NASCAR Question

"tech27" > wrote in message
.verio.net...
>
> "Somebody" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "tech27" > wrote in message
> > o.verio.net...
> >> > NASCAR is great performance art.
> >>
> >> Kinda like wrestling?
> >
> > The marketing may not seem far off, but in NASCAR the results and
> > competition are real, whereas in Pro wrestling they are scripted.
That's
> > the usual troll though.
>
> I wasn't referring to the outcomes, only the over the top hoopla and the
> "bloodthirst/crashes" thing.

I won't argue that point then. Personally I'm disappointed how much crashes
feature in the promos. I don't like to see crashes, because I care for the
welfare of the drivers and don't want to see any of them hurt. Even if they
are leading my guy in the points.



> >> > 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?
>
>
> Bad snip somebody - I was referring to the ever-shrinking CART fields.

Ok, fair enough.... I don't follow CART at all so I guess that conversation
is over too.

-Russ.

"Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
...
> Don't kid yourself that today's NASCAR cars bare any resembelence to the
> stock cars of yesteryear.

Well, you could also certainly say that F1 cars of today are very different
from those of yesteryear too. But I guess the point you are making (and
correctly so), is that it's time to stop using "Nascar" and stock car racing
together. But this probably won't stop. Record stores sell only CD's etc.
They are both outdated names.

"tech27" > wrote in message
.verio.net...
>
> "Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Don't kid yourself that today's NASCAR cars bare any resembelence to the
> > stock cars of yesteryear.
>
> Well, you could also certainly say that F1 cars of today are very
different
> from those of yesteryear too. But I guess the point you are making (and
> correctly so), is that it's time to stop using "Nascar" and stock car
racing
> together. But this probably won't stop. Record stores sell only CD's etc.
> They are both outdated names.
>
>


Well, no. F1 cars have evolved greatly, this is certainly true. But they
were never presented as anything other than racing machines. NASCAR cars, on
the other hand, were formerly known as Stock Cars. They were for all
practical purposes the very same cars we could go to the showroom and buy
and drive home. Obviously, we would have to order the performance packages,
so we would not necessarily drive them home the same day, but we could order
them and wait for the truck to drop them off at the dealership, then we
could go get them and drive them home.

It isn't time to stop using the term NASCAR, it might do us well to stop
saying Stock Car though.

"Somebody" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Somebody" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >> 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
> > >
> > > That's incorrect, the drivers can indeed adjust the brake bias in a
Cup
> > > car.
> > > Only useful at short tracks and road courses.
> > >
> > > -Russ.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I'll have to pay more attention, I have never heard the guys on TV
explain
> > about adjusting brake bias in a Cup car, or in Busch or the trucks
either.
> I
> > always here them explain it in F1, Indy and CART.
>
> It's a pretty hot topic at Richmond or Martinsville where brakes are
> paramount, and also to a lesser extent at either of the road courses.
Other
> than that it doesn't get much air time, simply because nobody ever touches
> the adjustement at the superspeedways because there is no reason to at
all.
> Some of the other short tracks it will come up if a guy is having trouble
> with his brakes, but that's about it. So I'm not surprised you haven't
heard
> it much if you weren't listening for it.
>
> -Russ.
>
>

Actually, it is precisely the short tracks where one would expect the
commentator to give us an explanation of brake bias, and how the drivers can
affect it from inside the cockpit, but they don't. Or, at least I don't
remember them talking about it. In fact, they make a point of zooming the
picture in on glowing front rotors, and explain in detail why the rotors get
so hot, but they have never talked about brake bias that I can recall. One
would think that the best bias would be that which made all of the rotors
glow so that the braking effort was more evenly distributed, which is what
bias means.

"Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message >...
>
> Back in the 60s and 70s, even into the 80s, they were cars off of the
> showroom floor with modifictations done to them.

Actually, the basis in showroom stock bodies in NASCAR pretty much
ended around 1970. It had begun in 1967 when a slight rules change
allowed the use of Ford Galaxie front crossmembers in the smaller and
newly-legal Fairlane (Mercury Cyclone) chassis. Tube frame front ends
quickly followed and, by about 1972, there was hardly any actual
'stock' left in the cars aside from some sheetmetal. With a template
for each body, that held on for a little longer, but the chassis were
completely fabricated early in the '70s.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Remembers with regret)

"Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
...
>
> Actually, it is precisely the short tracks where one would expect the
> commentator to give us an explanation of brake bias, and how the drivers
can
> affect it from inside the cockpit, but they don't. Or, at least I don't
> remember them talking about it. In fact, they make a point of zooming the
> picture in on glowing front rotors, and explain in detail why the rotors
get
> so hot, but they have never talked about brake bias that I can recall. One
> would think that the best bias would be that which made all of the rotors
> glow so that the braking effort was more evenly distributed, which is what
> bias means.

Again if you listen to it, it's there. Most commonly it is used in Cup cars
on short tracks to adjust the handling going into the corner, even to
compensate for a mid-race "adjustment" by the wall or another car. I can't
recall it being brought up in terms of brake wear or effort, though that's
surely a part of it and governs the neutral setting that they start out
with.

Anyway next short track listen for it, you'll hear them talking about brake
bias. Usually it's the former driver of the TV crew that mentions it.

-Russ.

"C.R. Krieger" > wrote in message
om...
> "Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
>...
> >
> > Back in the 60s and 70s, even into the 80s, they were cars off of the
> > showroom floor with modifictations done to them.
>
> Actually, the basis in showroom stock bodies in NASCAR pretty much
> ended around 1970. It had begun in 1967 when a slight rules change
> allowed the use of Ford Galaxie front crossmembers in the smaller and
> newly-legal Fairlane (Mercury Cyclone) chassis. Tube frame front ends
> quickly followed and, by about 1972, there was hardly any actual
> 'stock' left in the cars aside from some sheetmetal. With a template
> for each body, that held on for a little longer, but the chassis were
> completely fabricated early in the '70s.
> --
> C.R. Krieger
> (Remembers with regret)


That early? I thought the full tube chassis didn't come to us until the 80s.
Oh well ...