Vitriol on NASCAR

I don't disparage it because of its status, or consider it low-tech, or unskilled.

All "Top-Tier" levels of motorsport require an insane amount of skill to just qualify, let alone considered as competitive, or a winner.

I know Nascar racing takes a very skilled driver to win against everyone else, in damned near identical cars, on a big open circuit. You have to have your line down to a science. Your braking for your corner entry has to be perfect, or you're just an also-ran.

But there-in is the problem for me: It's boring. All the skill, all the driver endurance, all the engineering is utterly moot to me, due to the plain, simple bald fact: I can't watch 2 laps without wanting to change the bloody channel.

Why? Because I don't want to watch racing where the only difference is the driver. If I want to see a sport where the mechanical element is as removed as possible, I'll watch 6 Kenyans run around a 400m oval.

Spec racing is great as a driver's thing. Great for learning about drafting and such. But to me, it just isn't fun to watch. Hell, I'm even finding WRC boring right now because....well, It's Ford or Citroen. That's it really. I miss the balls out battles between Ford, Mitsubishi, Subaru, Citroen, Peugeot, Skoda, etc. Hell, I wish Toyota would get back into it. Honda, and Mazda should be there too.

In short: I respect Nascar, but find it boring.

maroon92 wrote: if Nascar had "stock looking bodies" like Grand Am has "stock looking bodies", I suspect there would be less of a problem on "our" end. much cooler. The RX-8 tubeframe cars LOOK like RX-8s.

No there wouldn't. I've heard this from road race people all my life. At the end of the day we're still mouth breathers making left turns.

ClemSparks wrote: It's spec endurance racing. It sells (commercials, seats, whatever). I'll have to disagree that it's the pro wrestling (And I'm proud to say that I'm not current on what the today's sanctioning body for *that* is anymore...though I infer it's WWE) of motorsports. That title is neatly held by monster truck activity (racing? exhibition? whatever...). If you are an american football fan and you complain about not "getting it" when it comes to NASCAR...then you're just pretty damned closed minded. Come on over, I'll tell it to your face...then we'll have a beer and come to an understanding of some sort. For those who say "What's so fun about watching cars drive around in circles?" (or make jokes about skittles in a toilet bowl or whatever). I could counter with any one of a hundred or more equally mundane aspects of your sportsball activity of choice. Seriously...would you walk up to the 50 yard line (or mid-court, or the pitchers mound) of a sportsball event and grab a mic and say, "So...what is it that the whole lot of you gathered here today see appealing about this retarded sport?!" Folks have varied interests and hobbies. Maybe some of you are sour that people who otherwise aren't into motorsports (or cars in general) are suddently interested. All I can say about that is "Good for NASCAR" for figuring out that formula. I've been in pro road racing. Let me tell you...None of the sanctioning bodies are doing a better job than Nascar (I can't say difinitively that any are doing any worse, either). Frankly...Nascar the most (if not ONLY) financially viable racing going (as in, the concept generates income on several levels). I DON'T like that they keep pretending the cars have anything to do with a car you could buy from a manufacturer. I'd just as soon they put good looking bodies on them OR actually made them from the car they're headlight stickers were loosely approximated from. But hey...it's still racing! It's basically Spec racing. It's very much endurance racing. Not bad, in my book. Clem

I agree, other sanctioning bodies do the same poor job of handling cars of different abilities and traits. This is why I do not watch much racing anymore. I tend to read books about racing in days gone by. I think IRL is even worse than NASCAR. I will watch NASCAR on big non-restrictor plate tracks and on road courses. Other venues bore the crap out of me. IRL is just boring. I will watch ALMS and Rolex because of the different kinds of cars involved. I could car less about the driver. It is all about the cars for me.

In reply to Wally:

Wally, I did not know that. Thanks for the info. I do think however, having more realistic looking stock cars would help, even if they are tube frame underneath. It could bring back a bit of that "Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday" vibe. As it is, I'm not entirely sure why the car manufacturers are at all involved in NASCAR anymore. They can't be getting that many sales just because a big name driver in their jellybean with wheels beat a different big name driver in another jellybean with wheels.

triumph5 wrote: Why?

For me, it is because Nascar doesn't take action against drivers for bad driving. Yes, other series have similar incidents to Nascar. But in ALMS and F1, you'll see penalties issued for Avoidable contact. In Nascar it appears that using a "pit-maneuver" is the preferred method of passing (specifically on road courses). To me that ruins the race aspect of the series.

I think that is the start of the educated / elitist loathing of Nascar (I'll admit I fall into the category). It takes a lot of work to setup and pull off a clean good pass on a road course. To enjoy it fully, you need to pay attention to the details of a lap, lap after lap, as the pass is setup. For your average viewer of most series, they don't understand that. I think people that do understand it, tend to look down on those who don't. Nascar chooses not to enforce penalties for the sake of good TV, or really simpler TV.

F1 suffers from the reverse of this. Passes are so hard to come by, most of the passing occurs in qualifying and on pit strategy. To a casual viewer, this could appear to be a single file procession of cars.

I still think there's a class issue and it goes back to how road racing started in North America. Initially it was an activity for the elite and wealthy and you weren't supposed to make money or compete for any reason other than the joy of pure sport. Then along came Bill France and company and demonstrated you could create something popular and profitable and open to everyone. Still lots of that attitude left and visible in these threads. Mind you I'm a low brow car nut and will watch and participate in anything even remotely resembling auto sport. PS. Canadian beer contains alcohol.

I don't care if it's Spec racing or not, if it costs a bundle or a little, if it's amateur or professional; as long as the racing is close, exciting and fun to watch then I'm for it. Like lateapexer, I love all forms of motor racing, some more than others, but all of them.

Whenever the Continental Tire Challenge comes to VIR, I make a trip up to watch it in the flesh. Some of my favorite racing: production-based cars road racing. All unique cars but with very close racing.

lateapexer wrote: I still think there's a class issue and it goes back to how road racing started in North America. Initially it was an activity for the elite and wealthy and you weren't supposed to make money or compete for any reason other than the joy of pure sport. Then along came Bill France and company and demonstrated you could create something popular and profitable and open to everyone. Still lots of that attitude left and visible in these threads. Mind you I'm a low brow car nut and will watch and participate in anything even remotely resembling auto sport. PS. Canadian beer contains alcohol.

Maybe in some circles there is still a kind of elitism amog road racers, but it is very much an everyman's sport in Europe and Australia. There is prejudice on both sides, however. The SCCA road racer or road race fan is probably college educated, is more worldly and has a higher income. Some probably do look down, a bit, on those who may not have his background. However, there is similar prejudice coming from the blue collar circle track fan looking at the snobbish road racer. Is either justified in doing so? No, but they are human beings and human beings have opinions. I will admit that I have more in common with the typical SCCA member in terms of tastes and lifestyle. Also, not all road race fans / participants were born into money. Some worked hard for it and eschew those who revel in their own misfortune.

My grandfathers were blue collars workers. They worked hard to make sure their kids didn't have to work like they did, but get a good education instead. Yes there was some looking down in my family, but it wasn't that members looked down on those who made less or had dirty, gritty jobs. They looked down on those who romanticized an ignorant lifestyle, one in which those who climbed higher were demonized.

The reason I mention this is because the same happens in racing. Small circle tracks provide ways for average people to become involved in racing. I do not look down on it. I embrace it and am saddened when a small local track closes. However, no one will ever convince me that circle track racing is superior in any way to road racing or rallying. This does not mean others should feel that way. Anyone has the right to like what they do.

Autocross at the grassroots reminds me of the kind of stockcar and drag racing I remember. Lots of kids and dogs and dirt and noise. Well maybe not such much noise and dirt nor as many kids and dogs, but feels the same.

ClemSparks wrote: It's basically Spec racing. It's very much endurance racing. Not bad, in my book.

True, and that is where a lot of the problem comes from.

A lot of people find the concept of "Spec Racing" to be "unamerican" . They feel they should be allowed to use their expertise and engenuity without restriction to ensure a win.

Endurance racing can be boring. Even as a pit crew member I have been bored to death waiting for something to happen. But NASCAR pit stops are the most excitiing part of any kind of racing to me. The amount of work done in as little time as it takes without violating any of the rules that would penalize your car severely is astonishing, particularly if you have tried to do it yourself.

The most nerve wracking job I've ever done was spotting for our Nascar team, especially at some place like Bristol. Spotters don't get enough credit! I'd much rather drive. Not only do you have to watch your driver and all the others, but you have Nascar talking in your ear the entire time too. Fueling the car was much easier!

Hal wrote: Endurance racing can be boring.

You mean biggies like 24 Hours of Le Mans or 25 Hours of Thunderhill, or the 2-3 hour "Enduros" that Grand Am runs?

Hal wrote:

ClemSparks wrote: It's basically Spec racing. It's very much endurance racing. Not bad, in my book.

True, and that is where a lot of the problem comes from. A lot of people find the concept of "Spec Racing" to be "unamerican" . They feel they should be allowed to use their expertise and engenuity without restriction to ensure a win. Endurance racing can be boring. Even as a pit crew member I have been bored to death waiting for something to happen. But NASCAR pit stops are the most excitiing part of any kind of racing to me. The amount of work done in as little time as it takes without violating any of the rules that would penalize your car severely is astonishing, particularly if you have tried to do it yourself.

Correct. Formulas are ok where cars have to fit into a fairly loose set of parameters, but let the creativeness of the manufacturer and team win. I say NASCAR should use stock body shells. If a manufacturer doesn't like getting whipped, let them design a better body. That is what I used to like about NASCAR. Because of this cars like the Torino Talledega, Charger Daytona, Superbird and the Monte Carlo and Grand Prix Aerocoupes were created. Say no to templates.

Also, require current production engines to be used as a base. Either that or just race protoypes powered by whichever corporate engines a team wished to use. Seriously. Why pretend that the cars are in any way related to street models, Just race LeMans prototypes with V8s. Oh, is that too elitist and not red neck enough?

Moparman wrote: Correct. Formulas are ok where cars have to fit into a fairly loose set of parameters, but let the creativeness of the manufacturer and team win. I say NASCAR should use stock body shells. If a manufacturer doesn't like getting whipped, let them design a better body. That is what I used to like about NASCAR. Because of this cars like the Torino Talledega, Charger Daytona, Superbird and the Monte Carlo and Grand Prix Aerocoupes were created. Say no to templates. Also, require current production engines to be used as a base. Either that or just race protoypes powered by whichever corporate engines a team wished to use. Seriously. Why pretend that the cars are in any way related to street models, Just race LeMans prototypes with V8s. Oh, is that too elitist and not red neck enough?

the manufacturers designed production cars designed primarily to make a better NASCAR racer up until about the year 2000 or so- the 2000 Chev Monte Carlo was designed with NASCAR wins in mind and is, to me, the last production body style to look some thing like what was raced on the track. the Pontiac Grand Prix was very similar. they redesigned the production cars with better NASCAR aero in mind in '04 or so, too. the other cars of the time- the Ford Taurus and Dodge Intrepid, and for a couple of years the Toyota Camry- were all pretty heavily based on the areo packages that GM engineers designed. NASCAR allowed this for parity.

then after Dale Sr died in '01, they started talking about safety and began work on safer cars, which was the beginning of the final chapter for anything oem looking as far as bodies were concerned.

they finally got away from any semblance of looking like any "stock" production cars at all when they went to the COT a few years ago. that's also when GM got rid of their production 2 door midsize Monte Carlo and Grand Prix models. but really, the shape of the COT looks more like a production Impala, Fusion, or Charger than the previous car did if you look at it from a distance.

going back to the 60's, NASCAR allowed car makers to tweak their stock bodies for the sake of making better race cars out of them, but they all had to use actual production sheetmetal pieces for the model of car they were building right up until Ford started working on the 4 door Taurus to replace the 2 door Thunderbird. the first Taurus race cars they built had horrible aero characteristics that had a lot off drag and became wings at 100mph or so. not good for a race car. so, instead of losing Ford, they allowed them to use Monte Carlo roof, doors, and trunklids with Ford branded hood, nose and rear bumper shaped pieces. then Dodge did the same thing with the Intrepid when they came back into NASCAR at about the same time.

it has been a steady progression away from anything "stock" since then.

Ford was the last manufacturer to run an engine that was even loosely based on anything production- up until a couple of years ago, they were running what was essentially a really refined Windsor small block with Cleveland heads- a design that went back to the late 60's. GM was running a mostly traditional small block bottom end with modern head on it when they ran the the SB2.2 engine up until a few years ago. the Toyota and Dodge race engines weren't based on anything they ever offered in production engines.

maroon92 wrote: if Nascar had "stock looking bodies" like Grand Am has "stock looking bodies", I suspect there would be less of a problem on "our" end. much cooler. The RX-8 tubeframe cars LOOK like RX-8s.

Here's the problem Some people simply can't get more than two brain cells at work on the concept of " stock" in relationship to circle track.

It means full bodied, as compared to modfieds:

and Super Modified:

Seriously guys, it's not that GD hard to come to grips with simple terminology.

I was out at Dover a couple weekends ago and had a BLAST.

To be honest, until you're up close to the cars, the colors/sponsor info and numbers would obliterate any identity of what the cars are even if they used production bodywork, considering how similar most cars always tend to look on the street to most people.

Moparman wrote: Maybe in some circles there is still a kind of elitism amog road racers, but it is very much an everyman's sport in Europe and Australia. There is prejudice on both sides, however. The SCCA road racer or road race fan is probably college educated, is more worldly and has a higher income. Some probably do look down, a bit, on those who may not have his background. However, there is similar prejudice coming from the blue collar circle track fan looking at the snobbish road racer. Is either justified in doing so?

There is usually a difference. The "low class" fan is usually acting that way in response to having been treated that way all their lives, as Wally indicated. That's a difference that unfortunately, is huge. So in way, yes, I can see it justified from that angle. And yeah, I'll rail against that attitude when unprovoked from a circle track or drag race fan (and have done so on various websites). much .ike the import fan vs domestic fan debates. If youre being closed mionded when you supposedly have th ebrainpower to overcome that, then I'll tell you about it, regardless of what side you're on. it's just that when it comes to NASCAR, it seems to predominanty come from the sports car side. Hell, them old boy rednecks were even able to embrace furrin' car brands in circle track!

Chris_V wrote:

Moparman wrote: Maybe in some circles there is still a kind of elitism amog road racers, but it is very much an everyman's sport in Europe and Australia. There is prejudice on both sides, however. The SCCA road racer or road race fan is probably college educated, is more worldly and has a higher income. Some probably do look down, a bit, on those who may not have his background. However, there is similar prejudice coming from the blue collar circle track fan looking at the snobbish road racer. Is either justified in doing so?

There is usually a difference. The "low class" fan is usually acting that way in response to having been treated that way all their lives, as Wally indicated. That's a difference that unfortunately, is huge. So in way, yes, I can see it justified from that angle. And yeah, I'll rail against that attitude when unprovoked from a circle track or drag race fan (and have done so on various websites). much .ike the import fan vs domestic fan debates. If youre being closed mionded when you supposedly have th ebrainpower to overcome that, then I'll tell you about it, regardless of what side you're on. it's just that when it comes to NASCAR, it seems to predominanty come from the sports car side. Hell, them old boy rednecks were even able to embrace furrin' car brands in circle track!

give a struggling race team enough money, and they'd put Geo Metro badges on their race car.

Chris_V wrote:

Moparman wrote: Maybe in some circles there is still a kind of elitism amog road racers, but it is very much an everyman's sport in Europe and Australia. There is prejudice on both sides, however. The SCCA road racer or road race fan is probably college educated, is more worldly and has a higher income. Some probably do look down, a bit, on those who may not have his background. However, there is similar prejudice coming from the blue collar circle track fan looking at the snobbish road racer. Is either justified in doing so?

There is usually a difference. The "low class" fan is usually acting that way in response to having been treated that way all their lives, as Wally indicated. That's a difference that unfortunately, is huge. So in way, yes, I can see it justified from that angle. And yeah, I'll rail against that attitude when unprovoked from a circle track or drag race fan (and have done so on various websites). much .ike the import fan vs domestic fan debates. If youre being closed mionded when you supposedly have th ebrainpower to overcome that, then I'll tell you about it, regardless of what side you're on. it's just that when it comes to NASCAR, it seems to predominanty come from the sports car side. Hell, them old boy rednecks were even able to embrace furrin' car brands in circle track!

Believe me, as a Mopar fan I was looked upon strangely by some SCCA people for many years. Even now, people are surprised that I autocross a Neon. They are even more surprised when I tell them that Challengers and 'Cudas were road racing in the Trans-Am series in 1970

I am not against NASCAR at all. I even like circle track (on larger tracks). What I don't like is the dumbing down of racing and the spec series. That is just my opinion. As for a previous poster explaining what stock really means compared to modified, I get it in those terms, but that is NOT what NASCAR originally intended. The safety issue does hold some water except when one considers that it is just as easy to make a safe (relative term in racing) tube frame car with similar dimensions to stock. It would be even easier to run prototypes.

Although I prefer that NASCAR run vehicles which have a relationship to what is now being produced, I have no problem with the use of dedicated race designs. Just call them that. Let's not pretend that the NASCAR racer is related to what is on the showroom floor. However, that is EXACTLY wants the unknowledgeable fan to believe. It goes back to the old "win on Sunday, sell on Monday" strategy. Why not use production-based engines? Not loud and brutish enough to please the fans. However, I suggest using engine / body style combos (with purpose-built chassis) of the Mustang, Camaro and Challenger. If one is faster, let the engineers work it out. No handicapping by NASCAR, period. Build to a formula and whatever can be done withn the formula, so be it.

Spec versus formula. I thought a spec car had to be purchased from a single manufacturer and controlled ie. sealed engines etc.The tires in NASCAR are spec tires because Goodyear controls them completely. NASCAR is closer to a formula... the car has be built a certain way to certain dimensions,but NASCAR doesn't build the car. Makes NASCAR closer to Formula 1 and Formula 1 closer to NASCAR than the purists would like to admit. I'm not sure which is the better show most of the time, but NASCAR has a manly ring to it.

novaderrik wrote: give a struggling race team enough money, and they'd put Geo Metro badges on their race car.

it's not just top level racing, however, as you can have fun in imports in low level racing, like Fever 4 classes (a friend raced Sciroccos in Fever 4 racing, and another raced a Datsun. Mazda rotaries, however, were right out no matter where you raced.. )

Moparman wrote: I am not against NASCAR at all. I even like circle track (on larger tracks). What I don't like is the dumbing down of racing and the spec series. That is just my opinion. As for a previous poster explaining what stock really means compared to modified, I get it in those terms, but that is NOT what NASCAR originally intended.

Well, tube frame, fiberglass replica bodies was not what SCCA Production class cars were opriginally intended to be, but as racing had progressed, it's where they ended up: nowhere near production.

I mean, they were originally cars of the '40s, too. Should they still be that?

Although I prefer that NASCAR run vehicles which have a relationship to what is now being produced, I have no problem with the use of dedicated race designs. Just call them that. Let's not pretend that the NASCAR racer is related to what is on the showroom floor. However, that is EXACTLY wants the unknowledgeable fan to believe.

I really don't believe that that's the case. And even at the tracks, I've never met a fan that believed it, either. Again, I think this is a stereotype fostered on the sport by outsiders.

Why not use production-based engines? Not loud and brutish enough to please the fans. However, I suggest using engine / body style combos (with purpose-built chassis) of the Mustang, Camaro and Challenger.

You mean like these?

Chevy's Nationwide series car is going to be the Impala, however.

Still they are vastly closer to "stock" cars than the modifieds run in lower classes, like this NASCAR Chevrolet:

Do you think the fans are so stupid as to think this in any way shape or form is a factory built street car? And yet it's still a NASCAR racer.

Before they went to the COT you'd be shocked at how different the cars were under the skin, and how different the skin was for that matter. You built them differently for the differing tracks. Speedway cars were more angled, especially at the roof line, and the frames were different as well. The COT is more "spec-ed" as they say, but there are still a few things teams can do to get ahead.

Don't know about the others, but Toyota does build all of it's motors out of California. The teams themselves develop them as they see fit to some degree, but the parts are from Toyota.

the new Nationwide cars are merely the Cup COT with different noses thrown on them and less power under the hood. NASCAR is (sort of) listening to the masses and trying to make each car look like their street versions. but they are failing miserably.

Chevy was pushing to make each brand have a more unique silhouette to differentiate the cars, but NASCAR decided that it was just easier to make them all the same and put different noses on them. so Chevy decided they weren't going to attempt to lie to the public by putting a Camaro nose and badges on it and just left it as an Impala. they even put out press releases that said as much.

the Camaro is out there in other race series, anyways. i've seen them taking on Mustangs and Beemers in road races on Speed and looking pretty freakin cool while doing it.

does anyone here think that the Mustang or the Challenger Nationwide cars look like mustangs or Challengers? i guess i haven't looked into the new Toyota Nationwide cars to see what kind of an abomination they are.

novaderrik wrote: the Camaro is out there in other race series, anyways. i've seen them taking on Mustangs and Beemers in road races on Speed and looking pretty freakin cool while doing it.

Bimmers. And I was at VIR when Stevenson Motorsports debuted their Camaro, the first one in the (then) Koni Challenge. Didn't finish the race, but seeing it come around that turn for the first time ever was really cool. I'll try and dig up my pics.

I grew up watching NASCAR races when the cars more resembled the car one would see in a showroom. Todays NASCAR car is too specialized and has absolutely no character. The series is bloated with advertising and driver/team shenanigans for the sake of entertainment. Obviously it is a formidable business model that a majority audience (and drivers around the world) likes and wants.

Those of us that find the current nascar series an unwatchable circus are a minority. I prefer to watch ALMS racing along with GrandAm and it's support series races because there is a lager variety of all things racing, chassis manufactures, body styles, engines, tires, hairpins, chicanes...