A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » BMW
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NASCAR Question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 11th 04, 10:57 PM
tech27
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASCAR Question

As a fan of motorsports, I occasionally watch NASCAR, although I much prefer
F1. I often make the analogy that F1 is to Nascar as chess is to checkers.
(-;

While the F1 cars seem to be deftly piloted around the course, NAS-cars look
like the are being driven by wild teenagers just trying to constantly keep
the pedal to the metal without spinning out. Witness the number of Nascar
spins and accidents, probably more in a couple of races than in an entire F1
season.

What really puzzles me is why do they have to constantly be changing
suspension/tire setups during a race? Can they not dial it in after practice
and qualifying? Cars that are "running well" do this once or twice during a
race, while those that aren't seem to come in several times to add or take
out some air, wedges, etc.

Am I missing something or is this just the American pee-nuckle of
engineering?


Ads
  #2  
Old November 12th 04, 12:38 AM
fbloogyudsr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"tech27" > wrote
> What really puzzles me is why do they have to constantly be changing
> suspension/tire setups during a race? Can they not dial it in after
> practice and qualifying? Cars that are "running well" do this once or
> twice during a race, while those that aren't seem to come in several times
> to add or take out some air, wedges, etc.
>
> Am I missing something or is this just the American pee-nuckle of
> engineering?


Several things come to mind: weather (diff between qualifying and race
day),
groove (qualifying runs are usually in the inside/fastest groove), airflow
in
traffic (no side-by-side or drafting in qualifying), track temp (gets warmer
during race due to many vs. one car), etc.

Floyd

  #3  
Old November 12th 04, 12:46 AM
Jeff Strickland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Track conditions constantly change, and since the cars are dialed in to make
left turns only, they are precisely set to go one way. They are adjusted to
be on the razor edge of peak control, and if any condition changes, the
razor edge shifts and they attempt to dial it back in during pit stops. They
can adjust spring rate by putting in or taking out spring rubbers, they
adjust alignment by altering the trackbar, and they adjust grip by changing
the air pressure. All of these things can be disrupted by crunching any of
the body panels, particularly the front corners. The need to change tire
pressure comes when the track tempurature changes, causing a change in the
grip of the tires. This is critical because the cars are set up to go in a
circle if the driver lets go of the steering wheel. When they race on a road
cource - by far the most interesting of the NASCAR events - they don't do as
much tweaking of the suspension because they can't maximize left turns at
the expense of the right turns.

F1 cars go both directions, they never go in circles. Indy and CART cars
will go in circles, but the crew does not tweak the suspension, but as I
recall, the driver gets a dial inside the car to adjust the suspension. They
can also adjust the brake bias, something that NASCAR drivers do not have
the ability to do. A properly set up F1, Indy, or CART car will go straight
for miles when the driver takes his hands off the wheel, a stock car will
instantly make a left. Actually, perhaps the CART and Indy cars may favor
left turns as well since they also go in circles, but they go in 2-mile +
circles, whereas many NASCAR tracks are well under 2 miles around, some are
less than 1 mile.

F1, and other open wheel cars, do not engage in the bump-and-run like NASCAR
drivers do because the exposed wheels are problematic when then rub against
another open wheel. Stock cars can go into a turn 3- or 4-abreast and rub
all over the place, open wheel cars can not do this. I guess stock car
drivers look like bumper car pilots because that is essentially what they
are.




"tech27" > wrote in message
.verio.net...
> As a fan of motorsports, I occasionally watch NASCAR, although I much

prefer
> F1. I often make the analogy that F1 is to Nascar as chess is to checkers.
> (-;
>
> While the F1 cars seem to be deftly piloted around the course, NAS-cars

look
> like the are being driven by wild teenagers just trying to constantly keep
> the pedal to the metal without spinning out. Witness the number of Nascar
> spins and accidents, probably more in a couple of races than in an entire

F1
> season.
>
> What really puzzles me is why do they have to constantly be changing
> suspension/tire setups during a race? Can they not dial it in after

practice
> and qualifying? Cars that are "running well" do this once or twice during

a
> race, while those that aren't seem to come in several times to add or take
> out some air, wedges, etc.
>
> Am I missing something or is this just the American pee-nuckle of
> engineering?
>
>



  #4  
Old November 12th 04, 12:50 AM
tech27
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"fbloogyudsr" > wrote in message
...
> "tech27" > wrote
> Several things come to mind: weather (diff between qualifying and race
> day),
> groove (qualifying runs are usually in the inside/fastest groove), airflow
> in
> traffic (no side-by-side or drafting in qualifying), track temp (gets
> warmer
> during race due to many vs. one car), etc.
>
> Floyd


Okay, I know that these factors come into play during just about any race,
but it seems to me that the Nascar crews are so far behind F1 in terms of
technology and refinement. I appreciate that the cars are radically
different, but for crying out loud, they're mostly just going round and
round on a highly banked track.

Another thing is how bad they are outside of their element. I don't know if
it's the cars or the drivers, but I do know that one relatively successful
team pulled their #1 driver for a road course event because they wanted some
point (kinda like constructors points I think). My fellow Canadian Ron
Fellows (excuse the pun), was recruited to pilot a car with only a few days
practice, and he drove it to second place. Most of the Nascar drivers say
they hate road courses, probably because the cars a pieces of **** and not
ment to do unusual things like turn, steer, and brake.


  #5  
Old November 12th 04, 12:58 AM
Dan Drake
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 18:50:45 -0500, "tech27"
> wrote:

<inre Nascar troll>
>
>Okay, I know that these factors come into play during just about any race,
>but it seems to me that the Nascar crews are so far behind F1 in terms of
>technology and refinement. I appreciate that the cars are radically
>different, but for crying out loud, they're mostly just going round and
>round on a highly banked track.
>
>Another thing is how bad they are outside of their element. I don't know if
>it's the cars or the drivers, but I do know that one relatively successful
>team pulled their #1 driver for a road course event because they wanted some
>point (kinda like constructors points I think). My fellow Canadian Ron
>Fellows (excuse the pun), was recruited to pilot a car with only a few days
>practice, and he drove it to second place. Most of the Nascar drivers say
>they hate road courses, probably because the cars a pieces of **** and not
>ment to do unusual things like turn, steer, and brake.


I'm no Nascar fan, but the fact is that those guys are driving right
on the very edge pretty much all of the time. "Drive fast, turn left"
sneering usually comes from those who don't know what car control is.
--
Dan Drake
  #6  
Old November 12th 04, 05:09 AM
C.B. Evans
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



>>
>> Am I missing something or is this just the American pee-nuckle of
>> engineering?
>>
>>

>
>

I'd say that going 195+ in a 3500 pound car around Talladega superspeedway
for 500 miles with 40 other 3500 pound cars is hardly "pee-nuckle"(it's
actually pinochle). And to say the engineering involved is not up to par
with F1 is ridiculous. You're comparing apples to oranges. Actually, if
you really think about it, NASCAR is a tougher obstacle for engineering than
F1. With NASCAR you are working from a stock platform with limitations on
aero changes, template variations, and most importantly, POWERTRAIN. NASCAR
has strict limitations on engines. ALL manufacturers must comply to the
same guidelines when it comes to engine size, modifications, etc. And,
these engines are normally aspirated, barebone V-8 small blocks. Nothing
else. F1's engine packages are radically different when it comes to
limitations on power, chassis, and aero. And F1's not a stock platform.
The 'ole apples to oranges thing again. NASCARs are not made for road
handling, they are made for sustained speed. Sustained speed while racing
with 40 other guys, not darting into corners and trying not to scratch the
paint on your 3 million dollar car.

"I love any sort racing, no matter how silly it is". Mario Andretti



Just my $.02

C.


  #7  
Old November 12th 04, 06:01 AM
fbloogyudsr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"C.B. Evans" > wrote
>>> Am I missing something or is this just the American pee-nuckle of
>>> engineering?

>>

> I'd say that going 195+ in a 3500 pound car around Talladega
> superspeedway for 500 miles with 40 other 3500 pound cars is hardly
> "pee-nuckle"(it's actually pinochle).


Actually, "pinnacle", as in peak.

> And to say the engineering involved is not up to par with F1 is
> ridiculous. You're comparing apples to oranges. Actually, if you really
> think about it, NASCAR is a tougher obstacle for engineering than F1. With
> NASCAR you are working from a stock platform with limitations on aero
> changes, template variations, and most importantly, POWERTRAIN. NASCAR
> has strict limitations on engines. ALL manufacturers must comply to the
> same guidelines when it comes to engine size, modifications, etc. And,
> these engines are normally aspirated, barebone V-8 small blocks. Nothing
> else. F1's engine packages are radically different when it comes to
> limitations on power, chassis, and aero. And F1's not a stock platform.


You seem to be under a cloud of misunderstanding; certainly your view
of NASCAR cars as "stock" is a complete crock. They are purpose-built
chassis with shells on them. The FWD cars (Taurus, Monte Carlo, Intrepid)
that they resemble on the outside have no similarity other than dimensions.
They are all RWD front-mid-engine steel-tube chassis. Not too similar.

Floyd

  #8  
Old November 12th 04, 08:45 AM
mjc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Personally, I do not care anything for Nascar. It has been "dummied down"
IMHO. BUT.... FI is now a joke also. Who ever makes it to the first turn
usually wins. Most F1 races are now just "follow the leader" lap parades !
PS: Son of man who shut down the SHADOW racing team !
-----------------------------

"fbloogyudsr" > wrote in message
...
> "C.B. Evans" > wrote
>>>> Am I missing something or is this just the American pee-nuckle of
>>>> engineering?
>>>

>> I'd say that going 195+ in a 3500 pound car around Talladega
>> superspeedway for 500 miles with 40 other 3500 pound cars is hardly
>> "pee-nuckle"(it's actually pinochle).

>
> Actually, "pinnacle", as in peak.
>
>> And to say the engineering involved is not up to par with F1 is
>> ridiculous. You're comparing apples to oranges. Actually, if you really
>> think about it, NASCAR is a tougher obstacle for engineering than F1.
>> With NASCAR you are working from a stock platform with limitations on
>> aero changes, template variations, and most importantly, POWERTRAIN.
>> NASCAR has strict limitations on engines. ALL manufacturers must comply
>> to the same guidelines when it comes to engine size, modifications, etc.
>> And, these engines are normally aspirated, barebone V-8 small blocks.
>> Nothing else. F1's engine packages are radically different when it comes
>> to limitations on power, chassis, and aero. And F1's not a stock
>> platform.

>
> You seem to be under a cloud of misunderstanding; certainly your view
> of NASCAR cars as "stock" is a complete crock. They are purpose-built
> chassis with shells on them. The FWD cars (Taurus, Monte Carlo, Intrepid)
> that they resemble on the outside have no similarity other than
> dimensions.
> They are all RWD front-mid-engine steel-tube chassis. Not too similar.
>
> Floyd




  #9  
Old November 12th 04, 05:52 PM
spare-me-spam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Wrong-O on 2 out of 3 there.

Nextel Cup cars most assuredly DO have a brake bias adjustment
accessible to the driver, and Champ car chassis are so different for
road vs. oval courses that they are essentially different cars. As is
the case with any well set up Cup team in NASCAR.



"Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
...
|| F1 cars go both directions, they never go in circles. Indy and CART
cars
| will go in circles, but the crew does not tweak the suspension, but as
I
| recall, the driver gets a dial inside the car to adjust the
suspension. They
| can also adjust the brake bias, something that NASCAR drivers do not
have
| the ability to do. A properly set up F1, Indy, or CART car will go
straight
| for miles when the driver takes his hands off the wheel, a stock car
will
| instantly make a left. Actually, perhaps the CART and Indy cars may
favor
| left turns as well since they also go in circles, but they go in
2-mile +
| circles, whereas many NASCAR tracks are well under 2 miles around,
some are
| less than 1 mile.
|
| F1, and other open wheel cars, do not engage in the bump-and-run like
NASCAR
| drivers do because the exposed wheels are problematic when then rub
against
| another open wheel. Stock cars can go into a turn 3- or 4-abreast and
rub
| all over the place, open wheel cars can not do this. I guess stock car
| drivers look like bumper car pilots because that is essentially what
they
| are.
|
|
|
|
| "tech27" > wrote in message
| .verio.net...
| > As a fan of motorsports, I occasionally watch NASCAR, although I
much
| prefer
| > F1. I often make the analogy that F1 is to Nascar as chess is to
checkers.
| > (-;
| >
| > While the F1 cars seem to be deftly piloted around the course,
NAS-cars
| look
| > like the are being driven by wild teenagers just trying to
constantly keep
| > the pedal to the metal without spinning out. Witness the number of
Nascar
| > spins and accidents, probably more in a couple of races than in an
entire
| F1
| > season.
| >
| > What really puzzles me is why do they have to constantly be changing
| > suspension/tire setups during a race? Can they not dial it in after
| practice
| > and qualifying? Cars that are "running well" do this once or twice
during
| a
| > race, while those that aren't seem to come in several times to add
or take
| > out some air, wedges, etc.
| >
| > Am I missing something or is this just the American pee-nuckle of
| > engineering?
| >
| >
|
|


  #10  
Old November 12th 04, 05:53 PM
fbloogyudsr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"mjc" > wrote
> Personally, I do not care anything for Nascar. It has been "dummied down"
> IMHO. BUT.... FI is now a joke also. Who ever makes it to the first
> turn usually wins. Most F1 races are now just "follow the leader" lap
> parades !


Yeah, I have tried to get into F1, but it's laughably non-competitive. The
best
driver in the world (M Schumacher) and the company spending the most
(Ferrari) means everyone's racing for 2nd place. At least NASCAR races
are usually interesting until the last caution... of course you never know
when that's going to be. ;-)

Floyd

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
S8 Report and Reliability Question LIW Audi 2 November 22nd 04 06:02 PM
Transmission fluid filter question LIW Audi 0 November 22nd 04 05:45 PM
E34 question Vernon Balbert BMW 11 October 27th 04 01:37 PM
WTB A6 in Ontario, but have a question. l_talk Audi 0 October 18th 04 11:44 AM
1992 525i Auto Trans question Scott BMW 1 October 10th 04 03:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.