than the things other people like, because your opinion is more important than theirs. If other people like something that you don't like, it's your responsibility to publicly proclaim as many previous arguments against it as possible, every time it is directly or indirectly referred to. Logic, rationality, discretion, and tact are discouraged.
spitfirebill wrote: They need to do whatever the hell it takes to get rid of restrictor plates. Decrease the engine size or compression or both. With the new fuel injection, just limit the fuel charge.
Make the only engine rules about running 8x of a spec fuel injector at a specified max fuel pressure, anything else goes.
Desmond wrote: In reply to Joe Gearin: I doubt anything of that magnitude could ever happen again...maybe in rally.
I hope you are correct---- but I fear you are not. Just last year, during the Summer race here in Daytona, Austin Dillon flew up into the catch fence--- ripping a gaping hole in it. (with debris injuring spectators) If another car was involved in that wreck, and flew through the hole that Dillon created---- the result would have been disastrous. I'm not saying it's likely that 100 people will be killed---- but it's a distinct possibility with the current rules set.
What I think is much more likely is a driver, or lone spectator getting killed. Of course racing is dangerous, and we all take risks. The problem I have is they are intentionally designing a race to create big wrecks, as they see it as a big part of their show.
Knurled wrote:David S. Wallens wrote: Drag racing doesn't happen in the rain, either.I remember one night having to hit my wipers while staging. Dragstrips may be paved but they are usually coated with a layer of deposited rubber. Wet rubber is not very grippy. (this is the same track that has a New Year's Day bracket race. Everyone runs a 15 second breakout. The first 1/8mi is usually glare ice after a few cars. 15 seconds is mostly theoretical)
i love D42.
Since I've been part of a professional road race team and nascar team, I do have a few direct observations. First, Nascar is not my favorite and it does have a few issues that I think are major, but so do most sanctioning bodies. I can tell you IMSA stories too. However, if you want to compare ball size, it takes HUGE appendages to do Nascar in comparison. And it is more difficult by a factor of 10, especially if you come from a road racing background. The sheer amount of work in a Nascar weekend dwarfs any other series I've been around. The stress levels are much higher as well. Maybe F1 could compare, but I've never been around a F1 team.
And to say the cars are low tech is not accurate either. They still spend large amounts of time in the wind tunnel, etc. Now, they are less expensive to buy and race, somewhat, but to automatically assume low tech is simply not true.
We can all sit here and complain about how it is this and that, but it is very difficult to find a more loyal fan base, even if they don't fit our definition of what a real fan is. I used to be a big nascar basher, but after seeing first hand what these teams do, it changed pretty quick.
Probably time to drag this old chestnut out:
trigun7469 wrote: In reply to STM317: Sports car racing and Indycar have more relevance than nascar,
Relevance to what?
IMHO, the last indy car tech that made it to production cars was the rear view mirror. At least one that made an impact in the race. People have tried "stock block" engines, and the rules even gave them advantages. None of the real ones did anything.
Endurance racing- it's interesting that we are bashing the restrictor plate in NASCAR, but the restrictors used for endurance racing is ok. How do we figure that? There are some things that come from endurance racing that can make it to cars.
Not F1. Not even close. Not rallying- that's become a spec engine formula now, much like the BTCC.
NASCAR is no more or less relevant to real cars as any other racing, as I see it.
It's all entertainment. Not engineering.
In reply to racerdave600:
I am not sure I agree with your comment about the cars being low tech.
I think they ARE low tech. I don't believe they are using any new or cutting edge technologies in the cars. I would love to hear otherwise.
Just because some of the tools the teams use can be considered "High-Tech", to me doesn't mean that NASCAR or the actual cars are high tech.
NASCAR drivers are, with a few exceptions, so bad at road racing that virtually the entire field takes a three day refresher course at Barber or Bondurant the week before one of the road course events. Throw in the fact that punting someone to make a pass on a road course rather than out-driving them is legal and quite common. I blame the France family for everything, and would not be suprised if NONE the Frances had anything approaching race-worthy driving skill themselves.
I really wish Boogity Boogity Boogity would just go away.
Just curious how many modern day proficient road course drivers ever succeeded on the NASCAR circuit? Juan Pablo Montoya? Not really. Paul Tracy? Nope. Boris Said? Nope. (Dare I even mention) Danica Patrick? Nope. I guess Tony Stewart. I'd hazard to say either Kyle or Kurt Busch might be able to transition to road racing with some level of success, but who really knows.
Seems to me like both oval track and road racing are pretty specialized forms of wheelmanship, making it more of a situation of 'if you grow up doing one, the other is hard as **** to learn' vs. 'these guys are more talented than those other guys'.
All that said, I did 'sit' through the entire 500 yesterday. I saw the first 50 laps, and the last 50 laps, and reportedly made a bunch of 'sounds like you were choking' noises in between according to SWMBO. Personally, I think she's full of it, but then again I have no idea what happened in the middle of the race. All in all, not a bad day of 'spectating' !!! Better than cutting the grass ....
alfadriver wrote: Endurance racing- it's interesting that we are bashing the restrictor plate in NASCAR, but the restrictors used for endurance racing is ok. How do we figure that? There are *some* things that come from endurance racing that can make it to cars.
I agree with most of your post, but I have to disagree here. We (at least I) are not arguing against restriction in a general sense, we are arguing against this specific instance, ie NASCAR's implementation of restriction, and what it produces. Namely, a huge pack of cars traveling inches apart at 200mph that can't pass each other. I understand the need to keep speeds down at Daytona and Talladega, but it should be done a different way. Less displacement would be a better solution, IMO.
I have come to accept restriction and other field-leveling efforts as a fact of life in many forms of racing. As much as I'd like to say it should be open to the fastest cars, period, and if you can't keep up, too bad, the fact is that this IS entertainment like all spectator sports. Runaway wins are boring, and people don't watch boring stuff on TV or buy the products of sponsors that are advertising there.
The only things I really admire about NASCAR are:
1) I appreciate the drivers' talent.
2) They sure can build nice engines.
3) They sure can attract fans and thus sponsors.
That's about it. I will watch the road course races if I see them, but usually get tired of watching all the pit maneuvers that pass as racecraft that it is just irritating. So, they are only good to DVR and watch if there is nothing else to do.
Tom_Spangler wrote:alfadriver wrote: Endurance racing- it's interesting that we are bashing the restrictor plate in NASCAR, but the restrictors used for endurance racing is ok. How do we figure that? There are *some* things that come from endurance racing that can make it to cars.I agree with most of your post, but I have to disagree here. We (at least I) are not arguing against restriction in a general sense, we are arguing against this specific instance, ie NASCAR's implementation of restriction, and what it produces. Namely, a huge pack of cars traveling inches apart at 200mph that can't pass each other. I understand the need to keep speeds down at Daytona and Talladega, but it should be done a different way. Less displacement would be a better solution, IMO. I have come to accept restriction and other field-leveling efforts as a fact of life in many forms of racing. As much as I'd like to say it should be open to the fastest cars, period, and if you can't keep up, too bad, the fact is that this IS entertainment like all spectator sports. Runaway wins are boring, and people don't watch boring stuff on TV or buy the products of sponsors that are advertising there.
The goal of the restrictors was to slow the cars down, that worked.
The problems is, like Indy cars, the aero is so good that cars don't need to be driven around the track. The one time that the IRL realized the problem was serious, they put the Speedway aero package on the short track, and all of a sudden cars had to be DRIVEN. And the tires had to be managed.
NASCAR needs to stop with the idea the pack racing is good, and get back to driving racing is better.
Yes, it would be better if there was a better way to restrict power. But it would be far better if they could not drive WOT around the track.
WildScotsRacing wrote: NASCAR drivers are, with a few exceptions, so bad at road racing that virtually the entire field takes a three day refresher course at Barber or Bondurant the week before one of the road course events. Throw in the fact that punting someone to make a pass on a road course rather than out-driving them is legal and quite common. I blame the France family for everything, and would not be suprised if NONE the Frances had anything approaching race-worthy driving skill themselves.
So?
Does that make you better than them? Having driven a superspeedway at ~140mph, I'm pretty sure you are not. It's much harder than you think.
Heck, Hamilin's save at the end of the race was pretty spectacular.
How many drivers race across difference series? Seems like in "the good old days" drivers raced about everything. Foyt did NASCAR, road racing, Indy, etc. I though Andretti and Gurney as well.
I don't catch enough racing on TV to know, to be honest.
NASCAR in the 70's and 80s was cool, because so many people drove those cars, the the base configuration was the same (i.e. v8, rwd, etc...) and they used to cage the factory bodies. Then all those cars turn in to front drivers (Regals, Monte's, etc...). Would've been entertaining to see them hop up front drivers and race them at that point, but that wasn't happening....
Anyway, not a fan of NASCAR, but not a hater, either.
I like racing. Cars especially. Any kind. Each kind has their differences. A 500 mile restrictor plate is not my favorite. But then watching JJ come from dead last to ninth in a few laps is entertaining. I thought , How did he do that ?
In reply to WildScotsRacing:
If they are as bad as you're saying you would think a road racer would manage to win one of those road course races once in a while.
WildScotsRacing wrote: NASCAR drivers are, with a few exceptions, so bad at road racing that virtually the entire field takes a three day refresher course at Barber or Bondurant the week before one of the road course events. Throw in the fact that punting someone to make a pass on a road course rather than out-driving them is legal and quite common. I blame the France family for everything, and would not be suprised if NONE the Frances had anything approaching race-worthy driving skill themselves.
You might want to read up on "Big Bill" France's life before the founding of NASCAR if you don't think anyone in that family had any driving skills. Maybe the current family members don't, but so what? Roger Penske was a so-so driver, but I think we can all agree that he's been pretty successful as a team owner and manager. How fast is Ron Dennis behind the wheel? Or Bernie? Who freaking cares, that's not their job!
As far as the road racing goes, I think you are exaggerating when you say that "virtually the whole field" takes a refresher, they may have done so in the past, but they are much better all-rounders than you give them credit for. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the lowliest backmarker in any NASCAR Sprint Cup race would flat-out embarrass any weekend warrior like us on any kind of track. They wouldn't have reached that level if they couldn't.
You'll need to log in to post.
