So... All you road race elitests were wrong?

yamaha wrote: Edit: My bitch with nascar is "stock" in stock car, and the simple fact of they have shunned nearly every technological innovation for one reason or another. Here are some examples. Cam in block rule.......Thanks Chrysler for threatening to pull out due to the Ford cammer

That's odd, given that Chrysler was working on a DOHC version of the Hemi, but stopepd development when the Cammer was nixed.

The real problem was that the NASCAR higher-ups didn't believe that the Cammer was a production engine. Story goes, Ford put on a dog-and-pony show at one of their factories, showing a Cammer in a Fairlane coming down the assembly line every now and then, but the brass (possibly Bill France himself) didn't buy it.

EFI......they've finally come around on this. I'm still surprised.

You oughta go to Speedtalk sometime. That's almost a banned subject, any time it comes up iot turns into a 50+ page flamewar. Usually starts with an issue with an EFI car, someone comments "How does he like his Japanese carburetor now LOL!", and then it goes from there.

racerfink wrote: Because I rain tire would chunk INSTANTLY on an oval.

Ouch.

Downforce this and downforce that, but the lateral loads of a 2200lb car are much different from that of a 3700lb car.

IIRC the time they did run in the rain was not on a banked oval.

racerfink wrote:

oldsaw wrote: The OP got his knickers in a wad because qualifying was postponed for about an hour.

Hardly. But thanks for knowing exactly what I was feeling without having ever met me.

I haven't met you and I was guessing; my bad.

So what exactly was your point and at whom were you aiming?

wow, for 3 pages of total crap, nice troll, fink.

Who the hell cares?

If you WANT me to be elitist, I will. But I surely don't see the point in comparing the size of your shlongs about racing.

aeronca65t wrote: I would agree that trying to say one version of motorsports is "better" than another is a pointless excersize. It is a matter of personal opinion. Both my son-in-laws are excellent fellows. They like football: I like soccer. My office-mate is a fine person. He's a Republican: I'm a Democrat. We do not all like the same thing. For the record, I do not find F1 or NASCAR all that interesting, but I wouldn't turn down a ticket to see one of these events. For what it's worth, I do Race In Rain. And not just once.

wow.. a soccer loving democrat.. i don't know how you could be more wrong..

Knurled wrote: Downforce this and downforce that, but the lateral loads of a 2200lb car are much different from that of a 3700lb car. IIRC the time they did run in the rain was not on a banked oval.

and don't forget that NASCAR only runs 15" tires with huge flexible sidewalls.. that's gotta affect the tire's ability to survive under racing conditions in such a heavy car. i think they kept with the smaller wheels to limit brake selection, which helps equalize and slow things down a bit.

also, Goodyear engineers the tires to wear out relatively fast to add in another factor that teams have to manage, and to give the pit crews more chances to waste an extra fraction of a second on pit road during a pit stop, which can have a HUGE effect on the outcome of the race- the team that gets everything right and has the best luck on any given weekend will generally wind up in victory lane..

i know they were toying with 17" wheels a couple of offseasons ago and even did some testing, but i think they held off after the hell they got for having that fugly ricer wing and fugly ricer looking splitter with all the fugly ricer support struts on the first version of the COT..

novaderrik wrote: wow.. a soccer loving democrat.. i don't know how you could be more wrong..

You have illustratrated the problem I was addressing.
Perfectly.

aeronca65t wrote:

novaderrik wrote: wow.. a soccer loving democrat.. i don't know how you could be more wrong..

You have illustratrated the problem I was addressing. Perfectly.

i bet i didn't, but you think i did..

see, when i'm online i don't use smileys because they are stupid.. it is fun to see how stupid online comments can get people wound up...

In reply to novaderrik:

Drive slower and get a dedicated rain tire?

NASCAR should love rain, it will wash away all that "debris" which continues to litter tracks across the nation.

My issue with NASCAR isn't the cars, the ovals or the technology. It is the pro-wrestiling meets county fair racing rules which bugs me. I don't like red neck culture so I don't like back woods type rules.

That being said; NASCAR drivers are extremely capable and, while the technology of a NASCAR racing car may be a bit dated, the skill, engineering and intelligence required to make the car do what it can do is truly impressive.

It all comes down to opinion/preference and facts.

Opinion/Preference: I don't like county-fair-type racing and rule structures.

Fact: NASCAR is comprised of very talented and intelligent people.

FYI: I don't like F1 much anymore, either. Too much technology and electronics. Let the drivers drive, for Pete's sake!

racerfink wrote: Because I rain tire would chunk INSTANTLY on an oval. It's not that hard to understand.

Who cares? Oval track racing is boring. Hell, even the announcer at last year's Baltimore Grand Prix made fun of the "circle track" Indy car racers who fail to comprehend what an apex is.

Moparman wrote: My issue with NASCAR isn't the cars, the ovals or the technology. It is the pro-wrestling meets county fair racing rules which bugs me.

Say What quote if I ever heard one.

Knurled wrote: That's odd, given that Chrysler was working on a DOHC version of the Hemi, but stopepd development when the Cammer was nixed. The real problem was that the NASCAR higher-ups didn't believe that the Cammer was a production engine. Story goes, Ford put on a dog-and-pony show at one of their factories, showing a Cammer in a Fairlane coming down the assembly line every now and then, but the brass (possibly Bill France himself) didn't buy it. You oughta go to Speedtalk sometime. That's almost a banned subject, any time it comes up iot turns into a 50+ page flamewar. Usually starts with an issue with an EFI car, someone comments "How does he like his Japanese carburetor now LOL!", and then it goes from there.

Riddle me this, look back in your history......find where chrysler had been told to sit out due to the hemi the year before the cammer appeared. They weren't thrilled.

Speedtalk? why? I am just surprised they got to that, and its a step forward.

In reply to aussiesmg:

Sorry, instead of rules, I should have said attitude. My feeble mind was wandering.

In reply to Moparman:

Both are appropriate.

In reply to yamaha:

I do not recall Chrysler being told to sit out. I do recall Chrysler being told that it could not run a Hemi headed engine. It sat out one year and Richard Petty went drag racing. Then Petty drove for Ford one year and then Chrysler was permitted to run the Hemi. Ford's 429 engine has darn near a hemispherical combustion chamber, if I remember correctly.

I liked NASCAR back then. Real production-based cars (but hardly stock) and new technology found its way into cars, even after great difficulty.

Why could not a AMLS GT-type car be used as a basis for the next NASCAR car? It may not go near 200 MPH, but then they would not need restrictor plates. The manufacturers would love a return to win on Sunday, sell on Monday. This is especially true of they could brag that the "same" engine that won the latest race can be had in a street car.

Stock cars are named liek that for the same reason fberglass tube frame sports cars are called "production" class racers in SCCA. They vaguely resemble the full fendered production cars. In NASCAR, the Stock cars are differentiated in teh same way from modifieds and Super Modifieds, both of which have progresively less bodywork on them, and progressively less stock in the layout (Super modifieds have their engines way offset and canted over).

People bitching about stock cars not being stock are simply being closed minded for the sake of being closed minded anymore. In another thread there was discussion on which was the best automotive forum around and you know, this one still has as much of a collective stick up it's ass about many subjects, NASCAR being only one of them.

In reply to Chris_V:

Psst! I understand the difference. All I was saying was that production-based would be more interesting. I don't mind stock body dimensions over tube frames either. I just dislike a spec-car series in which stickers are used so everyone can pretend they cars are even remotely related to productioon cars and artificial drama is added by those running the show.

Let me ask you: What would be wrong with production-based cars? It works in GT classes of sports-car racing and in touring cars. I think it would be more popular.

Let me ask another: Other than marketing telling us that it is the greatest show on wheels, what makes NASCAR so great?

^That it makes the people who sanction/participate large sums of cash..............because so many people watch it.

Unlike what you would like them to pattern it after.

I'm not a NASCAR fan either.

Moparman wrote: In reply to Chris_V: Psst! I understand the difference. All I was saying was that production-based would be more interesting. I don't mind stock body dimensions over tube frames either. I just dislike a spec-car series in which stickers are used so everyone can pretend they cars are even remotely related to productioon cars and artificial drama is added by those running the show. Let me ask you: What would be wrong with production-based cars? It works in GT classes of sports-car racing and in touring cars. I think it would be more popular. Let me ask another: Other than marketing telling us that it is the greatest show on wheels, what makes NASCAR so great?

more interesting to you.. but production based adds more costs, and that pushes more of the small teams out.. they are currently no more or less "stock" or "production based" than most of the cars that run at every circle track around the country every friday or saturday night. if you want to see production based cars, then watch the stuff that is production based- they are out there.. if enough people start doing that, maybe NASCAR would go that way. but in the mean time they will do what their fanbase tells them they want. and, no, their "fan base" isn't the vocal 1% that bitch and complain on the internet about how it isn't as good as it used to be or could be. they are making money by the truckload the way it is, so why change it?..

Moparman wrote: I just dislike a spec-car series in which stickers are used so everyone can pretend they cars are even remotely related to productioon cars and artificial drama is added by those running the show.

And I like spec series, from NASCAR to Spec Miata, to Spec RX7, to just about every Formula car class, where the DRIVER makes the difference. I'm a driver, not a car, and I follow drivers, and appreciate talent rising to the top. Taking production out of it (at the lower levels at least), takes money out of it, so you don't have some talentless asshat simply buying the newest, trickest ride and winning. (like happens in autocross often enough).

I take it you don't like sports racers , prototypes, or formula cars, either, as they tend not to resemble any production cars, either.

What street car is this one?