Boris set Pole for the Pepsi 400, then it started to rain with a few drivers left. They went to points meaning Boris went from sitting on the pole to packing the tailor and going home. What a joke.

Not that I had my hopes up for watching the race, I was watching lots of other series.

Good job NASCAR, fix the rules.

One more reason NASCAR sucks.

...now why would a rule change matter to two fine, unjudgemental, objective persons like yourselves that hate nascar and won't watch it anyway?
:rolleyes:stickoutt

Boris needs a full-time ride. He either needs to make the commitment or continue to play with one-foot in and one-foot out....which means he's subjected to rules like the one that bit him in the ass on Saturday.

Don

I wouldn't hate NASCAR if it didn't suck. :)

What would you propose as a solution? Running in the rain is not an option.

Changing a rule mid-season because some people have an emotional attatchment to the pole sitter is what sounds stupid to me. The rule and the way it is might suck, but at least NASCAR is consistant.

I don't hate NASCAR; I just think its severely flawed. I usually watch the road course races at least.

What would you propose as a solution? Running in the rain is not an option.

Same thing some other series do. Take fastest lap time from practice session for the weekend. That evaluates all the people who showed up and prepared for the race that weekend. At least then its based on a lap time.

Take fastest lap time from practice session for the weekend. That evaluates all the people who showed up and prepared for the race that weekend. At least then its based on a lap time.


That would be the sporting solution, but NASCAR has never been about sport.

Here's a solution....leave the rules as they are now but let the pole-sitter remain on pole if more than 50% of the field has qualified.

Or let the losers that didn't hit the track early fill out the rest of the grid by points.

That way all the teams that got out and set a time don't waste their time and money.

Or let the losers that didn't hit the track early fill out the rest of the grid by points.

That way all the teams that got out and set a time don't waste their time and money.

Cars qualify one at a time in NASCAR and the order is set by random draw. The cars that hadn't qualified yet had no prior opportunity to do so.

LOL... I think Nascar is seriously flawed, but people who love nascar don't know what real racing is and don't know any better..

or qualify before the race the next day.

Run in the rain. That is the solution.

Supposedly when I was flipping through a month or two ago they were talking about it.

"Now we are going to get a bunch of emails asking why they can't run in the rain"

Something about the aerodynamics. And the tires and how a rain type tire would get eaten up way too quickly and the speeds they are going are too fast for rain tires etc.

If F1 can get special tires made and they all run goodyear rubber. Goodyear can't make a rain tire that will last? Or maybe they just won't drive as fast?

It really is ridicolous!

F1 doesn't run in the rain at an average lap speed of 180mph right up against concrete/steel walls.

There are enough crashes in an average NASCAR oval race without adding a slick track and poor visibility to the mix.

F1 doesn't run in the rain at an average lap speed of 180mph right up against concrete/steel walls.

There are enough crashes in an average NASCAR oval race without adding a slick track and poor visibility to the mix.

just the way NASCAR wants it. With how they try to breed crashes, it almost surprises me they don't race in the rain.

NASCAR does not run in the rain due to visibility. There's 40+ cars on the grid. Imagine the spray and lack of visibility.

Also, Goodyear would have to pack that many more tires to the track for all of the teams.

just the way NASCAR wants it. With how they try to breed crashes, it almost surprises me they don't race in the rain.

They need butts in the seats to watch said crashes and peeps aren't going to sit out in a Florida downpour watching a cloud of spray move around the track.

They need butts in the seats to watch said crashes and peeps aren't going to sit out in a Florida downpour watching a cloud of spray move around the track.

Speaking of Florida downpour at Daytona. About a month ago, I was working Turn 1-2 for a SCCA National, and we got one of those pours during a Spec Miata enduro. They went yellow and safety car after a wreck and stayed out on track. After it finally went green, I know I would be waiving the flag. When they came into turn 1, there was a lake at the bottom of the oval. The first 10 cars went off the track and never even came close to making the turn. It was hilarious. I started waiving yellow almost as soon as they tried to get on the brakes.

Those guys raced their asses off in a downpour.

F1 doesn't run in the rain at an average lap speed of 180mph right up against concrete/steel walls.

Um.... Ever watch the Canadian GP? 220+ MPH.... often in the rain
Monza... 220+, often in the rain
Monaco... 180+, on a walled track as wide as a country road

Hate to break it to you, but they can and do run insane speeds going 2 and 3 wide through tightly walled turns. And they dont bitch about rain- they look forward too it, becase in the rain the driver becomes much more important than the car.

They don't run at an AVERAGE lap speed of 180mph. Sure, F1 runs peak speeds in the same neighborhood, but generally in a straight line or with significant runoff provided.

F1 also doesn't run in 43 car packs.
F1 also doesn't run 3400 lb cars on 9-inch-wide tires.

edit: and it isn't just NASCAR: IRL doesn't run on speedways in the rain either and neither did CART back when.

So the problem is shitty oval tracks.

I knew it.

So the problem is shitty oval tracks.

I knew it.

Mainly, but I doubt they would race a road course in the rain either.

They don't run at an AVERAGE lap speed of 180mph. Sure, F1 runs peak speeds in the same neighborhood, but generally in a straight line or with significant runoff provided.

F1 also doesn't run in 43 car packs.
F1 also doesn't run 3400 lb cars on 9-inch-wide tires.

edit: and it isn't just NASCAR: IRL doesn't run on speedways in the rain either and neither did CART back when.

i've always been curious: what benefit does nascar provide to the manufacturers that compete in it? f1 has always been relevant to road car technology and will continue to be relevant as we approach 2011 with the fia's new formula. i guess my general point is that f1 doesn't run in 43 car packs mainly because there aren't 43 companies/manufacturers out there who can spend the tens of millions per year to support a f1 team and the engineers who constantly push the edges of automotive technology.

i've always been curious: what benefit does nascar provide to the manufacturers that compete in it? f1 has always been relevant to road car technology and will continue to be relevant as we approach 2011 with the fia's new formula. i guess my general point is that f1 doesn't run in 43 car packs mainly because there aren't 43 companies/manufacturers out there who can spend the tens of millions per year to support a f1 team and the engineers who constantly push the edges of automotive technology.

lol @ 10's of millions per year to be competitive in F1....

There will be more cars on the grid soon, its really up to Bernie. Theres no shortage of people with money.

As far as what nascar provides: Think of how many people buy chevy's and drink Budweiser because of Jr. Now how many of you are using ING for your investments because Renault paints their cars in orange, white and blue?

They don't run at an AVERAGE lap speed of 180mph. Sure, F1 runs peak speeds in the same neighborhood, but generally in a straight line or with significant runoff provided.

F1 also doesn't run in 43 car packs.
F1 also doesn't run 3400 lb cars on 9-inch-wide tires.

edit: and it isn't just NASCAR: IRL doesn't run on speedways in the rain either and neither did CART back when.

no they generally have an average speed of around 160+... They pull up to 4 gs in braking and 2-3gs cornering.

Nascar should race in the rain... even if they can only do 120. It isn't that hard to change diffs... they just don't want to. It would mean building and bringing a "rain" chassis to each track. They have several cars set up for the specific courses instead of changing the car to suit the track.
Until then it's a puss series. Its not like they have borne any resemblence to stock vehicles in the last 20 years anyway.
ALMS, Rolex, F1, are all real racing sports car series, and nascar isn't.

nascar is the Baseball of autosports.

the only benefit in Nascar participation is the sell on monday/ advertising.

Wow - it's flying pretty thick in here. No oval series that i know of runs in the rain. It's not a talent thing. Ever see the Indy 500 either pre and post split. Pre split CART was very close to rivaling F1 in talent - and they didn't run ovals in the rain either. It's not a visibility thing as mentioned before, it's just that the nature of the racing is not conducive to anything near safe racing in the wet. Perhaps Bristol or Martinsville, but that would be it. And they have had plans to run Watkins glen in the wet - even had a car with a wiper just in case one year.

It's too bad about Boris, but many NASCAR fans, are pretty pissed that M Waltrip had to go home as well - though to be honest, neither was going to have a shot at winning anyway ;).

...by the way - I'm *not* particularly a NASCAR fan as F1 and Sportscars/GTs are my thing, but man the ignorance is scary in here; "I don't like it therefore it must be bad".

So the problem is shitty oval tracks.

I knew it.


haha, i laughed hard when i read this!

I dont like it, and it is bad. Plenty of facts on this thread that back my train of thought too.

Someone said something about technology from Nascar to roadcars, well the hell with it...i dont see any consumers driving around in carburated motors.
1. F1 introduced aerodynamics
2. F1 introduced TC
3. F1 introduced CF to the industry
4. F1 introduced just about every high end technology found in todays modern sports/super car.

Every excuse that i have heard for not racing in the rain, is relevant to every other series out there. Oh crap, i forgot that every other series out there has a right hand turn in the mix, cars that dont weigh a disgustingly overweight 3,200 pounds, and dont run carburated motors.

So, why doesnt it run in the rain? Ticket sales are slowing down and more Nascar fans are becoming impatient with their own series' way of governing itself and its drivers. Rain just might be a solution.

The only reason Nascar doesnt run in the rain is that most probably it would cause a death on the track considering the fact that most of its drivers have never raced in the rain in a stock car. Someone who has grown up racing all their lives in stock cars going up the ranks has def. not raced in the rain because they dont do so, so i wouldnt be surprised if they did introduce rain to the mix...bad things would happen.

Lower the weight of the cars, race on more road courses, introduce serious aero to the cars, put in some ALMS C6-R motors and such in their cars and go race etc etc etc...but then again this would sky rocket the prices of going racing so it would never happen. Nascar has serious potential. Its a shame

Lower the weight of the cars, race on more road courses, introduce serious aero to the cars, put in some ALMS C6-R motors and such in their cars and go race etc etc etc...but then again this would sky rocket the prices of going racing so it would never happen. Nascar has serious potential. Its a shame

Serious potential my ass. The way you just put it you'd have to change NASCAR completely in order for it to be any good, and I agree. You can't say it has potential though, that's like saying, "Oh man, NASCAR would be awesome if they had lighter cars, more aero, open fenders, larger tires, 800hp engines, 7 speed seamless shift transmissions and some real drivers in the cars" By the time you implemented all the changes necessary to make it a decent racing series, you couldn't even call it NASCAR anymore.

Also, I see no reason why they cannot race in the rain. Everyone else does it, so man up. It would definitely make the series that much more interesting, and might give it the bit of revival it needs. The drivers should be able to quickly adjust and be able to find the limit of their tires in the rain, or at least I sure hope so...

I'm only being half-serious though. I Hope I didn't upset too many of you NASCAB fan boys. :)

Vroom: I watched nascar back when they raced real production bodies and you got to run whatever aero was on them, not tube framed sillouette cars that bear a to production cars only in the shape of the headlight stickers...

So Americans want v8s and RWD? Fine. Force the manufacturers to race only V8 and RWD production sedans/coupes. No more taking a transverse V6 FWD car, making a shape that somewhat resembles it and stuffing a tubechassis live axle v8 RWD under the rolled aluminum sheet body.

I mean wouldn't you like to see a stock bodied 300C, Charger, etc up against other real cars? Not a generic chassis with different skins, like some kind of slotcar?
Run what you brung, in whatever the weather is?


Nascar became NOT stock cars... that's when the BS is just too thick.
even the name is a complete lie.



Why does nascar NEED 43 cars? Why not 20 or 25? IF 18 teams can't afford to go MODERN, then that is 18 teams that don't need to be in the sport.

Wow - it's flying pretty thick in here. No oval series that i know of runs in the rain. It's not a talent thing. Ever see the Indy 500 either pre and post split. Pre split CART was very close to rivaling F1 in talent - and they didn't run ovals in the rain either. It's not a visibility thing as mentioned before, it's just that the nature of the racing is not conducive to anything near safe racing in the wet. Perhaps Bristol or Martinsville, but that would be it. And they have had plans to run Watkins glen in the wet - even had a car with a wiper just in case one year.

It's too bad about Boris, but many NASCAR fans, are pretty pissed that M Waltrip had to go home as well - though to be honest, neither was going to have a shot at winning anyway ;).

...by the way - I'm *not* particularly a NASCAR fan as F1 and Sportscars/GTs are my thing, but man the ignorance is scary in here; "I don't like it therefore it must be bad".

Last year, at the Pepsi 400, Boris set Pole and finished 4th due to good pit stategy. ;)

I won't dispute NASCAR isn't a real racing series, those comments just crack me up. I don't like alot of the things that go on in NASCAR and the annoying "boogity boogity boogity" and "whoed up" stuff that makes me feel like I am listening to a bunch of idiots. I just can't get real excited about an oval. I can't hardly watch IRL. I get bored and change the channel within 5 minutes.

I dont like it, and it is bad. Plenty of facts on this thread that back my train of thought too.

Someone said something about technology from Nascar to roadcars, well the hell with it...i dont see any consumers driving around in carburated motors.
1. F1 introduced aerodynamics
2. F1 introduced TC
3. F1 introduced CF to the industry
4. F1 introduced just about every high end technology found in todays modern sports/super car.

Every excuse that i have heard for not racing in the rain, is relevant to every other series out there. Oh crap, i forgot that every other series out there has a right hand turn in the mix, cars that dont weigh a disgustingly overweight 3,200 pounds, and dont run carburated motors.

So, why doesnt it run in the rain? Ticket sales are slowing down and more Nascar fans are becoming impatient with their own series' way of governing itself and its drivers. Rain just might be a solution.

The only reason Nascar doesnt run in the rain is that most probably it would cause a death on the track considering the fact that most of its drivers have never raced in the rain in a stock car. Someone who has grown up racing all their lives in stock cars going up the ranks has def. not raced in the rain because they dont do so, so i wouldnt be surprised if they did introduce rain to the mix...bad things would happen.

Lower the weight of the cars, race on more road courses, introduce serious aero to the cars, put in some ALMS C6-R motors and such in their cars and go race etc etc etc...but then again this would sky rocket the prices of going racing so it would never happen. Nascar has serious potential. Its a shame

Basically you are describing an American version of Australian Supercar. THAT would ROCK!

Some of the best drivers in the world are driving in NASCAR. The best with the most money (yes, drivers with money) are running in F1. The one Daytona race (DP cars) a couple of years ago had a some of the good ole NASCAR boys running in it. They had never raced in the rain before and they kicked serious ass. They know all about grip whether wet or dry. 180 mph 6" from another car at the edge of all traction is not something to look down upon. I'd love to watch any of you armchair racers do it. I sure as hell couldn't.

There are many issues with running in the rain with the biggest one being safety. Another big one is that fans may not stick around in the rain even though the possibility of major crashes would increase.

Road courses are great and that's what most of us on this snobby BMW board enjoy, but the road courses cannot support the fan base as well as an oval track.

You weren't around when IMSA was packing them in at tracks like Road Atlanta. Some of the IMSA races of the late '80's were SRO, and boasted better attendance figures than NASCAB.

I'd rather watch the local SCCA Formula Vee cars than the most popular round of NASCAB.

The tracks suck, the cars suck, the sanctioning body sucks, and the fans suck. Some of the drivers suck too.

What's to like? Seriously.

And that's your opinion. Truth be told, I don't like watching NASCAR either.

1. F1 introduced aerodynamics


1967 Ferrari 312 F1 car: no wings, no engine cover, basic streamlining:
http://www.kubica24.pl/pliki/Image/Bolidy%20historia%20-%20Maciek/Ferrari/1967_312_F1.jpg

1967 Chapparal 2F sportscar: wings, airdam/undertray, movable aerodynamic devices:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Chaparral_2F_-_Mike_Spence_-_1967.jpg/798px-Chaparral_2F_-_Mike_Spence_-_1967.jpg

lol @ 10's of millions per year to be competitive in F1....

+1 :rofl 10's of millions to run one of the wind tunnels . . . for a few months :rofl

There will be more cars on the grid soon, its really up to Bernie. Theres no shortage of people with money.

But there's a shortage of garages at almost every track. The max is 22 or 24 and won't ever exceed that.

1967 Ferrari 312 F1 car: no wings, no engine cover, basic streamlining:
http://www.kubica24.pl/pliki/Image/Bolidy%20historia%20-%20Maciek/Ferrari/1967_312_F1.jpg

1967 Chapparal 2F sportscar: wings, airdam/undertray, movable aerodynamic devices:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Chaparral_2F_-_Mike_Spence_-_1967.jpg/798px-Chaparral_2F_-_Mike_Spence_-_1967.jpg

good point.
I actually think the first use of a wing on a car was back in the 1950's when a privateer in a Porsche 550 put an upside-down wing on the roof. Helped him beat all the factory cars by a few seconds a lap, but then he was disqualified because they found it dangerous.
Jake

+1 :rofl 10's of millions to run one of the wind tunnels . . . for a few months :rofl



But there's a shortage of garages at almost every track. The max is 22 or 24 and won't ever exceed that.

^ good point, didnt think about the space constraints... All the more reason to bring the USGP to Infineon...

You weren't around when IMSA was packing them in at tracks like Road Atlanta. Some of the IMSA races of the late '80's were SRO, and boasted better attendance figures than NASCAB.

I'd rather watch the local SCCA Formula Vee cars than the most popular round of NASCAB.

The tracks suck, the cars suck, the sanctioning body sucks, and the fans suck. Some of the drivers suck too.

What's to like? Seriously.
Remind me not to go to the Wall Mart you are a greeter at.:lol
I don't care what kind of racing it is. I love racing.

Toyota is on record as being in NASCAR not to sell Camrys but to sell trucks.

The best with the most money (yes, drivers with money) are running in F1.

while there r some drivers w/family money in F1; a good amount of the drivers dont come from families w/money. this is starting to shift especially w/some of these family drivers like Nico Rosberg, Nelson Piquet Jr., Bruno Senna, Marco Andretti but this is more of a family business thing for them. while getting into any form of professional sports requires money, some of the athletes have stories of hardship to get to where they r. Hamilton's father had to work 2 jobs just to be able to support his son during the beginning of his career. the Schumacher Family, the same story, father had to work extremely hard in Kerpan(sp?) to support his sons. F1 is no different than any other form of prosfessional sport. NASCAR drivers start the same as F1 drivers, karting.

i remember when i used to play travel ice hockey, $15000 just for the season/team fees, not including ur equipment and travel, throw in some leasons and ur talking about a nice chunk of change just for 1 season of play. and this is just the first step if u want to go pro.

lol @ 10's of millions per year to be competitive in F1....

There will be more cars on the grid soon, its really up to Bernie. Theres no shortage of people with money.

As far as what nascar provides: Think of how many people buy chevy's and drink Budweiser because of Jr. Now how many of you are using ING for your investments because Renault paints their cars in orange, white and blue?

I'm actually about to switch banks and am seriously considering ING. My gf had never heard of ING and asked me why ING and I was like "cuz they're cool!".

Remind me not to go to the Wall Mart you are a greeter at.:lol
I don't care what kind of racing it is. I love racing.

NASCAR isn't racing. It's a show. :)

And I work at Target. :shifty

I'm actually about to switch banks and am seriously considering ING. My gf had never heard of ING and asked me why ING and I was like "cuz they're cool!".

Well I dont think I'll be switching to Bud or Chevys anytime soon ;)

Looks like I wasn't too far off......

http://www.speedtv.com/articles/nascar/nextel/38573/


But because rain cancelled qualifying, three of those seven fastest cars, including pole-sitter Boris Said, were eliminated from the race on the basis of points, a situation many competitors and fans considered to be grossly unfair. “It's really upsetting for those guys who were outside of the top 35, especially guys like Boris who put up such a great effort,” said Jeff Gordon, who was 30th fastest in time trials but credited with the pole on the basis of owner points after qualifying was rained out Friday night.

"That's got to be tough. Believe me, myself, I would rather we qualify and I end up 30th or 35th and let those guys do what they earned than back into a second place start like we did,” added Denny Hamlin, who was credited with second place in qualifying and will start the Pepsi 400 alongside Gordon on Row 1. “It's really not worth it to me because we know what all those other teams are going through just trying to make these races. Yeah, you definitely sympathize for them.”

http://www.ddavid.com/formula1/images/lotus49f.jpg
This is the 1967 Lotus-Ford 49. The aero on it is enough to prove that both Chaparral and F1 were onto some truly yet to be understood technology. F1 would not grasp the total importance of aerodynamics for some time to come, but that didnt stop engineers from slapping on what seemed to work through trial and error. Chapparal's 2F was, i agree, the first true race car to boast what many of us would consider "aerodynamics", wings/undertrays and so forth...but the streamlining of F1 cars dates back to the 1950's. That is aero in itself, but just the tip of the sword. As i said, aero wouldnt create such a heavy impact as the late 70's Lotus F1 cars, especially that of the Lotus 79, truly one of the first F1 cars to be heavily influenced by the forces of aerodynamics.
http://people.bath.ac.uk/sm254/history_files/image013.jpg
Ofcourse, the Chaparral 2F is considered by many to be the very first to play around with the idea of giant wings and so forth. So point to you. But i cannot believe that Nascar still races with such basic aero.

And yes, if Nascar was more like Australian V8 Supercars.....OH man would i be a huge fan.

And yes, if Nascar was more like Australian V8 Supercars.....OH man would i be a huge fan.
hell yes! even if they did as many road courses as ovals, I'd be fine with that!
Jake

As far as what nascar provides: Think of how many people buy chevy's and drink Budweiser because of Jr. Now how many of you are using ING for your investments because Renault paints their cars in orange, white and blue?

I buy lots of stuff made by F1 sponsors over non-sponsors when I feel the choice is about break-even. I bought a Panasonic plasma and a few other electronics due to their sponsorship(even though Toyota sucks ballz for the most part, but not half as bad as Honda this year!).

I'm not some mindless consumer drone, but I do enjoy F1, and I take note on who sponsors the sport and it causes me to lean their way when buying something I want.

I dont know how no one has mentioned this yet, but how about the Indy 500 this year? they didnt call that race until there were puddles on the track. I dont expect any racing series to race through standing, deep water, as its pretty damn unsafe to enter a puddle at 180 and go skimming across the top.

However, when was the last time you saw a stock car that even had a rain tire on it??

NASCAR isn't racing. It's a show. :)

And I work at Target. :shifty

I hate to be the one to tell you this but all racing is a show.


...but the streamlining of F1 cars dates back to the 1950's. That is aero in itself, but just the tip of the sword.
... But i cannot believe that Nascar still races with such basic aero.

1st I'd suggest you check out some of the streamlined landspeed cars of the 1930's. Auto Union probably is the best example.

2nd What the heck makes you say Nascar has "basic" areo?

I pretty much like all racing. I grew up around motorcross, my dad raced dirt bikes, my uncle raced AA dragsters and go karts. I am lucky enouh to road race at a low level.

I hate the new Nascar rules package, but I hate the new F1 package as well, maybe even more.

Nascar has always been very open about tinkering with the rules to promote close racing. I dislike the fact that they have started doing this on the track instead of in the garage.

However F1 has until recently been about innovation. Since the 1st Grand Prix a team tried to build a better machine, and when they did, they won. In the rare years where two teams got everything right some amazing things took place. I fear the coming F1 rules are an attempt to become an open wheeled Nascar. This bothers me on two levels, 1st I am worried that F1 will lose (and maybe already has lost) the drive that made it special. 2nd (and we are already seeing this) it is losing it's basic understanding of why people race. What I see in F1 is a bunch of people pontificating about irrelevant crap. It's made it a lot harder for me to be a fan.

Nascar has always been very open about tinkering with the rules to promote close racing. I dislike the fact that they have started doing this on the track instead of in the garage.



Not to mention tinkering with the results. That's what I mean by "show".

Not to mention tinkering with the results. That's what I mean by "show".

The tinkering on track has been a lot more blatant in the last 5 or 6 years. (The "phantom" yellow has gotten out of control. I can't really defend that. I also would say that it has become the WWE of racing. My real point is that F1 is marching down the same path. Spec ECU's on an F1 car? :(

It's a sad state of affairs all the way around. F1 is more restrictive now than at any point in my memory.

I'd like to see a return to multiple engine configurations and a total ban on wings.

Thinking a ban on wings will fix things makes clear your complete ignorance of Aero. Champ car has way more passing than F1 despite higher downforce cars with more aggressive aero rules. The point is that those rules are smarter.

The FIA forces the front wing on F1 cars to be way too high, which is why they suffer from a leading car's wake. The CDG concept is rubbish, and within 6 months or so I'll have proven it.

The solution is looser rules on the underbody, no bodywork flip ups, and a low front wing, NOT the elimination of wings. wings are absolutely critical to balance. You need them to provide a rearward moving Cp.

I'm not arguing the effectiveness of wings, but their removal would force the teams to improve mechanical grip.

Basic Aero:
http://www.speedsportlife.com/photopost/data/936/thumbs/07Nascar_Camry5.jpg
http://www.speedsportlife.com/photopost/data/936/thumbs/07Nascar_Camry2.jpg
This is what i consider to be "basic" in its truest form. Pretty primitive means of aerodynamics, given that if Nascar teams were allowed more slack, we could have more interesting racing....if also they werent racing on ovals where following a car too closely (which is what its all about on ovals) means your aero is inefficient then.
What could be (examples of other racing series)
http://www.automobilemag.com/auto_shows/naias_2005/0501_naias+2005_chevrolet_corvette_c6_r_race_car+t op_rear_side_view.jpg
http://www.autobacsusa.com/news/2005_jgtc_02/large/jgtc_23.jpg
http://files.turbosquid.com/Preview/Content_on_1_29_2006_12_23_50/Nissan%20350z%20Xanavi%20JGTC%20front4.jpg866e95ae-181f-4fa3-bfa3-0e8b0ded9505Large.jpg
http://www.sportcraftcars.com/autoart/motorsport/aart80508.jpg

Note: These are all "Production based" bla bla bla looking cars, what Nascar claims it is...more like what it used to be a long time ago. This is not basic aero, examples in which the DBR9, C6.R, JGTC 350Z...all using undertrays, rear valances, wings, front winglets, etc etc etc.

Pretty off topic from the initial rain relevant original thread, but either way...Nascar just doesnt scratch my racing fan itch within me for many reasons, this being one of them. The cars a dead boring, use age old technology, no rain racing (which lets face it, it is the ultimate determination of the best drivers in the world) etc etc. Aero helps quite a bit in the rain also.....

But then the contra-argument of how if Nascar allowed its teams to do as they wish within certain parameters on engine development, aero R&D, and so forth...the costs would skyrocket and Nascar wouldnt be what it is today. Why not come up with a formula like Australian V8 Supercars?????

I saw where they penalized a NASCAR team because they didn't like how the car looked even though it fit the template perfectly. Basically, a team reshaped a small portion between the contact points of the template, and even though they met the template (letter of the law), they penalized them. NASCAR is trying as hard as they can to stunt any aero development. It truly is a spec series now. Every car regaudless of "make" or "model" has to be the same.

I saw where they penalized a NASCAR team because they didn't like how the car looked even though it fit the template perfectly. Basically, a team reshaped a small portion between the contact points of the template, and even though they met the template (letter of the law), they penalized them. NASCAR is trying as hard as they can to stunt any aero development. It truly is a spec series now. Every car regaudless of "make" or "model" has to be the same.
J. Gordon and Johnson at Infineon. I thought that was bullshit, personally.
Jake

that was another thing that pissed me off also. They were within the boundaries of the jig pick up points but were still penalized. How does that work???/

that was another thing that pissed me off also. They were within the boundaries of the jig pick up points but were still penalized. How does that work???/

It doesn't. They didn't violate the rules, but got penelized anyway. NASCAR does not want them as fast as possible, they want them as spec as possible.

Spirit of the rules is always in question with every racing series. NASCAR is trying to make things safer and going faster on ovals is not safer. F1 tried to make things safer with grooved tires and smaller motors, etc.

Spirit of the rules is always in question with every racing series. NASCAR is trying to make things safer and going faster on ovals is not safer. F1 tried to make things safer with grooved tires and smaller motors, etc.

If we don't want to go faster, we shouldn't go racing. I realize thats a little short sighted, but thats how I react to intentionally slowing down a racecar.

They don't run at an AVERAGE lap speed of 180mph. Sure, F1 runs peak speeds in the same neighborhood, but generally in a straight line or with significant runoff provided.

F1 also doesn't run in 43 car packs.
F1 also doesn't run 3400 lb cars on 9-inch-wide tires.

edit: and it isn't just NASCAR: IRL doesn't run on speedways in the rain either and neither did CART back when.

f1 cars put loads on their tires that a nascar couldn't produce with a miracle.
The down force produce by an F1 car at 180mph im pretty sure equates to the car weighing MORE than a Stock car.

also they are open cockpit with extensive under body aero and such which leads to even more spray and it literally sucks the water off the track. No wipers just a helmet visor and some tear offs. oh and the driver, yeah he doesn't stay too dry for too long.

Saying the tires cant handle it is stupid because they can, visibility is an issue but they can install wipers. and then oh wait, visibility also if you ever raced in the rain you would know that at 100mph with rain x on your windshield rain doesn't have a prayer at staying on it. its a bit difficult to see but no bad. and thats with a 60 car field.

Stock cars can run in the dry they are no different than any other car, the sanctioning body just refuses to see it that way.

I think if they want to call it stock car racing give them a Ford Taurus off a showroom floor put a cage in it and some good year slicks and call it a racecar. not build some monstrosity that handles like an aircraft carrier and goes like the saturn 5 rocket.

ALMS GT and GTS are more Stock car than NASCAR is.

f1 cars put loads on their tires that a nascar couldn't produce with a miracle.
The down force produce by an F1 car at 180mph im pretty sure equates to the car weighing MORE than a Stock car.

also they are open cockpit with extensive under body aero and such which leads to even more spray and it literally sucks the water off the track. No wipers just a helmet visor and some tear offs. oh and the driver, yeah he doesn't stay too dry for too long.

Saying the tires cant handle it is stupid because they can, visibility is an issue but they can install wipers. and then oh wait, visibility also if you ever raced in the rain you would know that at 100mph with rain x on your windshield rain doesn't have a prayer at staying on it. its a bit difficult to see but no bad. and thats with a 60 car field.

Stock cars can run in the dry they are no different than any other car, the sanctioning body just refuses to see it that way.

I think if they want to call it stock car racing give them a Ford Taurus off a showroom floor put a cage in it and some good year slicks and call it a racecar. not build some monstrosity that handles like an aircraft carrier and goes like the saturn 5 rocket.

ALMS GT and GTS are more Stock car than NASCAR is.

So, you're telling me a 3500lb nascar going into a 35 deg banked corner at 190 mph has LESS load on the leading tire than an F1 car does going into a flat corner? My judgement tells me you better do some load calculations I'd say you're not even close with that assesement.

As far as Nascar running in the rain...they don't have to. So why do it? They do not travel the world and have the luxury of postponing a race until the next day. Their schedule allows it. F1 is global, the logistics don't allow outside weather to dictate a schedule.

So, why put drivers/crews lifes in peril when it's not necessary?

Don

So, you're telling me a 3500lb nascar going into a 35 deg banked corner at 190 mph has LESS load on the leading tire than an F1 car does going into a flat corner? My judgement tells me you better do some load calculations I'd say you're not even close with that assesement.

As far as Nascar running in the rain...they don't have to. So why do it? They do not travel the world and have the luxury of postponing a race until the next day. Their schedule allows it. F1 is global, the logistics don't allow outside weather to dictate a schedule.

So, why put drivers/crews lifes in peril when it's not necessary?

Don

F1 takes Indy at 190mph (in the turn) and climbing with a 1300# car and tons of downforce producing around 3g. Well, 3g on a 1300# car is 3900 pounds at 190mph. Besides, the banking makes it easier. Its harder to turn flat than dropping into a big bank and letting the road turn the car. I'm not sure how many g's F1 pulls on that corner in indy.

Edit: Just thought I better throw a disclaimer in before someone tries to make a big deal about it. I realize tires can pul over 1g without wing because of non-linear blah blah blah. With downforce, it will still get up about the same weight.

. . . dont run carburated motors . . . put in some ALMS C6-R motors . . .

Why not carburated motors?

2006 Corvette C6.R
Displacement 7.0 / 427
Horsepower 590 @ 5400 rpm
Torque (lb-ft) 640 @ 4400 rpm

Chevrolet V8-SB2
Displacement 358 cu. in. max
Compression Ratio 12:1
Induction System 4V Holley carburetor
Horsepower 770 @ 9000 RPM
Torque (lb-ft) 530 @ 7200 RPM

Me thinks the NASCAR motor would be fun . . . :redspot

f1 cars put loads on their tires that a nascar couldn't produce with a miracle.
The down force produce by an F1 car at 180mph im pretty sure equates to the car weighing MORE than a Stock car.


Sure and F1 runs tires that are a LOT bigger than NASCAR, about 15 inches wide in the rear and 14 inches in the front.


Saying the tires cant handle it is stupid because they can, visibility is an issue but they can install wipers. and then oh wait, visibility also if you ever raced in the rain you would know that at 100mph with rain x on your windshield rain doesn't have a prayer at staying on it. its a bit difficult to see but no bad. and thats with a 60 car field.


I didn't say the tires couldn't handle it. My point was that running 180mph laps in a 43-car pack, in cars that are under-tired to begin with, in poor visibility, is dumb. They already bend up a large number of cars at Talladega and Daytona, there is no reason to bend up the rest of the field trying to race on a wet oval with no runoff.


Stock cars can run in the dry they are no different than any other car, the sanctioning body just refuses to see it that way.


What?

Why not carburated motors?

2006 Corvette C6.R
Displacement 7.0 / 427
Horsepower 590 @ 5400 rpm
Torque (lb-ft) 640 @ 4400 rpm

Chevrolet V8-SB2
Displacement 358 cu. in. max
Compression Ratio 12:1
Induction System 4V Holley carburetor
Horsepower 770 @ 9000 RPM
Torque (lb-ft) 530 @ 7200 RPM

Me thinks the NASCAR motor would be fun . . . :redspot


The ALMS engine is running through some teeny little restrictors.

http://www.supercars.net/gallery/119513/1445/621628.jpg

I'm not arguing the effectiveness of wings, but their removal would force the teams to improve mechanical grip.

Mechanical grip that could in no way replace that of the wings removed. Mechanical grid that is reduced with speed at the rear of the car . . .

Wings are necessary. Both their downforce AND drag. Thick of them as safety devices.

The ALMS engine is running through some teeny little restrictors.

http://www.supercars.net/gallery/119513/1445/621628.jpg

Every series have some sort of restrictors . . . Some the of NASCAR motors have restrictors at certain tracks and still make 500-600hp . . .


Me still thinks the NASCAR motor would be fun :stickoutt

if you think a Nascar motor would be more fun than the C6.R's motor or one of those likes and calibre...well i dont know what to say. My soul lies with the tech savvy of higher levels in the motorsports tree. To each his own.

KISS is always better

Every series have some sort of restrictors . . . Some the of NASCAR motors have restrictors at certain tracks and still make 500-600hp . . .


Me still thinks the NASCAR motor would be fun :stickoutt

They really only make around 400 with the nascar restrictor plates or whatever they call them. But pretty much anything with 400+ HP would be fun in my opinion.

KISS is always better

...and trying to accelerate the valvetrain mass of all those pushrods is really keeping it simple?

From an engineering standpoint, getting a pushrod engine to like revving up that high is like trying to make a 10 story building out of wood.

What would you propose as a solution? Running in the rain is not an option.

It is an option and so are local yellows, they just choose not too.