THE BASH NASCAR THREAD

racerdave600 wrote:

wvumtnbkr wrote: In reply to racerdave600: I am not sure I agree with your comment about the cars being low tech. I think they ARE low tech. I don't believe they are using any new or cutting edge technologies in the cars. I would love to hear otherwise. Just because some of the tools the teams use can be considered "High-Tech", to me doesn't mean that NASCAR or the actual cars are high tech.

I'm not going to go item by item, but you need to go see one and understand what is going on. Just because it is metal and not carbon fiber doesn't make it low tech. They have parts designed to do a job and what you consider to be high tech may not work for what the intended purpose is. And if you make the cars $1 mil or more each, how is that better racing that one that costs $250,000? I've worked with some pretty high dollar stuff, some that are exotic, and while they may not be considered exotic, they are not low tech. I would go as far as to say most people in general couldn't maintain or build one without serious specialized help. And if you think you can, without millions of dollars invested, you are sadly, sadly mistaken. We helped Toyota get involved, and I know what it took, and what it cost us, and I can assure you, even with Toyota's help, it wasn't nearly enough. It took them years to get a handle on what it needed to be competitive, much less win.

I didn't say anything relating the technology used and the quality of racing.

Also, I did not hear anything that makes me change my mind about the level of technology in the car.

I did hear that they take a lot of effort to campaign. Agreed. I'm sure they do.

Can you actually point out something on the car that is high-tech?

I am not trying to crap on NASCAR. I just don't understand its relevance.

Why does any of this matter? If someone enjoys somthing and you don't why complain about it. The fact that people feel compelled to try and belittle somthing that others derive fun from is really sad.

I was hoping this thread would go a couple of posts and die but it did as I suspected and made us here at GRM look bad. It may be a minority as some have stated but there dislike for and in affect shunning of the oval track people I find disgusting.

It just is not right. We have some growing up to do. And as David eluded to is does not reflect well on GRM.

I have to stick my nose in here briefly and go a bit off topic to comment on Tom's statement that Roger Penske was a so-so driver. Roger is best known for his team management, but back in the day he was very, very good, possibly the best young American of his period. He won in just about everything he drove, from the predecessors of Can-Am cars (which he almost invented with his Olds-powered ex-Cooper F1 chassis, offset 2-seater Zerex Special) to Jim Hall's Chaparral (subbing for the injured Hap Sharp), to dominating several races in Nassau, some in the Chevy Grand Sport. The first race I saw him drive he almost beat Walt Hansgen's Maserati Birdcage at the Glen with a Porsche RS, back when the Glen was a 7-turn power track. At the end of his career, he was offered an Indy test and drive by Clint Brawner, which Roger turned down in favor of retirement to concentrate on business and team management. Brawner's second choice was a young Mario Andretti. Roger was an excellent driver.

Now back to our designated topic of NASCAR bashing.

NASCAR comment: Like many, I think the Chase is stupid. I also think that many of the top NASCAR drivers are top drivers, period, and could make it just fine in any series. If I were starting a team in some series and looking for a driver, Kyle Busch (for example) would be very high on my list.

The cars may be heavily restricted, but they are not any more primitive than, for example, sprint cars. They happen to be very highly developed to be very good at what they do. For a glimpse of how advanced some of the work on them is, read the recent article in Racecar Engineering about the series' wind tunnel testing to get a better handle on side drafting. Within the ruleset, and that's the key phrase, these cars are very well engineered, well operated, and well driven. Not my real cup of tea, although I watch the end of a few races a year, but I can't knock the level of tech allowed, the execution, or the driving talent. I may not like some of the rules (restrictor plates, Chase format, green-white-checkered, lucky dog, etc.), but they were smart enough to base the series, and the resulting popularity, on the drivers, rather than just the cars, and that's the difference between NASCAR and say, IndyCar, which wit F1 is my series of choice (plus PWC).

In reply to Wall-e:

Anybody that looks down on a dirt late model team needs to understand that it takes alot of intelligence to make a soild rear axle dirt car to defy physics.

dean1484 wrote: Have at it. It seems that when ever a NASCAR thread comes up people can not help them self's and they always have to interject there displeasure with NASCAR so I figured I would start a thread where you all can go to it.

If NASCAR bashing is bad, whiny, self righteous posts are worse.

plance1 wrote:

dean1484 wrote: Have at it. It seems that when ever a NASCAR thread comes up people can not help them self's and they always have to interject there displeasure with NASCAR so I figured I would start a thread where you all can go to it.

If NASCAR bashing is bad, whiny, self righteous posts are worse.

I am sorry you feel that way. But sometimes the truth stings a bit.

I probably should start a bash rallying thread and make the title ALL CAPS so people can hear me. Well let's see about rallying. Went turbos and awd killing one of its most talented drivers. Virtually no more rwd. Events are a mere shadow of their historical duration. Single dominant drivers with multiple consecutive champions - admittedly most motorsports today. Stupid expensive price with tiny entry lists compared to the 70s for example. Still hated by all non motorsport fans like every other form of auto racing.

I don't like "The Chase" to the championship, but when I think about almost all of the previous seasons where a driver built up a big points lead and just coasted at the end, this is much better. To be champ, you NEED to win. The champ for the past two years had to win the final race, instead of just finishing 30th or higher. Is it common knowledge that there are more than a few F1 engineers working in the Nascar garage? That says quite a bit to me. The whole reason restrictor plates were invented was because Bobby Allison went in the fence back in the late 80s. This was supposed to keep cars out of the fence, but there's been more cars in the fence these past few years than ever. It's only a matter of time before something seriously bad happens. This is part of the front end of a car at Daytona. If the entire engine went into the stands, that would not be good for anyone. How hard would it be to mandate a cam lift rule or a smaller intake valve size instead of a plate?

I like cars, especially race cars. And I have a ton of respect for all of the time, money and effort that the teams and drivers put into a NASCAR race. I'm certain that it takes a lot of skill to pilot a Cup car around a track at 200ish mph. And mechanically, they've refined the hardware as much as they can given the limitations.

My major gripe with NASCAR though, is the lack of relevant innovation. What I appreciate most about motorsports, is the innovation. I want to see tech that will be on street cars in the coming years. I want to see different teams try different recipes for making it around a track faster or more efficiently. I'm never going to be able to afford a fancy race car, but because Motorsports have contributed so many technologies to road cars over the years, I'm able to benefit from it. Today, we get AWD, hybrid tech, traction control, ABS, forced induction, disc brakes, etc on our street cars because they were tried on race cars first. What is NASCAR trying first? How is NASCAR tech going to benefit me? I'm not bashing the fans that enjoy watching the races, or the people involved in the series. I'm just not personally interested in watching it because I don't find any of it relevant at this point.

STM317 wrote: What is NASCAR trying first?

Boogity?

And cheating.

I do believe that NASCAR teams continue to cheat with the best of them.

I think my biggest complaint and one of the reasons I stopped watching is Cookie-Cutter tracks.

For a long time, no two tracks were alike and now, what, almost half the tracks are the same shape and close to the same distance?

Also, nobody had an advantage over anyone else anymore. All the car body styles are the same, all the motors are relatively the same, so it comes down to who has the best suspension setup to stick to the track.

There's just no competition in my eyes anymore.

In reply to nutherjrfan:

Sorry about the Caps in the title I was doing AutoCAD and took a brake when I started this thread. In AutoCAD I keep caps lock on. I did not realize it until after I hit the post button. There was no intent meant with the caps. I sometimes do it in threads but when I catch it I can edit the post.

Sorry about that.

I keep hearing that people are bashing on Nascar in this thread.

I am not seeing it. Maybe my definition of BASHING is different.

I am seeing people state why they don't like with clear and logical reasons.

For example: My stance is that I don't see the relevance. Does that reflect poorly on GRM or mean that I or anybody else is ignorant or closed minded?

There are only a few posts here that are truly bashing.

I think people that are upset with what they are reading should go back and read the arguments against.

Racing is racing. Let us not turn into those "real jeep" idiots.

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: Racing is racing. Let us not turn into those "real jeep" idiots.

real jeeps have round headlights /thread

nevermind i don't care about jeeps either. i had a cj once, flipped it for $500 profit in a week without touching it.

to those who claim irrelevance - what racing has any relevance to the general public? NASCAR does. people who could otherwise give a crap about racing gravitate toward it. maybe i don't get it because i'm not from the southeast. i'd say it is more culturally relevant than any other form of motorsport.

Late to the party but here's mine.

I agree with the sentiment about the whole show being just that: a show. NASCAR could make itself relivent if they would go back to using factory bodies and drivelines. Do that and manufacturers might sell something cool, but calling your car a "Fusion" in my mind means it should be a V6 and FWD. But I'd like to see what the race teams could do with that, a 210 MPH V6 scrambling for grip through the front tires......interesting at least. If manufacturers produce a turbo: let them race a turbo. Or AWD. Or whatever, just so it honestly reflects what it's being called.

In reply to wvumtnbkr:

Making fun of it is fine. I like NASCAR (not as much as I use to) but I will still watch it. I actually found the skittles jokes really funny as were the images posted on the first page. There is a lot to poke fun about NASCAR and many segments of there fan base.

I think the problem is there is a line out there some where with respect to bashing NASCAR that if you step over it it is perceived as being a personal attach of the fan base. The problem is that line moves depending on who you talk to and even the context of the discussion. The other BIG problem is that reading what people are saying is very different than having a conversation. What people may be saying tongue in cheek others may take to be literal (huge problem with the internet in general). This combined with people being very passionate about there particular brand of racing all leads to lots of problems.

In reply to dean1484:

Well said!

In response to the relevance... My point is that it does not have any connection to industry like it had at one time. Real tech was developed for racing that would trickle down to passenger cars. Most other forms of racing still have this connection in some way.

That is what I mean by relevance. Sure, Nascar is relevant in a "Show" or Entertainment kind of way.

People like it. I will watch is occasionally. I am not what you would call a "Fan".

alfadriver wrote: It's all entertainment. Not engineering.

Say what? Pretty sure there is quite a lot of engineering in racing including NASCAR.

dean1484 wrote: I was hoping this thread would go a couple of posts and die but it did as I suspected and made us here at GRM look bad. It may be a minority as some have stated but there dislike for and in affect shunning of the oval track people I find disgusting.

It's pretty lame that you set the bait, and now are admonishing people for taking it. I'm not a NASCAR basher - quite the contrary, but this thread doesn't make you look very good either.

I'll say that it's about as scienced out a chassis with 15 inch wheels and a live axle will ever get. Since most of the cars, and trucks I like have this layout, I find NASCAR, at least in those respects, very relevant.

The politics and rule makers, however, can eat it. (I feel the same way about NHRA, and F1.)

This thread is making me LOL. Obviously a sort of tongue in cheek original post based off a different thread, then some discussion about what people like and don't like about NASCAR and then sprinkled throughout posts trying to make people feel guilty for having opinions. The biggest cases of close mindedness or bashing in this thread seem to be from the ones discussing the other participants and not from anyone discussing anything to do with actual motorsports. This is tiresome.

Back in the '50s at a local 1/2 mile dirt track where "stock" cars ran. The cars had solid axles front and rear, carburetors on the engines. One lap at 30 seconds was good. Today the run the same basic design and times are down to 19 secs.

Must be some tech involved. Better tires, more power, Improvements in set up. In Nascar with unrestricted engines we had 200 mph laps at Daytona, Greg Biffle was clocked at 200+ in the recent 500 with a restrictor plate. Must be some tech there.
Just think, they do this without port injection or direct injection, no turbos, no overhead cams, two valves. Guess there is no tech there.