Today marks the end of an era...

erohslc wrote: That suspension works *damn well* for the application. Do you have *any idea* what kind of G loading they make with that '1940's chevy truck rear suspension'? Don't get me wrong, I'm a dyed in the wool road racer. But one of my Stock car building friends set me straight. In F1 or any road race, they pull max G's for maybe a 2-4 seconds at a time. In NASCAR, they are pulling max G's throughout the whole time they are on the banks. In effect they are in a continuous 4 wheel drift *all the freaking time* at 200+ MPH. Those "good 'ole boys" know how to make a car *handle*

Really you are comparing NASCAR to F1.

A constant load at max G's cannot compare to constantly applied max G acceleration, braking, Left turns and RIGHT turns. Seriously under braking alone the difference should be obvious. It's the 2 to 4 seconds that makes all the difference.

It is just not within the same sphere of performance.

I appreciate NASCAR as well, but to a much lesser extent that F1, or any other racing that doesn't stop due to a sprinkle of rain or any other reason to close up the pack to keep the spectators interested,

Maybe they should cater to a different batch of spectators if they want the racing to be more relevant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMloWN-AZcw

It's hot, it requires unbroken concentration, and every time you accelerate, hit the brakes or corner, your body is subjected to draining g forces.

Sunday will see the first race of this year's formula one season as drivers line up in Melbourne to challenge Michael Schumacher's perennial dominance of the track. Among the physical demands on the drivers, g-force, the multiples of gravitational force the driver experiences, will be one of the most tiring.

In corners, F1 drivers typically experience sideways forces of 4g, and about 5g on braking. As they accelerate out of the corners, they'll feel a 1.5-2g pull. "It's extremely exhausting," says John Nixon of the motorsport group at Cranfield University.

Since Ayrton Senna was killed in a crash in 1994, changes in regulations have made tracks slower and made it tougher for cars to corner at speed. But one way to make tracks slower is to add more corners, so while drivers may pull fewer gs these days, the cumulative effect is still considerable.

The effect of dealing with such high g-forces is noticeable in drivers. "If you compare an early picture of David Coulthard with how he looks now, his neck and the muscles on his jawline look very different," says Nixon. To exercise his neck muscles, former F1 driver Damon Hill fashioned a Heath Robinson-style system of ropes, pulleys and weights to pull sideways on his helmet-clad head.

For most F1 drivers, g-forces rarely cause physical damage, but in 1992, Don Garlits, a drag racer, was not so lucky. After covering a quarter of a mile in a few seconds, he hit the brakes and released a parachute to slow down. The g-force was so intense, his retinas detached, forcing a period of bed rest while they settled back into position and ending his involvement in the sport.

Few F1 drivers will experience a worse pummelling by g-forces than at Becketts at Silverstone, where a rapid series of corners pulls 4g one way, then the other, then back again. "It's a real battering," says Nixon.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/mar/03/thisweekssciencequestions4

In her book �The Physics of NASCAR,� author Diandra Leslie-Pelecky wrote that NASCAR drivers routinely experience 2g to 3g in the turns. While 1g is the force we normally feel, Space Shuttle astronauts feel a 3g force on launches.

So in summary 2 to 3 Gs in NASCAR constantly versus 4 to 5 Gs constantly changing in F1.

erohslc wrote: Says the man flogging a wagon at the autocross. That suspension works *damn well* for the application. Do you have *any idea* what kind of G loading they make with that '1940's chevy truck rear suspension'? Don't get me wrong, I'm a dyed in the wool road racer. But one of my Stock car building friends set me straight. In F1 or any road race, they pull max G's for maybe a 2-4 seconds at a time. In NASCAR, they are pulling max G's throughout the whole time they are on the banks. In effect they are in a continuous 4 wheel drift *all the freaking time* at 200+ MPH. Those "good 'ole boys" know how to make a car *handle* Go find the archives from Car & Driver, read about Patrick Bedard's foray into oval racing with NASCAR and Indycar. His comments about driving the car, car control, etc. should serve as a cautionary lesson to anyone talking NASCAR smack. I agree that sometimes, as a spectator it's hard to appreciate the skill level needed to compete with those guys. The in-car camera tells a different tale, for those who are perceptive enough to appreciate what's going on. Look at some guys (and gals) from other Road racing series that have tried NASCAR, and then let's talk: Jim Clark - Genius, would be good at at anything Nelson Piquet Jr,. Juan Pablo Montoya Do it really matter whether the motor is carb'd or FI'd, as long as the rules promote competition? Does it matter if the wristpins are steel or titanium? Does it matter if the front suspension features negative scrub radius or not? Get a grip, and acknowledge that these guys are *fellow racers* of the first magnitude.

Wow, bit touchy there. I am fully aware of the capabilities of the NASCAR chassis. It was a JOKE. Hell, I'm running street stock parts on the wagon, and REALLY need a NASCAR 9" for the wagon. What other racing series runs 4000lb family cars!

novaderrik wrote:

irish44j wrote: that's crazy talk. next you'll be telling us that they'll start turning right!

they do twice a year.. but NASCAR's roots and fanbase comes from the hundreds of circle tracks that dot the countryside in the USA, so that's what they run. don't like it, fine.. don't watch it.. but there's no need for people that don't like it to constantly bitch/whine/complain about it online every chance they get. i don't like F1 or Indycars, but i don't constantly bitch about how silly the cars look or how boring the racing is.. now i'm gonna sit back and watch the NASCAR championship get won by either Tony Stewart or Carl Edwards- hopefully in a last lap pass/crash/whatever coming out of turn 4..

whoa...way to over-react and read WAY too much into a very simple facetious comment!

Xceler8x wrote: Myself, I think NASCAR is full of sharp guys and talented racers. I'd like to see them run an uncorked and unregulated racing league. Wild Bill ran 200+ mph in the freakin' 80's! Low tech. At that speed who cares about the tech?! Let those cars and guys run. Let's see how this will go....

That was good until they almost put a car in the stands. People already sue over the occasional foul ball, an Impala could really cause some problems.

in unrelated Nascar News:

http://www.onionsportsnetwork.com/articles/area-ford-taurus-thinks-it-couldve-made-it-in-nasc,26706/

Area Ford Taurus Thinks It Could've Made It In NASCAR If It Had Started Earlier

FREMONT, IN—Calling the stock cars in NASCAR "not all that special," a local used 2002 Ford Taurus told reporters Monday it could have made it onto the professional circuit had it started racing when it was younger. "If your owner has you racing from the day you come off the lot, it's not a guarantee you'll make it pro, but you certainly have an advantage over most cars," said the dark red Taurus with 88,000 miles and a small dent near the passenger door handle. "I was always naturally talented, but that talent needed to be honed and finessed. If I'd been at the track from day one I'd be talking to you from the Brickyard 400 right now instead of this driveway in the suburbs, that's for sure." Upon completing its statement, the Taurus was started by its 74-year-old owner, Sue Hampton, left to warm up for a couple minutes, and driven down to the outlet mall.

MrJoshua wrote: Lol-does this mean Holley will finally get that POS injection system to work well?

Holley fuel injection.

A whole new way to set your car on fire with Holley products.

Shawn

bwahahahaha

Those truck arms suspensions are 1960s technology, not 1940s.

Even though they only do it twice a year, I think they've proved the suspension works pretty well turning both directions.

Wally wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: Myself, I think NASCAR is full of sharp guys and talented racers. I'd like to see them run an uncorked and unregulated racing league. Wild Bill ran 200+ mph in the freakin' 80's! Low tech. At that speed who cares about the tech?! Let those cars and guys run. Let's see how this will go....

That was good until they almost put a car in the stands. People already sue over the occasional foul ball, an Impala could really cause some problems. in unrelated Nascar News: http://www.onionsportsnetwork.com/articles/area-ford-taurus-thinks-it-couldve-made-it-in-nasc,26706/ Area Ford Taurus Thinks It Could've Made It In NASCAR If It Had Started Earlier FREMONT, IN—Calling the stock cars in NASCAR "not all that special," a local used 2002 Ford Taurus told reporters Monday it could have made it onto the professional circuit had it started racing when it was younger. "If your owner has you racing from the day you come off the lot, it's not a guarantee you'll make it pro, but you certainly have an advantage over most cars," said the dark red Taurus with 88,000 miles and a small dent near the passenger door handle. "I was always naturally talented, but that talent needed to be honed and finessed. If I'd been at the track from day one I'd be talking to you from the Brickyard 400 right now instead of this driveway in the suburbs, that's for sure." Upon completing its statement, the Taurus was started by its 74-year-old owner, Sue Hampton, left to warm up for a couple minutes, and driven down to the outlet mall.

Dangit I was about to post that!

Joey

aussiesmg wrote: Really you are comparing NASCAR to F1. Yes, I certainly am. Who cares about 'sphere of performance' It's not about the cars, it's about the rules they must conform to, and the competition that ensues. Don't you realize that pro racing has nothing to do with performance? It's Entertainment. It's Show Business. Nothing wrong with that, it lets a few lucky talented drivers scratch their itch, and make a living. Want real performance? Open up the rules to unlimited. The humans will not be able to endure the resulting G forces (or survive the inevitable crashes) You will need to eliminate the onboard driver, and either run them as remotely piloted vehicles, or simply let the robot do the driving. From a spectator standpoint, you could eliminate the physical cars entirely, and just do virtual cars on a TV feed. Games have already become almost indistinguishable from live video. The regulators realized years ago that emerging technology would interfere with 'the show', once high mounted full width wings made it clear that we would soon see nothing but upside down airplanes with wheels. The current micromanaged F1 regs and cars are the grotesque mutant progeny of that epiphany. For those of us who love to drive fast, and to compete, *it doesn't mean a damned thing*, I only care about going as fast as I can, and beating all the other folks on the track. (I think they call it racing)

irish44j wrote:

novaderrik wrote:

irish44j wrote: that's crazy talk. next you'll be telling us that they'll start turning right!

they do twice a year.. but NASCAR's roots and fanbase comes from the hundreds of circle tracks that dot the countryside in the USA, so that's what they run. don't like it, fine.. don't watch it.. but there's no need for people that don't like it to constantly bitch/whine/complain about it online every chance they get. i don't like F1 or Indycars, but i don't constantly bitch about how silly the cars look or how boring the racing is.. now i'm gonna sit back and watch the NASCAR championship get won by either Tony Stewart or Carl Edwards- hopefully in a last lap pass/crash/whatever coming out of turn 4..

whoa...way to over-react and read WAY too much into a very simple facetious comment!

perhaps you meant it to be facetious, but i was talking to the people out there that always like to talk crap about NASCAR for whatever reason. it really is as simple as not watching it or letting it affect your life in any way, like i do with baseball, football, F1, soccer, and poker tournaments on ESPN.

fasted58 wrote: Haven't found any info in search yet but I sure as hell hope they make it cockpit adjustable. Rich/ lean control oughta make races more interesting, especially the 'fuel mileage' races.

nope.. leave it sealed once the race starts. if you don't nail the setup, you're screwed. that's the way it should be.

they don't even allow any sort of live telemetry for qualifying or during the race- or even during practice, i think- the only thing they know is what the gauges tell the driver and the driver tells them over the radio.

they have a knob to adjust the brake bias, and a redundant ignition system that they can set with a different rev limiter.. that's all that can be adjusted from the cockpit. the 15" steel wheels are held on by 5 lug nuts, which are removed by an impact wrench after that side of the car is lifted off the ground with a floor jack.. then they run around to the other side and do it again while a guy holding a gravity powered gas can dumps gas in the tank.. they adjust the panhard bar and preload the springs with a 1/2" ratchet via a hole in the rar window.. and they do it all in under 14 seconds..

it's all amazingly low tech, and it's just about perfect the way it is.

I watch NASCAR if I'm actually home with nothing to do when it's on. I follow the season at least. I understand all the critics. I really do. But when F1 guys start griping because they think NASCAR is booring, I have to call foul. At least people pass each other. By comparison, F1 is the worlds fastest parade.

novaderrik wrote: it's all amazingly low tech, and it's just about perfect the way it is.

Finally, someone understands "just about perfect", that's why I like this board.

It's as perfect as the rule book will let it be.

They don't use truck arm suspension because it works so damn well, they MADE it work because the rulebook says that's what they must use.

Same for carbs, pushrod V8's and huge, heavy racecars.

I hate the way folks use the "racecars use it" statement to qualify an item as being better than another. Race teams use parts because the rulebook says they must, end of story.

Is it appropriate that Tony Stewart won the last carbureted race? A throwback winning with a throwback?

BoostedBrandon wrote: Today will be the last race that the NASCAR Sprint Cup series will use a carburetor. Next year they switch over to Fuel Injection.

While I'm not a fan of the rulebook-enforced anachronism that is a NASCAR racer, the level of preparation and refinement of those bronze-age constructions is amazing.

I think where I keep coming back to resenting NASCAR is that by being the best-marketed series in the U.S., it displaces other racing from the automotive slice of the sports marketing pie. I know that there's a core part of this which is down to regional history, but the selective enforcement makes it the WWF of the racing world*, and to think that if it wasn't for NASCAR's marketing genius that I might be able to wander into a local bar and find rally or F1 or MotoGP playing on that rare day that motorsports displace the stick-and-ball sport of the season...

Racecar Engieering ran a profile a while back on an engineer who moved from F1 to NASCAR because he found it incredibly challenging. It's absolutely true that it's racing at a high level, but the platform and management make it a giant joke in my book. I'm disappointed by the thought of what might have been if the bajillion eyeballs belonging to not-really-car-nuts who follow NASCAR were wooed by something else. And that's why I can't quite ignore NASCAR's popularity in the same way I ignore baseball.

Also, Top 40 radio sucks. Now get off my lawn. (hitches pants up from belly to armpits)

*no, I'm not suggesting that the races are scripted; I know everybody's trying damn hard to win, but it does seem pretty clear that the sanctioning body's affecting results in a way that few people would agree makes for a level playing field. Er, an evenly banked playing field?

I don't understand the idea that a car that turns both directions somehow has a vastly superior suspension to one that only turns one.

Turning both directions means a balanced suspension, and all your settings likely identical left-to-right. Turning only one direction means appropriately biasing the suspension to one side. Seems to me that it'd be a heck of a lot more difficult to optimize the latter.

ransom wrote: I ignore baseball.

You, too? {Internet high-five!}

Trans_Maro wrote: because the rulebook says that's what they must use.

F1, NASCAR, Indy, Sports Cars... it is ALL the same. You must work within the rules for that series... simple.

Most of us building our perfect car have few rules(some emissions, some safety), far less than any of the professional series previously mentioned, so we bitch and moan...

I'm a fan of motorsports BECAUSE of the rules... and seeing who works best within the specifications to win.

novaderrik wrote:

irish44j wrote: that's crazy talk. next you'll be telling us that they'll start turning right!

they do twice a year.. but NASCAR's roots and fanbase comes from the hundreds of circle tracks that dot the countryside in the USA, so that's what they run. don't like it, fine.. don't watch it.. but there's no need for people that don't like it to constantly bitch/whine/complain about it online every chance they get. i don't like F1 or Indycars, but i don't constantly bitch about how silly the cars look or how boring the racing is.. now i'm gonna sit back and watch the NASCAR championship get won by either Tony Stewart or Carl Edwards- hopefully in a last lap pass/crash/whatever coming out of turn 4..

I think it's because we're car guys here and it's frustrating to see such a simplistic form of competition that is so devoid of any semblance of applicable technology. NASCAR has strayed far from it's roots (productin-based cars) and has alienated most of it's fans. It's no longer relevent today and is embarrasing nationally-speaking. I mean, other major forms of racing are using today's technology and even develping tomorrow's technology. NASCAR hasn't done neither for 60 years.
Plus, it's easy fodder for most of us to pick on.

DrBoost wrote: NASCAR has strayed far from it's roots (productin-based cars) and has alienated most of it's fans.

Huh? I thought NASCAR was the #1 most popular sport in the US as of a few years ago, even more popular that football or baseball.

How could it achieve that if most of it's fans have been alienated?

Or are you referencing old-school fans?

2-3 G's for 4-5 hrs. 4-5 G's for 1-2 hrs. So ? The fuel injection is still old style throttle body, so I think you won't see much difference. I think that what has been done with all of this old school stuff is amazing. Old style suspension, push rod-two valv engines that putout over 700 hp and live for 5 hrs at 9000 rpm. The same thing applys to short track racing. Modifieds and sprint car still use a stright front axle. The basic design hasen't changed in years. But they sure do race.

I though watching Tony thread thru traffic at 180 mph was something to see.

iceracer wrote: The fuel injection is still old style throttle body, so I think you won't see much difference.

Looking at fasted58's pic, it appears to be single-TB, but with port injection. Unless I'm misidentifying the things that look an awful lot like fuel rails and injectors... Or is the pic not of the new NASCAR stuff?

In reply to ransom:

No word on the TB maker yet, that pic could just be a stock photo, but it's already been said it will be port injection. McLaren Electronic Systems will produce the E.C.U.’s, they said that the unit developed for Nascar is similar to the sealed and secure devices supplied to IndyCar teams. The microprocessor in the McLaren E.C.U. is a 32-bit design produced by Freescale Semiconductor.

It's early yet but for now it sounds like a collaborative effort between manufacturers.