I have never been a fan of plate racing, I would have preferred aero mods and full horsepower or smaller unrestricted motors. Nascar has made the decision to use tapered spacers instead of plates, and limit hp to 550 on 21 tracks that are longer than 1.2 miles. I am unsure if this will improve the racing. Thought?
Zzzzz someone wake me up when they stop racing on cookie-cutter ovals which are all the same. Changing the HP restrictions is just scratching the surface.
I think the engine power will be close to the same on Daytona and Talledega. The lower power will turn Michigan, California, Texas etc into pack racing, which will satisfy the guys who like to crash.
I think the massive spoilers will make a big difference, perhaps more than the horsepower limit.
Bill France and Max Mosely have turned me into a guy who watches more bike races than car races.
The pack racing and the big ones are what I dislike most about plate racing. I like to see good racing with plenty of passing, but not because you slowed everybody down by taking away horsepower. Massive aero or restrict grip, so it becomes more of a driver's race.
Get rid of horsepower limits and just put a chicane somewhere on the oval. That way everyone gets max power, but everyone gets slowed down, and lots of crashes. I'd watch NASCAR again :)
Chesterfield said:The pack racing and the big ones are what I dislike most about plate racing. I like to see good racing with plenty of passing, but not because you slowed everybody down by taking away horsepower. Massive aero or restrict grip, so it becomes more of a driver's race.
Nobody likes those Goodyears. They do a great job restricting grip.
I prefer traction levels equivalent to dry slick dirt track.
Cactus said:Bill France and Max Mosely have turned me into a guy who watches more bike races than car races.
Watch some IMSA and IndyCar racing. Much less BS and some great drivers and cars.
Why not abandon oval tracks entirely. Block off some lesser used American highways, and have one helluva high speed, forty car, battle royale. Imagine 500 actual miles along highway 50, NV. Or the trans-taiga in can-eh-da.
I would watch the hell out of that.
Chesterfield said:I prefer traction levels equivalent to dry slick dirt track.
This is where I would go. Not sure I'd take traction level quite that low, but IMO take the power restrictions off the engines but give them a tire that simply can't grip turn 1 at Pocono at 200mph. Or leave the tires sticky with lots of fall off, but make the aero so dirty that the cars couldn't hold just about wide open all the way around Michigan.
I like that they added another road course/roval, I'd like to see one or two more. I like the fact they have tracks ranging from 1/2 mile bull rings to 2.5 mile superspeedways. I theoretically don't even have a huge problem with them having multiple 1.5 mile ovals. The problem with it is that cars have gotten so fast, so aero dependent and so one-groove-racing sticky that the competition hasn't been great.
Stefan said:Cactus said:Bill France and Max Mosely have turned me into a guy who watches more bike races than car races.
Watch some IMSA and IndyCar racing. Much less BS and some great drivers and cars.
Don't worry, they're going to ruin IMSA too! Indycar is great though.
Wait, I want to make sure I understand this.
Stop using restrictor plates = using restrictor spacers on every track over 1.2 miles? That seems like more restriction, not less.
tuna55 said:Wait, I want to make sure I understand this.
Stop using restrictor plates = using restrictor spacers on every track over 1.2 miles? That seems like more restriction, not less.
Actually, I think they're using spacers on all tracks, even short tracks, just of varying size. I know there are a plenty of NASCAR bashers here, and that's cool. I'm a fan, and will take a much more "wait and see" approach. I'm skeptical, but I also think they have to so something to improve the excitement level in the races. The races today are far more competitive than they've ever been, but it doesn't mean it makes for good spectating, because in its' current format, it doesn't. I'm optimistic NASCAR realizes this and is trying to do something about it. I also don't think it's a simple answer, such as "Just do x or y and the racing will be awesome", otherwise they'd have done it already. Costs are out of control, and not sure how they'll reign it in, but they need to.
I love when RACE cars are restricted to less HP then many cars you can buy with a warranty and drive to work everyday.
It really gets me excited about a series.
NASCAR lost me when they became a spec car series.
Why don't they just say "no more than xyz HP, but we don't care how you stay below that limit"? That would likely keep things more interesting, as you wouldn't end up with a bunch of cars with identically behaving drivetrains, so even if they're comparable in theory, different teams will end up with somewhat different behavior on the track.
Klayfish said:
I also don't think it's a simple answer, such as "Just do x or y and the racing will be awesome", otherwise they'd have done it already.
I don't know about this. There's been an awful lot of thrashing about that didn't seem like they were trying for the best racing so much as the outcome they wanted. Perhaps more to the point, and this is far from isolated to NASCAR, people frequently miss the simpler answers. I was about to say that they're really boned because smaller unrestricted engines (sixes or even fours) would lose a lot of fans, but at this point, I actually wonder how much of the fan base cares what's under the hood. Maybe they could do fours...
I have about the same gripe with NASCAR as I do with F1, for a bit of equitability: The most powerful players and the sanctioning body want a reliable investment, and do a lot to make sure nobody does anything too interesting, lest someone get shown up by a clever move from a team with less resources. It might make for more interesting racing, but a less sound investment strategy. With incredibly prescriptive rules, it seems to me that the cars aren't just competitive with one another, they differ less in how they get it done, so you see less in the way of advantage in this corner vs that straight, or this circuit vs that one.
I'm with Cactus. MotoGP is the only racing I watch regularly, though I've been trying to get my sources nailed down to watch a bit more sports car racing, esp the Continental/IMSA stuff, as it seems like there's some decent internet coverage. Oh, and Goodwood Revival!
I actually got a little excited until I read the thread.
I wish there was still something "stock" about "stock cars".
If the roots of NASCAR are in Moonshinin', why the berk aren't they turning right more-like , A LOT more?!! Those runners' weren't driving around in circles to get away from da' PoPo!
That's it! That's what I want to see! I want to see Jimmy Johnson-better yet, a southern driver with a whole lotta' "Moonshine" in the truck, being chased by a police car, done up "NASCAR" Style! Put them on the CIRCUIT (yes, left and RIGHT turns) and see who wins in a one-lap battle. If the racer pulls out a margin on the "cop" car, along with the fastest time WINS pole.
Really pulling stuff out my butt, but you get the idea. Pit stop competitions are all good, but they need a better show and turn right more. Great Charlotte race, by the way.
I would love to see more of what we saw this past weekend with the tracks that have ovals, but also have a road course portion.
How many of the NASCAR tracks have that? I know Daytona does, but any others including Charlotte?
I was originally hopeful when I saw the headline about no more plates then I read the plates were being replaced by tapered spacers for the same results. That was disappointing.
I enjoyed the roval, it was more interesting than most races over the past few years. I know several tracks have infield road courses, but most are not developed enough for cup car use.
I have been a nascar fan for over 30 years, and have seen a significant amount of changes to try to improve competition or improve racing. The parity has increased, but the sport is still dominated by a handful of teams. The teams change every few years when someone figures out an advantage. I am not sure there is a simple fix that will please everybody.
Dave M said:Zzzzz someone wake me up when they stop racing on cookie-cutter ovals which are all the same. Changing the HP restrictions is just scratching the surface.
Did anyone wake you up this past weekend?
Chesterfield said:I prefer traction levels equivalent to dry slick dirt track.
I like to watch old Group A era rally videos. No suspension travel, no grip, no power, and drivers who are used to having 2-3 times the power. Balls to the wall sliding all over the damn place and keeping it together because compared to the grueling schedules (exhaustion!) and overpowered ill handling pigs of Group B, the old A cars were like a vacation...
rslifkin said:Why don't they just say "no more than xyz HP, but we don't care how you stay below that limit"? That would likely keep things more interesting, as you wouldn't end up with a bunch of cars with identically behaving drivetrains, so even if they're comparable in theory, different teams will end up with somewhat different behavior on the track.
Same reason F1 went from open rules to a defined engine geometry.
If you want to win, you have to make two or three or four different drivetrain packages and do extensive testing to see which one is the Best.
You'll need to log in to post.
