McCrum Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 Did I miss something? I can't believe no posts on Stewart's whining about the bump drafting, saying someone's going to get killed. I realize it's not quite the same issue, but reminds me of the following, so I searched out an old article: ---------------------------------------- EARNHARDT ON RESTRICTOR PLATES: "I WISH WE COULD JUST RACE" DALE EARNHARDT HATES BEING REINED IN. HE WISHES NASCAR would take the binders off at Daytona and Talladega and let a driver's grit--not a restrictor plate--determine how fast a car goes. "Dang, I wish we could just race," Earnhardt complained after the summer Pepsi 400 at Daytona. "Right now, we're not racing--we're just existing on the track together. I don't think anyone is happy with what we're doing." Earnhardt is aware that some drivers support NASCAR's speed cutback, implemented for safety concerns. His suggestion to anyone who doesn't want to go fast: "Well, get the hell home. If you're not a race driver, stay the hell home. Don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Get the hell out of the race car if you've got feathers on your legs or butt. Put a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up there and eat that candy butt!" But, Dale, what about concerns that a car may go so fast that it could become airborne--as happened to Bobby Allison's Buick at Talladega one year--and sail over the fence? Earnhardt's solution: "Build bigger fences." ----------------------------------------------- Gotta miss the guy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAPA Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 I hate Restrictor races so I agree with him on that. Let them put all the HP they want under the hood. You dont hear the drag racer complain about going to fast. If your afraid then let someone else in the car. jmo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Budman Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 Nascar is not near as concerned about the drivers as they are about a car getting airborne and getting into the stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tqj3 Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 If Allison had managed to put that car into the grandstands, we'd be done. Budman is right; it has nothing to do with driver safety or with "chicken" drivers. Fences aren't the solution. There is only one solution, and I've been advocating it for years (ask Supertx, we've talked about it enough): take the banking down. And, before you jump my case, Mark Martin said exactly the same think last season... That solution also has the added advantage of putting driving back into the racing equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckLicata Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 God forbid I actually SUPPORT T-Stew on something he says.... But I don't think his comments were too far off base, to be honest.... The attention to the topic is definitely deserved.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAPA Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 tqj3 Thats a good idea also. Indy cars run 200+ on the same track. They use wings to keep them on the ground. I would think some kind of aero design on the nose of these cars could do the same thing. Better yet...make them run "STOCK" bodies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tqj3 Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 Papa- The trouble is that as any car accelerates, it tends to try to turn from a good car into a bad airplane; that is, it will fly, just not very well. I don't like wings on Indy-type cars, or on anything else that isn't an airplane, for that matter. At the Indy 500, they have the same problem: if the car is set up right, almost anyone can drive it fast, but if it isn't, nobody can drive it. At most IRL races, the drivers haven't lifted off the throttle since 2003. That ain't driving, and neither is holding your breath at Daytona or Talladega. It may take a big set, but it isn't driving. For the open-wheel boys, the problem is all that artificial downforce (aerodynamic grip as opposed to mechanical grip). As there is more downforce than the car weighs, you could drive one on the ceiling if you could get it up there and keep your speed up. The problem comes when the car gets sideways, even a little bit. The downforce goes away, and you're suddenly a passenger. Stock cars are less sensitive, but the loss of downforce is what can turn a 3,500-pound car into a kite; hence the "roof flaps" to kill the aero lift when the car is sideways. Just as with the open-wheel cars, there's plenty of downforce when the car is pointed in the right direction, but almost none when it isn't: instant passenger, and wild, tumbling rolls and flips even when the car hasn't hit anything. I don't think anyone out there has a bigger set than Tony Stewart, regardless of whether you like him or not. But I don't think he wants to be a passenger at 200 mph, and bump drafting tends to up the odds. Take the banking down, and we might find there are more than a few drivers out there who won't be in Cup cars anymore, no matter how fat Daddy's wallet is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAPA Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 Well stated tqj3. I dont have a clue as to the solution. I was just "Stirring the Pot" . Something does need to be done before we lose someone. As much as I like to watch the Super Speedway races maybe they need to do away with them and just race on the smaller tracks. That wont happen I know but at the rate these cars are evolving something bad is going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Budman Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 The last time they ran unrestricted at 'dega, which was what, about 25 years ago? Bill Elliot in the Coors Thunderbird turned laps at over 220. Knowing what I know now, I'm not sure I'd want to be sitting in the stands if there were over 40 of them out there running at those speeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierDaddy Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 If you lower the banking you'd have a 2.5 mile California speedway. That would be boring as hell. Too many tracks like that as it is. California, Michigan, Kansas, Chicago...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProTree Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 statement in the paper today said nascar was going to police the "bump drafting in the corners"-may even make the culprits come down pit road for a drive thru penalty- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Budman Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 Papa, you make a good point about Super-speedway racing. To me its just not really racing if the driver doesn't even have to lift, much less get on the brakes at the end of the straights. Its more like road rocket guiding or whatever you want to call it. That's it. I think we have a new name for it. "Competitive Road-rocket Guiding" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KahneFan Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 I think super-speedways were good when racing was starting out and trying to test the limits. With technology the way it is, we've definitely met our limits. That being said, going back to the smaller tracks may be the best course all the way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tqj3 Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 HoosierDaddy- I don't think you're understanding us. I don't mean take the banking down to California or Texas levels, I mean take it down to Martinsville or less. Let the drivers run down the straights and then get the car slowed and set up for the corner. The average lap times will be higher and the top speeds lower, but it should let the drivers drive and the racing should be pretty spectacular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1-Crew Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 Cutting down the banking will sure put the driver back into the equation but as a smaller step, why don't they just reduce the engine size. The problem with restrictors plates is you have a big engine breathing through a straw and it takes all the throttle response out of the engine. Take the maximum displacement down to 305 CI (these are all custom motors anyway so let the Dodge boys destroke the 318), and take the maximum carb down to 390 CFM. Reduced speed, but you still have throttle response. If that doesn't slow them up enough, kill the aero with spoiler adjustments or better yet, take away some downforce so even at reduced speed they have to brake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tqj3 Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 1-crew- Most of the NASCAR engine builders have, in fact, suggested just that. Of course, I'm sure they all have development programs in place and already know what they can do with a smaller displacement engine. Still, you're fiddling with the cars when the real problem is that terminal speeds are so high and the combination of banking and aerodynamics just makes the cars go faster, while basically taking the driver out of the equation. On the other hand, if you have to slow down for every corner, the terminal speed isn't such a big deal. And, if you do take most of the aero help away, the cornering speeds will also be lower. And the best driver will be the one who can carry the most speed through the turns and onto the straights, not the one who can trust his crew chief to put a car under him that doesn't have to be driven. As it is, I'm beginning to feel the same way about NASCAR that I do about drag racing: screw the drivers, give the trophies and big money to the crew chief and mechanics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazyhorse Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 everybody criticizes the plate races.................everybody has a solution to make them better.................everybody stops what they're doing to watch as if the world depended on it when they come on......................something about this equation is not right? i do not agree with where the bump drafting has gone......but i like watching these style of races .... take the plates off of them , 20 laps in to the race you will go mow the lawn............and then beg for them to put the plates back on before the next superspeedway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1-Crew Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 OK, in a simplistic view I am part of the problem. I watched the Bud Shootout, and given the chance, I might watch Daytona (between Peoples Court and Sponge Bob, that sometimes is a challenge in my house). If I was a die hard following the season I might watch all the races but given a choice I would much rather watch Sears Point, New Hampshire and Bristol over TMS, Daytona or Talledega. So, by the fact that I watched, I become a statistic that says I support restrictor plate racing when in fact, I was snowed in to a hotel in New England with a six pack, some chips, cheese and jalepenos and nothing better to do. Nachos and NASCAR here we come!! "Take the plate off and 20 laps in , go mow the lawn.." Huh?? For any 500 I agree, the last 50 laps are the race. But take the aero away, limit displacement and put the driver back in the seat and strategy takes on a whole new meaning. It's no longer who you made friends with for the first 400 laps but what your pit strategy left you for position, what you have left for tires and fuel and whether your crew chief put straight away speed over downforce. Oh, and not least, whether you think it will hold without lifting on the outside.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazyhorse Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 like i said, everybody has got 'the solution'....fight the powers , don't let the man make you become a statistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tqj3 Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 'Horse, it's a simple problem. If we don't make some changes, someone will eventually succeed in putting a 3,400-pound stock car into a crowded grandstand at over 100 miles per hour, at which point every race car in America becomes a garden ornament and we're all racing slot cars. What's your solution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierDaddy Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 tqj3, With everything you know, you should become a crew chief or a big shot in Nascar. Call Mike Helton and they'll probably start tearing the banking down to about 5 degrees at Daytona monday morning. Thats the best idea I've heard to solve plate racing yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tqj3 Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 HoosierDaddy- Humor and personalities aside, I hate plate racing, too, and taking the banking down seems to be the best overall solution. Anything else (smaller engines, smaller restricter plates, boxier designs, whatever), the engineers and crew chiefs will eventually find a way around. As I noted, the engine builders have been researching smaller motors for years, so they're probably ahead of us on that already. The racing always seems to be better on flat tracks, anyway, and a different group of drivers seem to do well there than on superspeedways or megaspeedways. I guess that's why I'd rather watch Cary Stapp in a Street Stock at Thunder Hill or Eric Knudtson in a Sportsman car at San Antonio. I'm afraid, since they haven't done anything serious yet, that NASCAR (and the IRL and Champ Car) are all content to wait until they have a crash like Le Mans in 1955, but with ten times the loss of life, before they do anything. That's despite Allison's flight at Talladega and Andretti putting an Indy car over the fence at Indianpolis and into a spectator area. Since Andretti did his during practice and the spectator area and grandstands were empty, no one seems worried about it, but they darn well should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abrungot Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 Man.. this is just like old times... Guess i need to go pop the popcorn.. and put some tea on ice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fastoval Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 I don't know if smaller C.I. would help. I seem to remember an article in one of the racing mags, that talked about Elliot's engine being in the 340 C.I. range when he went 220 mph. Smaller still make H.P. . Once you git wound up and git it to live you will go just as fast. JMO Mark Shurbet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazyhorse Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 'Horse, it's a simple problem. What's your solution? i don't re-invent the wheel i just roll with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.