George Mooth <gmoothduh@comcast.net> wrote in news:l6k9v1hrvun0375vmni4s5sah0j4kebo6u@4ax.com:
I hate restrictor plate racing!!! It takes all the control> out of the drivers hands, and what with the smaller> fuel cells, it becomes a pit crew race.>
I think the answer is remove the spoilers and let> the driver get the car through the turns on his own.
As noted elsewhere, you need enough spoiler to keep the back of the car on the ground on the straightaway.
Less downforce is the answer, not lowering the> horsepower.
Changing the track so cars can't run so fast thru the turn is the answer.
"John McCoy" <igopogo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:Xns976DC586A9F5Fpogosupernews@216.168.3.30...> George Mooth <gmoothduh@comcast.net> wrote in> news:l6k9v1hrvun0375vmni4s5sah0j4kebo6u@4ax.com:>
I hate restrictor plate racing!!! It takes all the control>> out of the drivers hands, and what with the smaller>> fuel cells, it becomes a pit crew race.>>
I think the answer is remove the spoilers and let>> the driver get the car through the turns on his own.>
As noted elsewhere, you need enough spoiler to keep the back of> the car on the ground on the straightaway.>
Less downforce is the answer, not lowering the>> horsepower.>
Changing the track so cars can't run so fast thru the turn is> the answer.>
John
What's wrong with changing the cars so that they can't run so fast thru the turn?
Chuck Steak 18 February 2006 18:53:11 [ permanent link ]
In article <dt77ke$f4c$1@nntp.aioe.org>, "armpit" <udontneedit@myemail.addy> wrote:
What's wrong with changing the cars so that they can't run so fast thru the >turn?
If this is supposed to be, and it is, the premier taxi division in the world, I don't want to see them go SLOWER on what is advertised to be the 'center of speed'.. or the 'world's fastest track'...
Ultimate division, has to have something to make it ultimate. When you have pickup trucks going nearly as fast as your premier super aero/wind tunnel ultimate tested division, there is an issue that needs to be addressed..
Dan ---------------------------------------------- Why is it when a man talks nasty to a woman it's harassment, and when a woman talks nasty to a man, it's 5.99 a minute?
"Chuck Steak" <Chuck_Steak@nospam.com> wrote in message news:xZKdnQvd2M1I32reRVn-ug@rcn.net...> In article <dt77ke$f4c$1@nntp.aioe.org>,> "armpit" <udontneedit@myemail.addy> wrote:>
What's wrong with changing the cars so that they can't run so fast thru >>the>>turn?>
If this is supposed to be, and it is, the premier taxi division> in the world, I don't want to see them go SLOWER on what is> advertised to be the 'center of speed'..> or the 'world's fastest track'...>
Ultimate division, has to have something to make it ultimate.> When you have pickup trucks going nearly as fast as your premier> super aero/wind tunnel ultimate tested division,> there is an issue that needs to be addressed..>
I didn't say that the cars should be slowed down. That's what Nascar wants for safety reasons. I do agree that its silly that the premier division is not appreciably faster than the 2 lesser divisions. In years past, the Cup cars sometimes weren't even the fastest division.
I think they need to get rid of the plates, decrease mechanical and aero grip, and increase drag. Go to truck bodies if that's what it takes.
They'd still be fast, but with 800hp on tap instead 500hp, plus having to lift in the turns, the racing would be sooooo much better.
George Mooth 18 February 2006 23:08:59 [ permanent link ]
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 07:32:22 CST, "armpit" <udontneedit@myemail.addy> wrote:
"John McCoy" <igopogo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message >news:Xns976DC586A9F5Fpogosupernews@216.168.3.30...>> George Mooth <gmoothduh@comcast.net> wrote in>> news:l6k9v1hrvun0375vmni4s5sah0j4kebo6u@4ax.com:>>
I hate restrictor plate racing!!! It takes all the control>>> out of the drivers hands, and what with the smaller>>> fuel cells, it becomes a pit crew race.>>>
I think the answer is remove the spoilers and let>>> the driver get the car through the turns on his own.>>
As noted elsewhere, you need enough spoiler to keep the back of>> the car on the ground on the straightaway.>>
Less downforce is the answer, not lowering the>>> horsepower.>>
Changing the track so cars can't run so fast thru the turn is>> the answer.>>
John>
What's wrong with changing the cars so that they can't run so fast thru the >turn? >
They can't run so fast through the turns if they have less downforce. It would be an easy fix. Just remove the spoiler. Re. "you need enough spoiler to keep the back of the car on the ground on the straightaway." I don't think the back of the car will rise above the track on the straightaways.
Chuck Steak 19 February 2006 00:29:26 [ permanent link ]
In article <lsmev1tgit2q2o859l76p13ie1ddoefjm6@4ax.com>, Alex Holden <nascar-ng@alexholden.co.uk> wrote:
It's a problem that has faced track designers round the world. I posted>not so long ago a very long and detailed history of racetrack>alterations of certain road courses round the world, but safety bosses>have to make hard choices. Do you change the track, or change the car?
the track.
If you change the track, how do you keep the track a spectacle that>people will pay hard cash to go and watch your race?
They sell out Loudon......
Daytona and>Talladega are high-speed, high banked ovals,
They "USED" to be high speed...
I think a wholesale change is needed, much smaller blocks for CTS, NBS>and Cup cars at plate tracks.
So you think they should go backwards?
I agree with you entirely on this one, but it's something that top line>motor racing series have had to deal with elsewhere.
But never to the extreme of taking away half the horsepower of their ultimate division, or bolting on ski racks..
Dan ---------------------------------------------- Why is it when a man talks nasty to a woman it's harassment, and when a woman talks nasty to a man, it's 5.99 a minute?
George Mooth <gmoothduh@comcast.net> wrote in news:8olev15b530bnivkqp2kov1s3r9hle5o4r@4ax.com:
I don't think the back of the car will rise above the> track on the straightaways.
The stock Monte or Fusion body will lift at around 160 or 165 without a spoiler or wing bolted on (and feel mighty unpleasant just before it does, incidently). The Cup bodies aren't terribly close to stock, and might not generate quite so much lift, but I'd expect them to lift before 180 with no spoiler at all. Back before spoiler rules, the teams used run about 20 degree spoiler angles to keep the back end on the track, running in the mid 190s.
"John McCoy" <igopogo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:Xns976EC3DC39C03pogosupernews@216.168.3.30...> "armpit" <udontneedit@myemail.addy> wrote in> news:dt77ke$f4c$1@nntp.aioe.org:>
What's wrong with changing the cars so that they can't run so fast> > thru the turn?>
See my comments in response to Mike Marlow in the "bumper cops"> thread, in which I contend that you can't change the cars.>
John
I disagree wholeheartedly.
I only want to see the cars "dirtied up" aerodynamically to bring back slingshot passes.
And I believe that if you decrease the grip aerodynamically (smaller front & rear spoilers) and mechanically (narrower, harder tires, heavier car), that you can reduce the corner speed effectively.
Plus there are ways to decrease HP without plates. Fewer cylinders, smaller displacement, smaller carb, smaller valves, limiting valve lift, etc.
There are ways to slow the cars without plates, although I doubt that Nascar would seriously consider anything that might screw up their "show".
Alex Holden 19 February 2006 23:05:57 [ permanent link ]
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 15:29:26 CST, in article <GdidnSkctK8CDGrenZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@rcn.net>, Chuck_Steak@nospam.com (Chuck Steak) wrote in rec.autos.sport.nascar.moderated:
Daytona and>>Talladega are high-speed, high banked ovals, >
They "USED" to be high speed...
They ARE high speed. Take away the plate and you can do 220 easy at Talladega. That's a high speed track.
I think a wholesale change is needed, much smaller blocks for CTS, NBS>>and Cup cars at plate tracks.>
So you think they should go backwards?
If the car gets too fast for the track, you have to change either the track or the car. I don't want to see Daytona or Talladega turn into cookie-cutter 18 degree ovals, it's not the track's fault that technology has caught up with the track, so you take the car back to such a point that the track becomes safe again, and automotive technology starts to eat away at the safety margin again. It will reach a point in the future that the cars will be too fast again, and so you slow them down again.
Putting in chicanes or changing the track merely delays the inevitable, you reach a point that the track becomes unrecognizable from what it was a few years back, and still more changes are needed.
Think of it like golf. Metal jumbo-sized woods mean that the average hacker can hit a golf ball 300 yards, when the likes of Arnold Palmer in his prime would have struggled to hit a ball 270 yards with a wooden driver. Country clubs the world over are having to buy up expensive real-estate to make the courses longer, but they are rapidly reaching a point where they can't make the courses any bigger. The R&A and the USGA are looking at limiting the technology of golf clubs because what were tough courses such as The Old Course at St Andrew's are becoming toothless. I think the average fan would prefer to see the technology reined in, instead of seeing an 850-yard par 5.
In tennis, the carbon-fiber racquets mean that the sweet-spot is bigger and you can hit the ball a heck of a lot harder than with the old wooden ones. To rein in the power-hitters the balls, not the courts were changed.
I agree with you entirely on this one, but it's something that top line>>motor racing series have had to deal with elsewhere.>
But never to the extreme of taking away half the horsepower>of their ultimate division, or bolting on ski racks..
I'll say it again. In 1985, F1 cars were 1.5 liter turbo engines generating 1000bhp. They were way too powerful, and the horsepower was chopped along with the turbo's which were banned.
That was 20 years ago, and since then, technology changes have meant that the now normally-aspirated engines have been cut twice, and they're now smaller than the 1966 formula.
So yes, we need to find a way to slow the cars down so that 190mph is their flat-out top speed.
"armpit" <udontneedit@myemail.addy> wrote in news:zZydndv8eNYHUmreRVn-jw@comcast.com:
I disagree wholeheartedly.
You're welcome to That's what makes the discussion interesting.
And I believe that if you decrease the grip aerodynamically (smaller> front & rear spoilers) and mechanically (narrower, harder tires,> heavier car), that you can reduce the corner speed effectively.
I don't beleive you can reduce corner speed without reducing straightaway speed at the same time. And doing that, by whatever means, gives you pretty much the same result as the plate.
Plus there are ways to decrease HP without plates. Fewer cylinders,> smaller displacement, smaller carb, smaller valves, limiting valve> lift, etc.
Very true.
There are ways to slow the cars without plates, although I doubt that> Nascar would seriously consider anything that might screw up their> "show".
Well, pretty much everyone hates plates, even in NASCAR. And there's folks in NASCAR (not Brian France or Mike Helton, but guys like Pemberton or Nelson) that know 10 times as much as you or I could ever hope to, not to mention folk like Yates or Evernham that know even more...and none of them have yet been able to figure out a way to change the car that works any better than the plate. To me, that's some pretty strong evidence to support the idea that changing the car isn't the solution.
"John McCoy" <igopogo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:Xns976FC25BE9719pogosupernews@216.168.3.30...> "armpit" <udontneedit@myemail.addy> wrote in> news:zZydndv8eNYHUmreRVn-jw@comcast.com:>
Well, pretty much everyone hates plates, even in NASCAR.
Nascar loves the plates. They create very close competition and a good "show".
there's folks in NASCAR (not Brian France or Mike Helton, but> guys like Pemberton or Nelson) that know 10 times as much as> you or I could ever hope to, not to mention folk like Yates or> Evernham that know even more...and none of them have yet been> able to figure out a way to change the car that works any better> than the plate. To me, that's some pretty strong evidence to> support the idea that changing the car isn't the solution.>
John>
Yates has made plenty of suggestions to Nascar about alternatives to plates, but they have fallen on deaf ears. Has Nascar ever tested smaller engines or carbs or anything else as a plate alternative? If they were at all serious about trying to find a solution they would have done something by now.
What's really sad is that the pace car had more HP than the race cars.
"Alex Holden" <nascar-ng@alexholden.co.uk> wrote> It's a problem that has faced track designers round the world. I posted> not so long ago a very long and detailed history of racetrack> alterations of certain road courses round the world, but safety bosses> have to make hard choices. Do you change the track, or change the car?
I just want to complement you on a very thoughtful and logical post that explains some of the issues.
George Mooth 21 February 2006 02:31:20 [ permanent link ]
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 18:15:10 CST, John McCoy <igopogo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
George Mooth <gmoothduh@comcast.net> wrote in>news:8olev15b530bnivkqp2kov1s3r9hle5o4r@4ax.com: >
I don't think the back of the car will rise above the>> track on the straightaways.>
The stock Monte or Fusion body will lift at around 160 or 165>without a spoiler or wing bolted on (and feel mighty unpleasant>just before it does, incidently). The Cup bodies aren't terribly>close to stock, and might not generate quite so much lift, but>I'd expect them to lift before 180 with no spoiler at all. Back>before spoiler rules, the teams used run about 20 degree spoiler>angles to keep the back end on the track, running in the mid 190s.>
John
Back in the day, they didn't use spoilers and the cars had no problem with traction on the straightaways. The bodies now have more downforce than they did then even without the spoiler.
And if they made the tire a harder compound the guys could dirt-track it around the corners like in the 60s - 70s. There would be more seat-of-the-pants feel than the sticky tires.
George Mooth <gmoothduh@comcast.net> wrote in news8ckv15q43rk2fi0m5ebhh6ajc16a2m6lt@4ax.com:
Back in the day, they didn't use spoilers
No? Ever seen a Plymouth Superbird?
The bodies now> have more downforce than they did then even without the spoiler.
Fraid not. The bodies only make downforce at the front, the back (without the spoiler) makes lift. The old square bodies didn't make as much lift as the modern rounded bodies (not to mention the 60s & 70s cars had an extra 500 or 600 pounds of weight counteracting what lift they did create).
And if they made the tire a harder compound the guys could> dirt-track it around the corners like in the 60s - 70s. There would> be more seat-of-the-pants feel than the sticky tires.
While I won't argue against the merits of harder tires, they haven't dirt-tracked it around the corners at Daytona since they left the beach.
"armpit" <udontneedit@myemail.addy> wrote in news:vZidnSWOnvJ-hWTenZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@comcast.com:
"John McCoy" <igopogo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message> news:Xns976FC25BE9719pogosupernews@216.168.3.30...
Well, pretty much everyone hates plates, even in NASCAR.>
Nascar loves the plates. They create very close competition and a good> "show".
Well, yes and no. NASCAR loves the spectacle of the side by side running, and the illusion of side by side racing (specially since that doesn't happen too much at some of the other tracks). But they don't like the bad press that 27 car wrecks and cars flying upside down create. And they don't like the unfulfilled sensation the fans get when the last 10 laps is single file follow the leader with everyone behind afraid to pull out of line.
Yates has made plenty of suggestions to Nascar about alternatives to> plates, but they have fallen on deaf ears. Has Nascar ever tested> smaller engines or carbs or anything else as a plate alternative?
I dunno about smaller engines - it's kind of moot, 450HP is 450HP regardless of how you get there. The Busch series used the 390 carb for a while.
They have tested various body modifications, and actually brought the taxi-cab strips into competition, altho it turned out that in a pack they didn't work as well as expected.
Scott Stevenson 21 February 2006 05:34:46 [ permanent link ]
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:40:19 CST, John McCoy <igopogo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
"armpit" <udontneedit@myemail.addy> wrote in>news:vZidnSWOnvJ-hWTenZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@comcast.com: >
"John McCoy" <igopogo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message>> news:Xns976FC25BE9719pogosupernews@216.168.3.30...>
Well, pretty much everyone hates plates, even in NASCAR.>>
Nascar loves the plates. They create very close competition and a good>> "show".>
Well, yes and no. NASCAR loves the spectacle of the side by side>running, and the illusion of side by side racing (specially since>that doesn't happen too much at some of the other tracks). But>they don't like the bad press that 27 car wrecks and cars flying>upside down create. And they don't like the unfulfilled sensation>the fans get when the last 10 laps is single file follow the leader>with everyone behind afraid to pull out of line.>
Yates has made plenty of suggestions to Nascar about alternatives to>> plates, but they have fallen on deaf ears. Has Nascar ever tested>> smaller engines or carbs or anything else as a plate alternative?>
I dunno about smaller engines - it's kind of moot, 450HP is 450HP>regardless of how you get there.
Except that it's really not. Remember when they first went to the small block in the 70's, anybody who wanted to still run the big block had to run with a restrictor plate. People discovered that even with the horsepower about equal, the big engine with the plate meant that you didn't have the acceleration, even if the top speed was equal. Both cars might get to 185 at Dega, but the small block car could get there in one lap, the big block might take a lap and a half.
Scott Stevenson 21 February 2006 05:40:33 [ permanent link ]
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:25:37 CST, John McCoy <igopogo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
George Mooth <gmoothduh@comcast.net> wrote in >news8ckv15q43rk2fi0m5ebhh6ajc16a2m6lt@4ax.com:>
Back in the day, they didn't use spoilers>
No? Ever seen a Plymouth Superbird?>
The bodies now>> have more downforce than they did then even without the spoiler.>
Fraid not. The bodies only make downforce at the front, the>back (without the spoiler) makes lift. The old square bodies>didn't make as much lift as the modern rounded bodies (not to>mention the 60s & 70s cars had an extra 500 or 600 pounds of>weight counteracting what lift they did create).>
And if they made the tire a harder compound the guys could>> dirt-track it around the corners like in the 60s - 70s. There would>> be more seat-of-the-pants feel than the sticky tires.>
While I won't argue against the merits of harder tires, they>haven't dirt-tracked it around the corners at Daytona since>they left the beach.
John,
While it wasn't exactly "dirt tracking", take a look at film from the early 70's. The back end of the car was "hung out" to a certain degree.
My understanding is that it wasn't necessarily that the tires were harder, but with the bias ply tires they were running, you got additional grip if there was a "slip angle" of a few degrees.
"John McCoy" <igopogo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:Xns9770D314DA5B4pogosupernews@216.168.3.30...> "armpit" <udontneedit@myemail.addy> wrote in> news:vZidnSWOnvJ-hWTenZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@comcast.com:>
"John McCoy" <igopogo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message> > news:Xns976FC25BE9719pogosupernews@216.168.3.30...>
Well, pretty much everyone hates plates, even in NASCAR.> >
Nascar loves the plates. They create very close competition and a good> > "show".>
Well, yes and no. NASCAR loves the spectacle of the side by side> running, and the illusion of side by side racing (specially since> that doesn't happen too much at some of the other tracks). But> they don't like the bad press that 27 car wrecks and cars flying> upside down create. And they don't like the unfulfilled sensation> the fans get when the last 10 laps is single file follow the leader> with everyone behind afraid to pull out of line.>
Yates has made plenty of suggestions to Nascar about alternatives to> > plates, but they have fallen on deaf ears. Has Nascar ever tested> > smaller engines or carbs or anything else as a plate alternative?>
I dunno about smaller engines - it's kind of moot, 450HP is 450HP> regardless of how you get there. The Busch series used the 390> carb for a while.
But if you have a less-slick car and skinny tires, you may only need to drop to maybe 600hp.
They have tested various body modifications, and actually brought> the taxi-cab strips into competition, altho it turned out that> in a pack they didn't work as well as expected.>
Yes, they've tried litlle band-aid type fixes, but never a totally reconfigured package of lower hp engine, dirtier, lower downforce body, and less grippy tires. They'd basically be back to the early-to-mid 80's.
almostfm.AMSPAY@UCKSAY.comcast.net (Scott Stevenson) wrote in news:43fe79a8.74369265@newsgroups.comcast.net:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:40:19 CST, John McCoy <igopogo@ix.netcom.com>> wrote:
I dunno about smaller engines - it's kind of moot, 450HP is 450HP>>regardless of how you get there.>
Except that it's really not. Remember when they first went to the> small block in the 70's, anybody who wanted to still run the big block> had to run with a restrictor plate. People discovered that even with> the horsepower about equal, the big engine with the plate meant that> you didn't have the acceleration, even if the top speed was equal.> Both cars might get to 185 at Dega, but the small block car could get> there in one lap, the big block might take a lap and a half.
There's something to that, but it's not as big a deal as you're thinking. The enemy of acceleration in a race engine is the inertia of the moving parts inside - so to build the best race engine we buy super light 500 gram rods, extra short & light pistons, a crank that weighs barely more than 30lbs...and all of those parts weigh half again as much, or more, in a big block. Even without the plate, the big block isn't going to jump off the corners like a small block (altho without a plate it'll make it up at the other end of the straight).
The other thing is, when the plate first came out (for the current deal, not for the big blocks) the engine builders had a lot of problems with fuel puddling in the manifold - the air would flow thru the plate into the big empty space under it, and slow down so much the fuel would fall out of suspension. This happened particularly when the driver backed off the throttle, and then when he got back on it, the liquid fuel on the bottom of the manifold would get pulled into the cylinders, which would be so rich they'd barely burn, which killed power. The engine builders (and manifold designers) have largely solved that problem, and lack of throttle response isn't as big a problem as it was when the plate first came out.
almostfm.AMSPAY@UCKSAY.comcast.net (Scott Stevenson) wrote in news:43ff7c61.75066703@newsgroups.comcast.net:
While it wasn't exactly "dirt tracking", take a look at film from> the early 70's. The back end of the car was "hung out" to a certain> degree.>
My understanding is that it wasn't necessarily that the tires were> harder, but with the bias ply tires they were running, you got> additional grip if there was a "slip angle" of a few degrees.
Bias ply tires probably was part of that, and another thing was back then it was common to mount the rear suspension trailing arms such that when the car rolled in the turn the axle was angled (the right wheel moved back and the left forward, giving what's called "rear steer"). NASCAR's rules don't allow mounting the trailing arms that way today.
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please . Если Вы хотите пожаловаться на содержимое этой страницы, пожалуйста .
