NASCRAP...what a joke.

In reply to Snowdoggie:

Or raced motocross.

Try racng two heats and a 25 lap feature at your local dirt track, and tell me you're not beat up at the end of the night. I can't imagine what it's like to run at nascar speeds and lap counts..

Toyman01 wrote: Take the biggest name in Grand Am and most people have never even heard of him. You can't say that about NASCAR drivers.

Pssst... NASCAR owns Grand Am. So... you are saying that in a way.

IMO, NASCAR knows they can't dress that stock car pig up anymore and will promote Grand Am very well in the coming years. Encouraging the big name cup driver cross-pollination to happen for premiere GA races and putting rules in place for the Cadillacs, Camaros and Mustangs to run up front all makes me think they see it as the next big thing (or at least a growth opportunity).

Sorry for the threadjack. Proceed.

At least Grand Am is coming to Indy so I can watch it in person.

A DP doesn't weigh 3800lbs., and an FRC doesn't go over 160mph at Daytona, so what's your point? I know, it's just to argue and keep this thread going. I'm done.

racerfink wrote: A DP doesn't weigh 3800lbs., and an FRC doesn't go over 160mph at Daytona, so what's your point?

An FRC does 150 in the rain for hours on end though and it's tires do not disintegrate. They find water to cool them or they put the slicks back on. You don't really think a cup car would go 200 in the wet either... more like errr... 160?

So my point is that it can be done. A car of similar weight is doing it for far longer at similar speed as we could reasonably expect a cup car to do.

Since you are "Done" though... you never saw this :)

stuart in mn wrote: - I don't want to know what it would feel like at 200mph next to a brick wall.

woudn't the solution to that problem to be for them to slow down to, say, 150mph if it's raining? Or does that make too much sense?

Pretty sure that when it rains in ETC, Rolex, Grand-Am, F1, autocross, or any other motorsport (which almost all run in the rain) that they just change tires and drive based on the conditions...e.g slower than when it's dry.

Hell, if Superbike guys can run in the rain, there is no excuse for ANY 4-wheel racing to not be able to run in the rain.

Even if driving in the rain only takes a change in the tires, NASCAR eats a heck of a lot of tires.

Each team goes through 9-13 sets PER RACE. With around 40 cars in the race, Goodyear provides nearly 2000 leased tires for every race.

Sure. Let's just change tires.

I'm a fan of NASCAR. Not of any one driver in particular, but the sport in general. Is it overhyped and somewhat WWF style? Sure. But so what? They don't fake racing. I'm not in love with the restrictor plate stuff either. When my wife and I were watching the Shootout, I was repeatedly saying "This is stupid, someone's going to get killed...again". But beyond Daytona and Talladega, I like the racing. Whipping a 3400lb car, with a high center of gravity, on skinny tires around a cereal bowl like Bristol or Dover takes skill.

I like all kinds of racing. ALMS, Grand Am, NHRA. I'm probably one of the few, but the one I'm least impressed wtih is F1. Sure, the technology is a modern marvel. But the cars are ultra light, high power, low center of gravity, fat tires, electronics galore. Seems it's more about the car's ability, and the car owners pocket depth, than anything else. That's true in other racing too, but it seems more so in F1.

In reply to SVreX:

The number of tires they consume has much to do with compunds. They could run harder compunds whoch last longer. Oh, but then the drivers might have to drive more slowly due to the reduced grip of the harder compund.

It is not that difficult for NASCAR to run in the rain or to hold speeds down in the dry with harder compunds. NASCAR is about the show, not which manufacturer has the better car or even which driver is better (although that shines through regardless).

NASCAR will not run in the rain, because it does not want its fans to get wet and because it makes for bad television. If some of us think watching a pack of cars chase its tail for 3.5 hours at 190 MPH is bad, think of how watching a pack of cars chase its tail for 5 hours at 150 MPH will be. At least there is some drama in the rain on a road course. It is eciting to see drivers push cars ona wet road course. I love watching them recover a bobble under braking or hand the tail out and bring it back. On an oval, once the car goes, it will probably keep going.

In reply to Klayfish:

When phantom debris yellows are called to bunch up the pack to make the race more exciting, that is fake racing. The cars are real, the drivers are real, the engineers and crews are real. The race is not quite so real. Just like wresting. In pro wrestling, the athletes are real. The physical training and workouts performed by the wrestlers to build their bodies are real, but the mathc is fake.

However, NASCAR is making a smart business decision. This is what most viewers want. They want bumping and pushing. They want spins and driver shouting and shoving matches. This is the country of the unrealistic reality show. America is dumbing down and NASCAR had found a way to make, millions from it.

NASCAR is no worse than Survivior or Wife Swap.

In reply to Klayfish:

"I like all kinds of racing. ALMS, Grand Am, NHRA. I'm probably one of the few, but the one I'm least impressed wtih is F1. Sure, the technology is a modern marvel. But the cars are ultra light, high power, low center of gravity, fat tires, electronics galore. Seems it's more about the car's ability, and the car owners pocket depth, than anything else. That's true in other racing too, but it seems more so in F1."

I agree with you about F1. Although I am much more interested in cars than drivers, an F1 car has so many electronic aids, that driver skill has been partially taken out of the equation.

F1 is boring because it is all about technology and no one passes.

Indy Cars were boring due to it being a spec series.

NASCAR is boring because it is a spec series with crazy rules.

Grand AM, ALMS, SCCA and NASA have the best racing for car enthusiasts. Unfortunately, most racing fans are not car fans. The don't car about what oil they put in their cars, what shock absorbers are installed or which tires on which they are driving. The fact that more Vettes have been equipped with automatic transmissions than manuals speaks volumes about American enthusiasts.

Moparman wrote: I agree with you about F1. Although I am much more interested in cars than drivers, an F1 car has so many electronic aids, that driver skill has been partially taken out of the equation.

There are no aids in F1. No traction control, no brake assist, nothing anymore. There is cockpit adjustability for suspension, diff, and so on but the driver has to be able to use it to advantage. I believe they still have launch control to some extent to get off the line but it was due to be removed at some point as well.

The best F1 races are... drum roll... when it rains. Then you get to see who has a better driver in a lesser car.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: The best F1 races are... drum roll... when it rains.

Same thing with NASCRAP.

Didn't bother to read this whole thread, just first page and this page. I don't watch NASCAR, went to one Craftsman Truck Race (used to be Craftsman, anyway, not sure what it is now). Interesting to watch, but not something I'd do again. If they decided to go back to STOCK car racing... hell, I'd pay good money to see a field of 30 stock Silverados and Tacomas duking it out for 500 laps. Itd take for-berkleying-ever, but I'd watch it. I imagine the manufacturers would get more out of STOCK car racing, as fans could say, "gee whiz, (Insert manufacturer here) had a really great showing in their (insert vehicle model here), that must be a good car". As it is now... well... not only is it practically impossible to determine (aside from stickers) what the vehicle is, but performance on the track is not representative of the vehicle it was originally based upon.

Moparman wrote: In reply to Klayfish: "I like all kinds of racing. ALMS, Grand Am, NHRA. I'm probably one of the few, but the one I'm least impressed wtih is F1. Sure, the technology is a modern marvel. But the cars are ultra light, high power, low center of gravity, fat tires, electronics galore. Seems it's more about the car's ability, and the car owners pocket depth, than anything else. That's true in other racing too, but it seems more so in F1." I agree with you about F1. Although I am much more interested in cars than drivers, an F1 car has so many electronic aids, that driver skill has been partially taken out of the equation. F1 is boring because it is all about technology and no one passes. Indy Cars were boring due to it being a spec series. NASCAR is boring because it is a spec series with crazy rules. Grand AM, ALMS, SCCA and NASA have the best racing for car enthusiasts. Unfortunately, most racing fans are not car fans. The don't car about what oil they put in their cars, what shock absorbers are installed or which tires on which they are driving. The fact that more Vettes have been equipped with automatic transmissions than manuals speaks volumes about American enthusiasts.

Sure it does-and Italian/Euro enthusiasts must really blow, as they only buy Ferraris with automatics. That places us dumb hick "amurricuns" way ahead of them, as we can buy manuals in our Caddy station wagons. Also, I'm quite certain that many NASCAR fans are every bit as knowledgable about cars as you might think your are-and are just as passionate about the products they use.

As to your rating of race series? All the series that you consider boring-many fans find to be some of the best racing on the planet. I, too, enjoy ALMS-but since an M3 would be absolutely destroyed by a ZR1, 458 or Porsche on a race track, its plain to me that that type of racing is far more "staged" than NASCAR. Especially for someone that claims to only care about the cars.

forzav12 wrote: Also, I'm quite certain that many NASCAR fans are every bit as knowledgable about cars as you might think your are-and are just as passionate about the products they use.

Actually, as much as I may respect the drivers and stuff in NASCAR, the people I know who watch it, do NOT know about cars.

For instance, my Sister watches NASCAR and she only got her license when she turned 30.

mad_machine wrote:

forzav12 wrote: Also, I'm quite certain that many NASCAR fans are every bit as knowledgable about cars as you might think your are-and are just as passionate about the products they use.

Actually, as much as I may respect the drivers and stuff in NASCAR, the people I know who watch it, do NOT know about cars. For instance, my Sister watches NASCAR and she only got her license when she turned 30.

+100. There might be some but most every NASCAR lover, I have met, doesn't know much about cars at all.

In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:

is this new? Last year I thought theere was still at least launch control, etc.

It's a good show and fun to watch. Cars are heavy on skinny tires and run at very high speed for 4-5 hrs.and with practically no down force. How many F1 cars could do that ?

Moparman wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: is this new? Last year I thought theere was still at least launch control, etc.

Traction control has been banned since the return to slick tires in 2008. I don't know the status of launch control but I have a recollection (in David Hobbs voice) of it being banned or changed at some point mid-2011.

In reply to forzav12:

Challenge! Although there are many knowledgeable NASCAR fans, the average spectator / television viewer, knows next to jack about vehicles. As for Europe, until VERY recenlty, manual transmissions were far more popular than automatics. As for your ALMS analogy, there is a formula and a certain amount of handicapping. However, there is much more uniqueness among the cars. The factories are also permitted to improve the breed. If the M3 was totally outclassed, no amount of handicapping would make it competitive. They may narrow the gaps, but at least it isn;t the spec series that is NASCAR. Also, when was the last time race organzers took deliberate action to bunch the field at an ALMS race?

NASCAR is a great spectacle and a well-run business, but it is a spectacle. At least with ALMS, the cars and the technology are related to what is available to the public. A current NASCAR has more in common with a 69 Charger than a 2012 Charger.

Bring back actual, unique, body dimensions, no more rwd race cars modeled after fwd street cars and make them run engines which are currently in production and I ( and most car enthusiasts) would be happy.

Why is this so hard to do? With the exception of Toyota, the manufacturers have cars which fit the bill. They are called the Camaro, Mustang and Challenger.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

Moparman wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: is this new? Last year I thought theere was still at least launch control, etc.

Traction control has been banned since the return to slick tires in 2008. I don't know the status of launch control but I have a recollection (in David Hobbs voice) of it being banned or changed at some point mid-2011.

Why would they even need launch control. Like most modern races, they start the race rolling behind a pace car. When leave the pits, they are speed limited. There is no reason for those cars to have anything even approaching Launch control.

mad_machine wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

Moparman wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: is this new? Last year I thought theere was still at least launch control, etc.

Traction control has been banned since the return to slick tires in 2008. I don't know the status of launch control but I have a recollection (in David Hobbs voice) of it being banned or changed at some point mid-2011.

Why would they even need launch control. Like most modern races, they start the race rolling behind a pace car. When leave the pits, they are speed limited. There is no reason for those cars to have anything even approaching Launch control.

We were talking F1. They launch from a standing start in 800HP, 1100lb cars that need aero to stick. They don't need it but I could see why they might want a bit of it.

my bad.. thought you were still talking about NASCAR.

Moparman wrote: In reply to Klayfish: When phantom debris yellows are called to bunch up the pack to make the race more exciting, that is fake racing. The cars are real, the drivers are real, the engineers and crews are real. The race is not quite so real. Just like wresting. In pro wrestling, the athletes are real. The physical training and workouts performed by the wrestlers to build their bodies are real, but the mathc is fake.

I agree to a point. The phantom yellows are fake and inserted to try to make it more "exciting". I don't like them, and would love to see it go away. You're also not going to convince me that other racing series don't do similar things to try to add excitement to a race. They may do it more discreetly, but most racing series know that a race with 2 cars on the lead lap, dominating the entire race, isn't going to be a very watched race (except for the hardcore enthusiast).

With NASCAR, when the green flag is flying, the racing is real. Restrictor plates suck as I said before, but they are racing. One of my favorite races in NASCAR is Watkins Glen or Sonoma. It's fun (funny?) to watch a big, fat car trying to whip around a road course. That takes skill. The personalities in NASCAR are played up, but I don't know they're any more fake than anywhere else. For example, Kyle Busch intentionally running another truck into the wall during a caution was dumb as hell, but I don't think it was scripted or encouraged. It's just him being him.

All racing series have a degree of "fake" to them. Whether it's team orders, which happens in all major racing forms, or fake debris cautions, it's all in the name of better ratings and ticket sales.