NASCAR Question

> 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.

NASCAR chassis are not stock based, nor is the bodywork. They are purpose
built silhouette racers just as specialized as CART, IRL, and F-1. In the
case of Ford, the "stock" engines aren't even what the company markets any
more. The engines are more replicas of 20-30 year old engines than they are
stock. Regarding the relative exercise of engineering, I dare say F-1 teams
devote extreme effort to optimize those factors within their control ... a
needless exercise in NASCAR where the governing body would disqualify your
vehicle or change the rules to eliminate any small improvement that
contributes to race speed.

While NASCAR teams optimize the engines (primarily bore/stroke) to track
conditions, there's no extensive engineering going on there ... the main
advances have been in internal component capabilities and reliability (VALVE
SPRINGS!). By comparison, F-1 teams will expend millions chasing an
illusive reliability factor (Mercedes engines for the 1st half of the 2004
season) or a wee bit more power (Renault all season long).

R / John

"C.B. Evans" > wrote
> "fbloogyudsr" > wrote
>> 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.
>
> No where in my reply did I say these cars were stock. I said, "With
> NASCAR you are working from a stock platform....", BIG difference.
> Meaning that there is a base model you HAVE to work from. The dimensions
> of the chassis and body cannot be changed from the stock template. You
> can build it however you want to. The fwd/rwd thing, well, thats just
> common sense. Who in the hell would want to go almost 200 in a fwd car.
> No thanks.

Actually, since they brought Dodge back about 6-8 years ago, none of the
bodies have had much resemblance to the "stock" car. They had to allow
several changes to the Intrepid's body shell to make it competitive with
the Taurus/Lumina (it's wider and longer than they were). Even before that
they had let the others change many things in the name of competition.

Floyd

"fbloogyudsr" > wrote in message
...
> "tech27" > wrote
>> What still puzzles me is that given the many rules Nascar has, why can it
>> not be made safer to consistently drive at this "edge" for all the cars.
>> It's not as if someone has a car that is 200 pound lighter and 50% more
>> hp than another car. But perhaps that is intentional. Make the cars
>> extremely safe while giving the fans the carnage they crave. All the
>> pitting and adjustments, etc. also make it interesting I suppose.
>
> Almost everything in NASCAR is intentional, to keep the races
> close and thereby attract fans. They've done a better job at that
> than many other venues (including IMHO, F1). They limit fuel
> capacity for safety, which allows the adjustments... They limit
> the aerodynamics to make them competitive with other "brands",
> they all run the same tires, etc., ad naseum.
>
> Floyd

If it wasn't for sponsorships I'm sure they could just run it like the old
series where everyone drove the same cars, all prepped the same by the
"official" race mechanics.

I know this will never happen because of sponsorship money, but as far as
the car "manufacturers" go, I'm sure there is absolutely no one who believes
that the "Ford" or "Chevy" Nascar cars have anything to do with the company
except for the name.

"tech27" > wrote in message
o.verio.net...
> If it wasn't for sponsorships I'm sure they could just run it like the old
> series where everyone drove the same cars, all prepped the same by the
> "official" race mechanics.

That series is called IROC. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

That has never been done in NASCAR. It's origins are in street stock
machines -- driving the family car to the track, and driving it home
afterwards kind of stuff.

> I know this will never happen because of sponsorship money, but as far as
> the car "manufacturers" go, I'm sure there is absolutely no one who
believes
> that the "Ford" or "Chevy" Nascar cars have anything to do with the
company
> except for the name.

Shape of windows, origin of engine block and major engine parts, stickers on
the front and back, that's pretty much it any more. However, Ford Motor
Company supports their cars with engineering dollars, talent, and
facilities, as do Dodge and GM. There are some street stock pieces parts
in there, mostly ancillary stuff, that come from the respective
manufacturers parts bin.

You could say they have as much to do with the street cars they represent as
the BMW Williams car has to do with your M3. Well perhaps a little more
than that. Everyone knows that the term "stock car" no longer has anything
to do with the cars been showroom in origin. However to say Ford or Chevy
Cup cars have nothing to do with the company except for the name is entirely
incorrect, each manufacturer spends many millions of dollars on their Cup
programs. Factory talent at the fabrication shops, wind tunnels, and engine
shops is a big part of the sport and the manufacturers are the ones that do
the basic engine development when a new engine comes out. If you look at
the most recent entries, Dodge and now Toyota (Truck series so far), there
is a tremendous factory effort that they spend go get there, they aren't
just walking up to the parts bin, putting together a car and putting their
decals on it.

-Russ.

"Somebody" > wrote in message
...

> That series is called IROC. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

I know it wasn't a great success, but I'd still like to see what both Nascar
and F1 drivers would do head to head with the cars taken out of the
equation.
>

>
> You could say they have as much to do with the street cars they represent
> as
> the BMW Williams car has to do with your M3. Well perhaps a little more
> than that. Everyone knows that the term "stock car" no longer has
> anything
> to do with the cars been showroom in origin.

Yeah, there's no confusion there, but if anyone had any illusions it would
not be with an F1 car, but with a Nascar races that had the same headlights
(stickers) as the one you owned. (-;

However to say Ford or Chevy
> Cup cars have nothing to do with the company except for the name is
> entirely
> incorrect, each manufacturer spends many millions of dollars on their Cup
> programs.

For sure. I only meant that comment with respect to mechanicals, not support
or development.


Factory talent at the fabrication shops, wind tunnels, and engine
> shops is a big part of the sport and the manufacturers are the ones that
> do
> the basic engine development when a new engine comes out. If you look at
> the most recent entries, Dodge and now Toyota (Truck series so far), there
> is a tremendous factory effort that they spend go get there, they aren't
> just walking up to the parts bin, putting together a car and putting their
> decals on it.

No argument there. Good points though.
>
> -Russ.
>
>

If racing improves the breed, what is NASCAR's contribution? F-1
technological developments filter down in ways great and small (traction
control, brake improvements over the years, tire capabilities, etc) to
production automobiles. NASCAR, firmly entrenched in decades-old
technology, rarely has signficant (any?) impact on road car development.

BMW's support of F-1 is certainly marketing-centered, but I suspect things
learned in the Williams engine development effort find their way into
production cars. Brembo (brake supplier for Ferrari) applies its racing
experience to aftermarket (and occasionally production option) brakes. And
so it goes.

NASCAR is great performance art. All the other major racing series (can
CART, or whatever it calls itself this week, be considered major any more?)
could learn a number of things from the way it markets its product. But its
tendancy to evolve rules throughout the season and a point system that fails
to put a significant premium on winning leave me cold.

R / John

"tech27" > wrote in message
o.verio.net...
>
> "Somebody" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > That series is called IROC. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
>
> I know it wasn't a great success, but I'd still like to see what both
Nascar
> and F1 drivers would do head to head with the cars taken out of the
> equation.

I think it still runs. Maybe not. I used to watch them but lost interest.
In general, Stock car guys won it, but then it's much closer to their type
of racing than it is to what F1 or Cart does. And Schooey didn't show up
for any of those races either. :-)

> > You could say they have as much to do with the street cars they
represent
> > as
> > the BMW Williams car has to do with your M3. Well perhaps a little more
> > than that. Everyone knows that the term "stock car" no longer has
> > anything
> > to do with the cars been showroom in origin.
>
> Yeah, there's no confusion there, but if anyone had any illusions it would
> not be with an F1 car, but with a Nascar races that had the same
headlights
> (stickers) as the one you owned. (-;

Everyone knows they're stickers, it just helps you identify with it and root
for it if you own one of those cars, or at least the brand. Same with F1
and most other sports being branded after street cars.

It is a bit sad when you think that once they really were street stock. So
then you think "lets do that again" but you realise that street cars in
reality don't make good racers... one type will always win. So then you try
to modify them a bit to keep them even... and you have European Touring Cars
or the Speedvision Challenge Series or whatever they call it, which can be
annoying because it comes down to who gets what concession and it's hard to
get parity. So then you think... let's have all the same street car! And
voiala you have the Porsche Challenge or the new one with the Civics or
whatever, which are so unpopular they can barely get funding to keep the
series alive.

I guess what I'm saying is, it's all been done. Just about every type of
racing you can think of has been tried. I find NASCAR, now that I've gotten
to know it in detail, is a very exciting form of racing to watch, much as I
first dismissed it as redneck bumper cars and a low tech, low intelligence
form of motorsports. It's a long way from what I like to do, which is run
on tight road courses where BMW's shine. But as entertainment, I enjoy it.

If you really care about the racing, for the purity of racing, you need go
no farther than your local BMW chapter's club race. Those guys race for the
glory, not the bucks. It's pure motorsport. And some of them are even
running street cars. To me, *that's* racing.

-Russ.

"John Carrier" > wrote in message
...
> If racing improves the breed, what is NASCAR's contribution? F-1
> technological developments filter down in ways great and small (traction
> control, brake improvements over the years, tire capabilities, etc) to
> production automobiles. NASCAR, firmly entrenched in decades-old
> technology, rarely has signficant (any?) impact on road car development.
>
> BMW's support of F-1 is certainly marketing-centered, but I suspect things
> learned in the Williams engine development effort find their way into
> production cars. Brembo (brake supplier for Ferrari) applies its racing
> experience to aftermarket (and occasionally production option) brakes.
And
> so it goes.

There is some truth to that, although I think F1 has gotten too far from the
street car for that to be as true as it once was. If you look at series
where they start from a stock shell and modify it you might find a closer
resemblance -- a Porsche street car was even launched that was nearly
identical to the racing version save for some emissions, a few hundred
ponies, and a few creature comforts. But the upcoming V10 in a new Lexus
sports car for example is supposed to be a direct derivative from Toyota's
F1 motor, so you're right in some measure -- certainly more than NASCAR
contributes. There are a few things that do carry over but it's no
development house any more.

> NASCAR is great performance art. All the other major racing series (can
> CART, or whatever it calls itself this week, be considered major any
more?)
> could learn a number of things from the way it markets its product. But
its
> tendancy to evolve rules throughout the season and a point system that
fails
> to put a significant premium on winning leave me cold.

Can't argue with that. The point system needs overhauling in a way the
Chase doesn't even come close to addressing, and the rules can be something
of a joke at times. But that doesn't sour my enjoyment of any particular
event on any particular weekend. It's not pure racing, it's motortainment,
and I find it succeeds with me as such.

And the pit stops are very cool. :-)

-Russ.

"John Carrier" > wrote in message
...
> If racing improves the breed, what is NASCAR's contribution?

You don't think that "rednecks" have improved since Nascar came along? (-;

F-1
> technological developments filter down in ways great and small (traction
> control, brake improvements over the years, tire capabilities, etc) to
> production automobiles.

You forgot to mention SMG shifters, or don't you think that's an
improvement? (Please-don't start another PRO-CON SMG war).

NASCAR, firmly entrenched in decades-old
> technology, rarely has signficant (any?) impact on road car development.

No no, the Nascar engineering values of brute force and barbaric theories
are found in most NA production cars.
>
> BMW's support of F-1 is certainly marketing-centered, but I suspect things
> learned in the Williams engine development effort find their way into
> production cars. Brembo (brake supplier for Ferrari) applies its racing
> experience to aftermarket (and occasionally production option) brakes.
> And so it goes.
>
> NASCAR is great performance art.

Kinda like wrestling?

All the other major racing series (can
> CART, or whatever it calls itself this week, be considered major any
> more?) could learn a number of things from the way it markets its product.
> But its tendancy to evolve rules throughout the season and a point system
> that fails to put a significant premium on winning leave me cold.

As it should. How much premium should be placed on a car/driver that wins in
a field of 12?

>
> R / John
>
>
>
>
>

"Somebody" > wrote in message
...
> It is a bit sad when you think that once they really were street stock.
> So
> then you think "lets do that again" but you realise that street cars in
> reality don't make good racers... one type will always win. So then you
> try
> to modify them a bit to keep them even... and you have European Touring
> Cars
> or the Speedvision Challenge Series or whatever they call it, which can be
> annoying because it comes down to who gets what concession and it's hard
> to
> get parity. So then you think... let's have all the same street car! And
> voiala you have the Porsche Challenge or the new one with the Civics or
> whatever, which are so unpopular they can barely get funding to keep the
> series alive.

Okay then, how about this for fun: The entire field is made up of
identically prepared Ferraris, then next week, another constructor, and so
on. Maybe a tad expensive but so what? Bernie's a billionaire isn't he?

> I guess what I'm saying is, it's all been done. Just about every type of
> racing you can think of has been tried. I find NASCAR, now that I've
> gotten
> to know it in detail, is a very exciting form of racing to watch, much as
> I
> first dismissed it as redneck bumper cars and a low tech, low intelligence
> form of motorsports. It's a long way from what I like to do, which is run
> on tight road courses where BMW's shine. But as entertainment, I enjoy
> it.

I like it too. I also like chicken wings, burgers and beer. But I also like
seared fois gras, sushi, and a nice red wine.

> If you really care about the racing, for the purity of racing, you need go
> no farther than your local BMW chapter's club race. Those guys race for
> the
> glory, not the bucks. It's pure motorsport. And some of them are even
> running street cars. To me, *that's* racing.

Yup.

>
> -Russ.
>
>