The Official "NASCAR 2005-07" thread

[marinerbc]

Welcome to the only thread at GMI dedicated to both the people that watch competitive auto racing, NASCAR style, and those of you who think that we're complete morons. All views welcome.

I, and 327, will be your hosts/targets. We hope you enjoy either the "NASCAR Sucks" aspect of this thread, or the the great racing that we see so often on road courses, superspeedways, and short tracks nation wide.

Gentlemen, start your engines.

I will start/be first to be targetted:

I have a real bone to pick with (48) Jimmie Johnson. When another driver (31 Jeff Burton) moves out of the groove, and gives you room to pass on the inside (faster lane) you then deliberately move up and nail him anyway, spin him into the inside wall, and the car then ends up in the main racing groove, where it is hit head on at 120 mph by another car, the 97 driven by Nextel Cup Champion Kurt Busch. (This took place last Sunday the 3rd of April at Bristol Motor Speedway, near lap 300 of 500.)

I submit that had this been any driver from a team other than Hendrick Motorsports, there would have been suspension, probation or fines.

Does Hendrick get special treatment?

[327]

I have a real bone to pick with (48) Jimmie Johnson. When another driver (31 Jeff Burton) moves out of the groove, and gives you room to pass on the inside (faster lane) you then deliberately move up and nail him anyway, spin him into the inside wall, and the car then ends up in the main racing groove, where it is hit head on at 120 mph by another car, the 97 driven by Nextel Cup Champion Kurt Busch. (This took place last Sunday the 3rd of April at Bristol Motor Speedway, near lap 300 of 500.)


Crap! I missed that race. Too bad i missed that wreck. Haha they must be getting special treatment if he got away with that!

[Ming]

My biggest pet peeve with NASCAR is the names on the cars themselves. I'm really not that into the drivers and their personalities.

Can a NASCAR expert here explain to me why NASCAR runs with names of FWD sedans like the Taurus? GTOs and Mustangs would seem to make more sense from a marketing perspective than....Taurus, or the FWD Monte Carlo. At least the Charger makes some sense, but then again from a profile the NASCAR cars look like coupes, so that rules out the Charger and Taurus....

I know its just marketing, and the cars with the stickers have nothing to do with their production counterparts, but Charger, GTO, Mustang --- all RWD ---- all powered by V8s....wouldn't that be more exciting to watch, and maybe even a bit more relevant than the fiberglass fakery masquerading as Tauruses around out there now?

At least the 2006 Monte is getting a V8!

[327]

Originally Posted by Ming

My biggest pet peeve with NASCAR is the names on the cars themselves. I'm really not that into the drivers and their personalities.

Can a NASCAR expert here explain to me why NASCAR runs with names of FWD sedans like the Taurus? GTOs and Mustangs would seem to make more sense from a marketing perspective than....Taurus, or the FWD Monte Carlo. At least the Charger makes some sense, but then again from a profile the NASCAR cars look like coupes, so that rules out the Charger and Taurus....

I know its just marketing, and the cars with the stickers have nothing to do with their production counterparts, but Charger, GTO, Mustang --- all RWD ---- all powered by V8s....wouldn't that be more exciting to watch, and maybe even a bit more relevant than the fiberglass fakery masquerading as Tauruses around out there now?

At least the 2006 Monte is getting a V8!

well its not really nascar that doesnt run FWDs. Its the manufacturers that arent running RWD. That is slowly changing with the charger, and now the v8 in the Monte carlo. All the cars have sheetmetal bodies.


Its just the same as how you posted an article of the NOPI cobalt drag car.

except they are racing a FWD 4 banger. But its still no different than what nascar is doing. Its not even close to a cobalt except the stickers http://forums.gminsidenews.com/showt...=cobalt+racing

[Ming]

Originally Posted by 327

Its just the same as how you posted an article of the NOPI cobalt drag car.

except they are racing a FWD 4 banger. But its still no different than what nascar is doing. Its not even close to a cobalt except the stickers http://forums.gminsidenews.com/showt...=cobalt+racing

I fully agree there. At least they are not RWD with jacked up rear ends with giant tires like some of those "Pontiac Grand Am" drag cars.

Except of course that I wonder if the GM engines in the NASCAR cars are taking advantage of technolgical improvements - such as seen in the LS2. I really know nothing about NASCAR engines except that they often run with restrictor plates and carburetors. I think that the work that goes into making the Ecotec perform at the drag strip could equate to better performance in the showroom cars, but I'm not so sure that would be the case with NASCAR - it seems from my perspective that the Automakers are sticking with older technology because of NASCAR rules, and are not allowed to use technology to their advantage, unlike things like that Cobalt drag car.

NASCAR used to be about the automakers out doing one another with new advances or even "cheats" like the Super Bird wing deal in the 1970's. Now it seems more like Open Wheel racing, where NASCAR dictates a generic spec on what you can drive, while production cars head off in another direction.

I wonder if NASCAR isn't so far gone down that path that even if the automakers WANTED to make cars like the ones they race in NASCAR they couldn't because the specs are so far away from anything "stock" now.

The 1969 Dodge Charger Daytona (street version at right) and the 1970 Plymouth SuperBird were created for the singular purpose of putting Chrysler across the finish line first on the nation's stock car tracks. Racing was becoming big business in the late 1960s, due to the factories' recognition of racing as a valuable marketing tool. It was generally understood that a win on the track often lead to a "win" in the dealer show rooms when the public came to buy the "same car" that won at the track. Because NASCAR rules required that bodies and motors be legalized (homologated) through a minimum street car production quota, the Aero Warriors graced the streets that lead to the tracks where their racing brethren performed.

Plymouth's attempt at NASCAR domination culminated in the production of the 1970 Plymouth SuperBird. Plymouth's '68 Road Runner was aerodynamically poor, and it became even more so when Richard Petty opted to race a Ford rather than pilot a boxy Plymouth in '69. Richard scored ten victories in his new Ford ride, including a victory in the fist race he drove it in at Riverside, California. This made it abundantly clear to Plymouth that if they wanted Petty back in a Plymouth (and they wanted the all-time winningest NASCAR driver back very badly), they would need a car which Petty felt was competitive, and thus the SuperBird was born. The Plymouth SuperBird won more races in fewer appearances that its winged brother the Daytona, bringing home eight of Plymouth's 21 victories in 1970.

http://aerowarriors.com/daysb.html

I'd pay to watch this kind of "drama" in NASCAR.

[marinerbc]

Originally Posted by Ming

My biggest pet peeve with NASCAR is the names on the cars themselves. I'm really not that into the drivers and their personalities.

Understandable. Many people prefer to see how a particular manufacturer does when pitted against another manufacturer. The 24 hours of Rolex comes to mind, which is eagerly anticipated in this household.

NASCAR made the decision, years ago, based upon the popularity of various NBA and NFL stars, to stess the driver as the center of the sport. This obviously does not jive with what the pure motorsports manufacturer's fan would like to see, but NASCAR saw a chance to become the largest spectator sport in North America. This world is run by the almighty dollar, and the France family followed the penny trail. The money involved is huge, nowadays.

Originally Posted by Ming

Can a NASCAR expert here explain to me why NASCAR runs with names of FWD sedans like the Taurus? GTOs and Mustangs would seem to make more sense from a marketing perspective than....Taurus, or the FWD Monte Carlo. At least the Charger makes some sense, but then again from a profile the NASCAR cars look like coupes, so that rules out the Charger and Taurus....

I am hardly an expert, and would hope that someone could correct me if I err here.

In the 70s, and up until the early 80s, it really was semi "Stock". There were Chevelles, Oldsmobile Cutlasses, Buick Regals, Ford Torinos, and Dodge Chargers. Then came GM's decision to go all Front Wheel Drive, then Ford, and Chrysler. That left nothing to race; there is no chance that a GM Transaxle can handle the output of that 700 (at the time) hp monster under the hood, and still remain anything but shards of metal.

What to do? Build a template that gives no manufacturer an unfair advantage; have each manufacturer supply engines and chassis, and see what the teams can do within the rules laid down. As it turned out, that was quite a bit.

Ming, those are still Chevrolet engines in those Hendrick cars that I detest so much, even if I don't want to admit it.

Originally Posted by Ming

I know its just marketing, and the cars with the stickers have nothing to do with their production counterparts, but Charger, GTO, Mustang --- all RWD ---- all powered by V8s....wouldn't that be more exciting to watch, and maybe even a bit more relevant than the fiberglass fakery masquerading as Tauruses around out there now?

At least the 2006 Monte is getting a V8!

I guess that depends on how many races you have been to. I can say from experience that I pull for a Chevrolet team, and when those 800 hp Chevys get going at the green flag, the sound is something to behold. It wouldn't be as much fun if Ford and Dodge had no entries in the field, so hanging a name like "Taurus" on the Ford template or "Monte Carlo" on the Chevrolet one is obviously a misnomer, but it is one that the manufacturers insist upon. Chevrolet supplies parts and engines to Chevrolet race teams on the proviso that they use the name "Monte Carlo" on the bodies and not just "Chevrolet". With each engine costing around $50,000 US, that is a lot of support, and race teams would place " Tonka" on the front of the body for that price.

Would racing Mustangs be cool? Sure, but GM (and Dodge) has nothing to compete with them (right, Mr. Zarella?). 43 Mustangs on the starting grid would be no different to me than 43 NASCAR templates (Monte Carlo, Taurus, Charger) on the same grid. They're all basically the same, and the differences would be in the race setups.

Sound famliar?

[marinerbc]

Originally Posted by 327

Crap! I missed that race. Too bad i missed that wreck. Haha they must be getting special treatment if he got away with that!

PM me an address and I'll ship a tape to you.

What do you think Ming? Do Paintboy (24 Jeff Gordon) and Double Paintboy (48 Jimmie Johnson) get special treatment?

[Ming]

Thanks for the info guys - always interesting!

[327]

Except of course that I wonder if the GM engines in the NASCAR cars are taking advantage of technolgical improvements - such as seen in the LS2. I really know nothing about NASCAR engines except that they often run with restrictor plates and carburetors. I think that the work that goes into making the Ecotec perform at the drag strip could equate to better performance in the showroom cars, but I'm not so sure that would be the case with NASCAR - it seems from my perspective that the Automakers are sticking with older technology because of NASCAR rules, and are not allowed to use technology to their advantage, unlike things like that Cobalt drag car.





http://aerowarriors.com/daysb.html




actually i read that GM is supposedly testing out a new smallblock that has the camshaft 2 inches higher on the block that allows for stronger shorter pushrods. And it lets the engines Rev limit another 500-1000 RPM. engines are codenamed RO3 and RO4

[327]

Originally Posted by marinerbc

PM me an address and I'll ship a tape to you.

What do you think Ming? Do Paintboy (24 Jeff Gordon) and Double Paintboy (48 Jimmie Johnson) get special treatment?

Thanks anyway, i guess it got saved on to our satellite receiver thing, so i can watch it later

[marinerbc]

So the question remains...is there favouritism? Is Hendrick the chosen one? Can Roush recover from setbacks at Martinsville?? These and other questions answered (hopefully?) in the "NASCAR sucks" thread, available at fine internet cafes everywhere. See yours today.

[gacSTclass]

Originally Posted by marinerbc

So the question remains...is there favouritism? Is Hendrick the chosen one? Can Roush recover from setbacks at Martinsville?? These and other questions answered (hopefully?) in the "NASCAR sucks" thread, available at fine internet cafes everywhere. See yours today.

I doubt that there is much favoritism, kinda like when a ref makes a bad call in a football game - makes a good call for the other team. But NASCAR is a little different in that a few teams and a few names make a lot of money for them, so I can see there being the potential to "overlook" things done by their "golden boys".

And it lets the engines Rev limit another 500-1000 RPM. engines are codenamed RO3 and RO4

What about things like variable valve timing in the LS2? Can that potentially translate over to NASCAR engines?

[free_energy0]

Problem #1: Carburetors (and general fear of technology)

#2: Rednecks

#3: Turning left for 500 miles.

#4 Rednecks w/ confederate flags.

[327]

Originally Posted by gacSTclass

I doubt that there is much favoritism, kinda like when a ref makes a bad call in a football game - makes a good call for the other team. But NASCAR is a little different in that a few teams and a few names make a lot of money for them, so I can see there being the potential to "overlook" things done by their "golden boys".



What about things like variable valve timing in the LS2? Can that potentially translate over to NASCAR engines?

Yes i think something similar to it is possible. Variable valve timing might not work in nascar because to have it, i think the engines have to be computer controlled. Now the short pushrod design making it into production engines would be cool!. along with higher rev limits it supposedly will make the engines run smoother too. The info for it is all in a Older issue of Car Craft magazine

[327]

Originally Posted by free_energy0

Problem #1: Carbuartors (and general fear of technology)

#2: Rednecks

#3: Turning left for 500 miles.

#4 Rednecks w/ confederate flags.

Awww do you only like Road racing???