'What Would You Change' [Archive]

call_me_andrew

10th April 2008, 22:46

Yes children, that wonderful time of year is upon us. I've been looking forward to it, and I'm sure Stan hates it.

For the most part I'm going to build on the ideas I used in last year's thread. I've had some time to think about what cars I would like to see in a possible breakaway series so I've worked those into this thread.

http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116341&

Sprint Cup:

I'm going to keep with the Daytona Prototype based engines (sans rev limiters) and maybe with increased compression so they'll produce about 700 horsepower (down about 85 horsepower from the current engines). Then I'll lighten the cars by 400lbs rather than 200lbs so while they're less powerful, they'll have a better power to weight ratio.

I'll raise the roof from 53 to 57 inches (to add drag). The bodies will be silhouettes of production cars with a 110 inch wheelbase. Instead of one single sheet metal shell, several fiberglass pannels will make up the body so they may be easily changed. Cars will be wind tunnel tested to ensure they all have roughly equal downforce and drag. Reward weight will be used if one vehicle becomes too dominant. A four-link independent rear suspension will replace the two-link live axle.

The rear wing will be similar in shape to the Daytona and Superbird wing. It will mount to the decklid as a straight single-element and be adjustable. The splitter will mount to the airdam and the airdam is placed where it would appear on the production version of the car.

The oil tank would be moved from behind the drivers seat to the "passsenger's seat". The fuel tank will then be moved from below the trunk to behind the driver's seat. As the cockpit is the most protected part of the car, this would help protect the fuel tank. The fuel intake port would be in front of the rear tire. An onboard pneumatic jack would be used to replace the jackman (for safety purposes).

Goodyear would only make 3 sets of tires: soft, medium, and hard. Soft tires would be used at short tracks and road courses, hard tires would be used at Pocono, Indy, plate tracks, and Darlington, and medium tires everywhere else. Since the left side tires are softer at ovals, just the right side specification tires would be used at road courses. Groved tires would be used at plate tracks to reduce grip (thus reduce cornering speed).

Nationwide Series:

Get rid of it! Replace it with a much expanded Whelen Modified Tour. Use modified DP engines again to achieve 600 horsepower and require engines to last two race weekends.

Point system:

Throw the baby out with the bathwater! Get rid of the chase and replace the old system with my 200, 173, 162, 154... system.

The 30 fastest cars on time qualify for a race. 31-38 will hold the cars with the most owner's points not in the race by order of speed. And the field size will be reduced from 43 to 38.

BenRoethig

10th April 2008, 23:38

-Upgraded side graphics to simulate the look of doors.
-4.5L DOHC engine similar to the IRL formula with cylinder deactivation for the plate tracks.
-increase in wheelbase from 110in to 115in to make it closer to existing sedans
-Nameplates based on vehicle class.
Sprint cup: Full size sedan. Avalon, Impala, Taurus, and Charger
Nationwide: Mid-size sedan: Camry, Malibu, Fusion, Avenger.
-5 Point bonus for pole position.
-Reverse 7 race rule. Spring cup drivers can only race in the nationwide or trucks series seven times in a season. Afterwards, entry receives prize money, but no driver or owner points.

harvick#1

11th April 2008, 06:32

are you really sure you want that, if the gas tank blows some how, the driver is in serious danger.

The oil tank would be moved from behind the drivers seat to the "passsenger's seat". The fuel tank will then be moved from below the trunk to behind the driver's seat. As the cockpit is the most protected part of the car, this would help protect the fuel tank. The fuel intake port would be in front of the rear tire. An onboard pneumatic jack would be used to replace the jackman (for safety purposes).

time for some fun

a Hard and Soft Compound Goodyear brings each week and teams have to use both sets (make things they must use the Hard compound 4 times (2 on road courses) that will make stradegy all that more interesting

dump California and Texas and replace the dates with Iowa Speedway, Rockingham, Darlington, and Nashville

shorten both Pocono races to 350 miles

pitstops will be just like IMSA rules (when fueling, no one is allowed to change tires) crews can adjust the car but no tires or unbolting any lugs until fueling is complete by fuelman. (whould make for real pit stradegy)

Single file restarts for the final 100 miles (tired of the lap cars deciding the race)

Jonesi

11th April 2008, 08:24

Next year:
Traveling medical team, with training & equipment at the level of F1/CC/IRL medical teams.
Add some adjustment into the CoT, so when the cars don't handle right, something can be done about it.
Eliminate The Chase, discard of driver's worse 4 races, some slight adjustment to the points.

A few years out (due to TV contracts, etc):
Reduce schedule to 32 races.
Go to a modern engine, about 4 liters, overhead cam four valve, fuel injected, etc.
Alternative fuels.

Lee Roy

11th April 2008, 17:32

Update the engine to a more current model.
Fuel Injection.
Do away with the past champion's provisional (or limit it to champions from the past 10 years).
Single file restarts the last 25% of the race distance.
Add a couple of dirt track races to the schedule, or make Martinsville a dirt track.
Severly limit the number of Nationwide races that a full time Sprint Cup driver can compete in.

Just a question on a permanent traveling safety group. Where would the Emergency Medical Technicians get practical experience during the year?

call_me_andrew

12th April 2008, 05:01

are you really sure you want that, if the gas tank blows some how, the driver is in serious danger.

Well the fuel tank is now safer because it's in the most secure part of the car. So if it's damaged bad enough to blow, chances are the driver is already dead. I actually got the idea from the Ford GT. The fuel tank on that car is between the driver and passenger seats.

I also have an idea for changing the splitter height rule so that the splitter is only measured when 500lbs of weight have been added over the front tires.

dwboogityfan

15th April 2008, 17:39

Firstly I would NOT change the car in the Cup Series. We need to give the COT another couple of years before panicking.

The changes I would make are the following:-

1) Change the qualifying procedure. I would make the only drivers 'locked in' to the race the top 12 in points and if required the current series champion. The rest must qualify on time. This would end the farce of the Past Champions provisional as well. The scrapping of the top 35 rule would help those teams lower down the order to make more races.

2) On tracks of 1.5 miles or more in length change the field from 43 to 45 cars.

3) Award five bonus points for a pole position. Qualifying is a great skill and deserves to be rewarded.

4) Reduce the length of some races from 500 to 400 miles. For example the 2 Pocono races and Californias races.

5) Rearrange the schedule. The season should end at Daytona (the home of NASCAR), move Homestead to July, put the Southern 500 back at Darlington and give dates to Kentucky and another road course. Take a race away from New Hampshire and Pocono to keep the current 36 race schedule.

6) Run a non-points exhibition event in different countries at the end of the season. Similar to the Motegi races run in the late 90s. Target markets should be Asia, Australia and Europe (in particular the UK of course!).

7) In the Nationwide Series award financial prizes for the top 5 non-Cup drivers in each race.

damattarulz

21st April 2008, 05:44

Get rid of the damn "top 35 locked" crap! the only thing this does is penalize new upcoming teams and drivers. The race should be about the top 43 fastest qualifiers...end of story.

BUT, if NASCAR is so worried that Jr., or Gordon, or Stewart, etc., might not make the race for ratings sake, give out provisionals for qualifying incase of a blown tire, or engine, during their qualifying run.

You could give each driver, car, or owner one or two qualifying provs, and pole winners can get extra ones. A driver could use the prov incase of a mechanical problem beyond their control. They then get a redo qualification run.

Aussie12

21st April 2008, 08:13

1. Put Rockingham back on the schedule: Phoenix/Texas/Las Vegas/California can do with one race less.
2. Give Darlington a second race: Phoenix/Texas/Las Vegas/California can do with one race less.
3. Softer barriers everywhere: frontstraits, backstraits, dog-legs, pit walls and inside walls.
4. Ditch the Chase: 10 cars? 11 cars? 12 cars? No one can agree so just dump it.
5. Allow international fans to order merchandise and not charge a fortune for postage: US$40 postage for two NASCAR Day pins? Come on guys. Be serious.
6. Get rid of the ‘don’t-pass-below-the-yellow-line’ rule on superspeedways: if they’ve got the guts to run there, let ‘em at it.
7. Everybody qualifies on time: that’s right, you heard me.
8. Travelling med team: how long have we been harping about this one?
9. Get the NASCAR PTB to look at threads like this one.

Jonesi

21st April 2008, 10:11

5. Allow international fans to order merchandise and not charge a fortune for postage: US$40 postage for two NASCAR Day pins? Come on guys. Be serious.
They want WHAT??

6. Get rid of the ‘don’t-pass-below-the-yellow-line’ rule on superspeedways: if they’ve got the guts to run there, let ‘em at it.

The rule's not there to protect the moron who goes below the line, it's there to protect the dozen racers (who know better), who get taken out in "his accident" when he loses control.

Lee Roy

21st April 2008, 12:55

1. Put Rockingham back on the schedule: Phoenix/Texas/Las Vegas/California can do with one race less.
2. Give Darlington a second race: Phoenix/Texas/Las Vegas/California can do with one race less..

Why move races back to Rockingham and Darlington? The fans spoke loud and clear that they didn't care all that much for those tracks. They had/have the smallest number of grandstand seats on the schedule and they could't even come close to selling out Rockingham or the Southern 500.

7. Everybody qualifies on time: that’s right, you heard me.

No other racing series does this. 'cept maybe the NHRA, but they give them numerous times to make the field.

BenRoethig

21st April 2008, 13:05

I would back it off to the top 20/25 though.

call_me_andrew

22nd April 2008, 05:11

Here's another radical idea I've been tinkering with.

If the next weekend is free or if there's only a short distance to travel, hold races on Monday night instead of Saturday or Sunday night. Not only could this help protect local short tracks from TV competition, more people are likely to be home watching TV on a Monday night. And I think "Monday Night Racing" could really catch on.

harvick#1

22nd April 2008, 06:16

no, for people like me who work 2nd shift get the shaft. no, keep it weekend only

Aussie12

29th April 2008, 08:50

Why move races back to Rockingham and Darlington? The fans spoke loud and clear that they didn't care all that much for those tracks. They had/have the smallest number of grandstand seats on the schedule and they could't even come close to selling out Rockingham or the Southern 500.

Races at the Rock and Darlington are more exciting than most of those at the mid-sized tracks like Texas etc. People aren't going to keep turning up to watch boring races. Sink a little bit of that NA$CAR revenue back into the sport an update the ‘historic’ tracks with bigger stands and better facilities.

10. No more impound races.

Lee Roy

29th April 2008, 12:54

Races at the Rock and Darlington are more exciting than most of those at the mid-sized tracks like Texas etc. People aren't going to keep turning up to watch boring races. Sink a little bit of that NA$CAR revenue back into the sport an update the ‘historic’ tracks with bigger stands and better facilities.

First, you need to answer the question as to why, if the races at Rockingham and Darlington were so exciting, were the fans not choosing to attend. Also, if they couldn't fill the paltry 60,000 seats at Rockingham and Darlington (by comparison, Bristol has over 160,000), why in the world would you build more?

Alexamateo

29th April 2008, 18:30

First, you need to answer the question as to why, if the races at Rockingham and Darlington were so exciting, were the fans not choosing to attend. Also, if they couldn't fill the paltry 60,000 seats at Rockingham and Darlington (by comparison, Bristol has over 160,000), why in the world would you build more?

Well for one thing, SMI is head and shoulders above ISC when it comes to marketing and promotion.

Lee Roy

29th April 2008, 22:05

Well for one thing, SMI is head and shoulders above ISC when it comes to marketing and promotion.

Irrelavent, in my opinion.

All I hear from people is that the races at Rockingham and Darlington were the greatest thing since sliced bread (and I'm not disagreeing), yet no one can give me a reasonable explanation why the NASCAR fans did not support those races if they were so great.

It just doesn't add up.

Alexamateo

30th April 2008, 05:39

I think it is relevant. As a case in point, look at the IRL. Outside of Indy, the best attended race is Texas, other races are less so. I believe it is directly attributable to Eddie Gossage and team at TMS and how they market and promote their races.

I worked for the then Charlotte Motor Speedway as an intern in public relations one fall semester (1991) under Eddie Gossage and Susan Russo, and let me tell you, Those folks spent 365 days a year thinking about "How do we get more people to come to our events?" The attitude came from the top down. Eddie told me that when he first started, Humpy Wheeler would come in his office, and say "What are we going to do today?" The point was to know that marketing and promotion wasn't something done three weeks before the races, but something done every day.

Also, the physical plant was important. Charlotte was the first with the luxury boxes, the condos, the office tower etc. During my internship, I stayed in the home of a lady who worked for the speedway. Her husband had come down with Fred Lorenzen in the late 50's and had worked for Junior Johnson for years. He was great to talk to. When I asked him about various tracks, he'd say "Daytona's a dump!, Darlington's a dump! Rockingham's a dump!" (Basically the only two that weren't were Charlotte and Martinsville) Basically he was saying was that they were run on the cheap and it showed.

Now of course that was almost 17 years ago, and with the influx of money into the sport, all of the tracks have improved their facilities, but I contend that they are just where SMI already was 17 years ago, and I assure you SMI has not remained static in that time period.

Look at Bristol, 71,000 seats in 1996 when SMI bought it, now it's double that @ 160,000. What changed? SMI has promoted it to be the track to attend.

Finally from my own life is this example: I'm a sales rep selling in the construction industry. Supposedly, there's a recession going on yet I am having my best year ever. I follow the mantra that good salespeople don't have recessions. Now, I have some customers who are way off, and who are suffering in this economy of course, but I saw this coming so I've been hustling to expand my territory and pick up new customers, new business etc. I am marketing myself and growing my business, even in a down economy. SMI is like that, they just work smarter and harder than everyone else, so yes I think marketing and promotion have a ton to do with it. It's not one thing, it's all the little things that they do and just do better than anyone else.

Aussie12

30th April 2008, 07:15

According to Jayski, last year Darlington had higher TV ratings than the All tar Race, Pocono I, Michigan I, Louden I, Daytona II, Chicago I, Pocono II, Watkins Glen, Michigan II, California II, Louden II, Dover II, Kansas, Martinsville II, Atlanta II, Texas II and Phoenix II. It was equal to Indy, Charlotte II and Homestead. IMHO there is more money to be made via TV than backsides in seats.

Lee Roy

30th April 2008, 10:43

I think it is relevant.

Not when everyone is saying that the racing at the Rock and Darlington is the greatest thing since sliced bread, yet few of the fans bothered to show up.

I agree that SMI does a better job than ISC, but ISC packs them in at a lot of the tracks that they own also, including Daytona, Richmond, Phoenix and a few others. For some reason, the fans seem to show up there.

gary_580

30th April 2008, 12:56

Not when everyone is saying that the racing at the Rock and Darlington is the greatest thing since sliced bread, yet few of the fans bothered to show up.

Too many races in such a small geographical area. If your going to go to a couple of races people have to make choices

Lee Roy

30th April 2008, 14:18

Too many races in such a small geographical area. If your going to go to a couple of races people have to make choices

DING DING DING DING!!!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!

Someone who can look at a map and understand that there were too many races in a small geographical area and that the fans made a choice as to what they wanted to see, and the bottom of the list was Rockingham and Darlington.

All the romantic nonsense about them being NASCAR fan favorites that NASCAR Brass took away because they were out of touch just didn't match up to the facts that were apparent to anyone who would take off their rose colored glasses.

ms0362

30th April 2008, 21:30

Change the point system for the Chase competitors for the last ten races. Isolate them away from the others. The chase competitors that gets the highest finish get a set number, 2nd competitor 10 points less, 3rd the same and so on. The way it is now, two DNF's and you're out. This would keep the competition for the Chase closer to the end. The other 31 drivers stay on the same point system during the chase to determine 13th and down.

Aussie12

1st May 2008, 02:42

All the romantic nonsense about them being NASCAR fan favorites that NASCAR Brass took away because they were out of touch just didn't match up to the facts that were apparent to anyone who would take off their rose colored glasses.

Rebuild them and they will come. But I wonder why no one wants to watch the cookie-cutter tracks on TV... boring races, methinks.

Lee Roy

1st May 2008, 03:42

Rebuild them and they will come. But I wonder why no one wants to watch the cookie-cutter tracks on TV... boring races, methinks.

They didn't come before. They won't come in the future. The fans spoke with their feet and NASCAR listened.

Mark in Oshawa

4th May 2008, 02:17

This thread is fun, because you can really see how people see what NASCAR does vis a vis reality.

Lee Roy is right on the money with concerns to Darlington and Rockingham. The fans in the Southeast, those same fans who are on Sirius's NASCAR channel saying newer fans from elsewhere are ruining this sport didn't come out in enough numbers to make Rockingham and Darlington work for NASCAR on a financial level. Just because many more eyes watch Darlington on TV then a lot of tracks means little. Fox and ABC/ESPN/TNT get the ratings for all their events and NASCAR gives equal portions of the TV pie out to all the stakeholders.

Darlington and the Rock are two of my favourite tracks to watch on TV for sure. Since I live in Ontario and am on the road a lot ( too much really ) as a trucker, I couldn't go if I wanted to, but if I lived in the Carolina's, I would have went, or shut my mouth. I do think ONE race at Darlington is not only working but if it was back on Labor Day as the Southern 500, that would go a long way to help NASCAR's image. It would be a swap I would make in a heart beat with California since their April date seems to suck wind.

Now...other changes? Nationwide cars would be pony cars.
Fuel injection...have NASCAR put a "Chip" in the ignition system and have them police it with seals and let all the teams know messing with it would be a death penalty.

I would take a race away from California, and likely Michigan and Pocono as well. I hate the cookie cutter 1.5 mile tracks...so the only new dates would be road courses, short tracks ( think another Richmond...or maybe Iowa). I would freeze the total sched at 36 dates.

I would leave the "chase". Everyone hates it, but the drama of guys trying to get in at Richmond is quite amazing and the old system had less drama most years.

I would make the top 35 rule a top 20 rule. Gives the poorer teams a better go at getting in and I would put in 45 car fields when possible.

I would also give more points for a win, like 40 more than second. You would see no riding around by anyone in the top5 if you did this.

Finally, I would do my damnest to get a short oval built in Southern Ontario.....because I think us Canadians would shock you guys if we hosted a Cup event.....

woody2goody

8th May 2008, 22:45

Actual manufacturer cars instead of the same shell branded a 'Dodge', 'Ford' or whatever. Engines will remain the same, however, they will have to last two races. A 10 place grid penalty will be imposed for an engine change between qualifying and the race. this should help to cut costs for the smaller teams. Also, there will be 'control' engines made by the same manufacturer.

The fastest 40 cars in qualifying will compete in the race, HOWEVER:

The Top 10 cars in the previous year's championship will be awarded ONE provisional.

Also, previous championship winners NOT in the previous season's top 10 will recieve ONE provisional.

The Top 35 Owner Points rule will be scrapped.

The points system will be changed. I believe the current points system creates gaps which are too big by the end of the season.

Points will be awarded to the top 20 drivers in each race:

1st - 30 points
2nd - 26 points
3rd - 23 points
4th - 20 points
5th - 18 points
6th - 16 points
7th - 14 points
8th - 13 points
9th - 12 points
10th - 11 points
11th - 10 points
12th - 9 points
13th - 8 points
14th - 7 points
15th - 6 points
16th - 5 points
17th - 4 points
18th - 3 points
19th - 2 points
20th - 1 point

Each driver gets 1 point for qualifying for the race, so that drivers who miss the race are penalised but not overly as in today's system.
Also, 1 point for the fastest lap, 1 for leading a lap, and 2 for leading the most laps.

Under the safety car, 2 drivers will recieve the free pass during a caution.

The Chase for the championship will be scrapped as in my opinion it devalues most of the season. 2 more road races will be held during the season, at Laguna Seca and Montreal.

Jag_Warrior

18th May 2008, 02:51

There are lots of good and interesting ideas in this thread. The one I like the most is doing one or two dirt tracks as part of the regular season. Two road courses. Two dirt tracks. Those, along with the various oval types, pretty much would make NASCAR Sprint Cup the most diverse series running. And since so many of the NASCAR regulars have dirt track backgrounds, the transition shouldn't be so difficult.

Has anyone proposed this recently?

call_me_andrew

18th May 2008, 04:25

I've been tinkering with anothe radical idea lately.

I've been pretty unsatisfied with the field getting bunched up by debris and other unneeded cautions lately. So after putting some thought into this, I think there should be two different types of cautions for oval races. The first kind would be the same as it is now: the yellow comes out and everyone follows the pace car. The second kind would be more like a pre-1979 Indy 500 caution: the field would slow down without packing up. The crew chiefs could direct the drivers to speed up or slow down based on data it recieved from NASCAR via wireless internet.

This would be more handy for stalled vehicles on the track and cleaning up debris near the bottom of the track/apron. It also doesn't punish drivers who build large leads that would otherwise be undone. It would be mostly irrelevent at plate races, but would come in handy at intermediate tracks, road courses, Pocono, and Indy. Instead of indicating this with a yellow flag, it would be indicated by an orange flag with a blue circle.

BenRoethig

18th May 2008, 04:36

Mark in Oshawa

22nd May 2008, 19:53

The days of racing production raced NASCAR style cars are long gone. The current "stock" car is a safe and policeable formula and while I may not like the lack of individuality in the makes and was not against the old car, the benefits of safety and ease of rule enforcement with this new car have made a huge difference. Where they race and the types of tracks and formats I am game for changes, but I think it would be a mistake to mess with the car other than to give the teams some leeway in suspension research.

DavePI2

22nd May 2008, 23:00

run a real race

Saabaru

4th June 2008, 16:57

With the cost of fuel rising and companies producing more fuel efficient cars, should companies use NASCAR as a research platform to advance alternative fuel cars?

Lee Roy

4th June 2008, 17:19

With the cost of fuel rising and companies producing more fuel efficient cars, should companies use NASCAR as a research platform to advance alternative fuel cars?

I don't think so. NASCAR has never really been a "research platform" for automotive technology. NASCAR still uses carbs and has just recently converted to unleaded fuel.

NASCAR is more the pinnacle of stock car racing here in the US which is more geared to the backyard mechanic that builds and takes care of his own race car, not a race car designed, built, and handed down from the manufacturer.

BenRoethig

4th June 2008, 17:19

I like the thought behind it, but batteries would be an explosion risk.

Saabaru

4th June 2008, 17:34

I don't think so. NASCAR has never really been a "research platform" for automotive technology. NASCAR still uses carbs and has just recently converted to unleaded fuel.

NASCAR is more the pinnacle of stock car racing here in the US which is more geared to the backyard mechanic that builds and takes care of his own race car, not a race car designed, built, and handed down from the manufacturer.

That is true, ever since NASCAR moved from the production chassis of the 70’s to the tube frames of today. Production cars and NASCAR have relatively few similarities, but the thought of using the sport to promote the use of a hybrid, or bio fuels wouldn’t be to far fetched would it? A Supercharged Bio Diesel NASCAR, now that would be interesting…

tstran17_88

4th June 2008, 18:09

A Supercharged Bio Diesel NASCAR, now that would be interesting…A stock car running on french fries interesting? I'm not so sure.

Saabaru

4th June 2008, 18:34

A stock car running on french fries interesting? I'm not so sure.

What could a naturally aspirated gas burner do that a forced induction bio diesel couldn’t? They have competed in WTCC with great success…. :confused:

harvick#1

4th June 2008, 18:40

alright, let everyone run the Toyota Prius, that may make for better racing anyway :p :

Lee Roy

4th June 2008, 20:08

Showcasing new technology is what the American Le Mans Series (or "Le Mans" itself) is for. You start changing NASCAR from what it is into what another racing series is, and it will be a ghost of itself in no time.

To successfully change itself into a series that ran new technology among different manufacturers, NASCAR would have to implement equivalency formulas such as the do in ALMS/Le Mans, things such as different air intake restrictions, different rev-limits, and different fuel capacities between the manufacturers. NASCAR fans squealed bloody murder back when NASCAR would have such small differences between manufacturers as a quarter of an inch on the front air dams.

Try telling the Dale Earnhardt, Jr. fans that his Chevy has to have a smaller restrictor plate and 2 less gallons of fuel than Carl Edwards Ford. HAHA

Saabaru

4th June 2008, 22:12

e2mtt

4th June 2008, 23:38

Alternative fuel wouldn't be a problem, as long is its not Ethanol (biggest bunch of BS ever) and everyone uses the same stuff. I don't think any kind of hybrid motor would be a good idea... as soon as you put computers & batteries & regeneration... the Nascar concept kinda falls apart. Leave it for the sports cars, with the fancy equalization formulas & multiple classes.

On a semi-related subject, I think a formula racing series with really wide open rules would be fun, where the one limiting factor would be the a carefully limited amount of fuel you could use to finish the race. You could see a lot of different stategies & car designs.

call_me_andrew

5th June 2008, 04:29

Yeah, NASCAR won't adopt hybrids for 20 or 30 years. Once they realize a computer is involved, they'll freak out.

I made a lolcat for this but I can't find it. I think it's on my other computer.

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m315/mustang6172/nascarsuggestionbox.jpg

call_me_andrew

5th June 2008, 04:41

Found it.

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m315/mustang6172/tclolcat.jpg

ShiftingGears

5th June 2008, 09:07

Mark

5th June 2008, 09:47

Hybrid would not really work in racing cars. On the road it gets its power from unused engine revs when slowing down etc. But if you are racing flat out it will not help much.

e2mtt

5th June 2008, 11:47

Found it.

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m315/mustang6172/tclolcat.jpg

ARRRGGGHHH. NO LOLcats on motorsportsforums!!!! I want you banned! :-)

Lee Roy

5th June 2008, 14:38

With the cost of fuel rising and companies producing more fuel efficient cars, should companies use NASCAR as a research platform to advance alternative fuel cars?

Any performance research could be shared to keep an even field.

I really doubt that Toyota, Ford, GM and Chrysler would be happy about sharing their research.

Saabaru

5th June 2008, 16:11

I really doubt that Toyota, Ford, GM and Chrysler would be happy about sharing their research.

Ok no research, stick with the same homologation platform you begin with. There is nothing from Chevrolet Ford or Toyota in those cars anyway. Only a sticker on the front of the car.

Jag_Warrior

7th June 2008, 17:26

NASCAR is about the racing, not about developing or validating new forms of propulsion. The same is true of the NHRA.

Here is a case of where everyone can learn from Tony George's IRL folly: if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.

NASCAR ain't broke. There's no reason to try to fix it. As Lee Roy pointed out, such things are best left to Le Mans and sports car racing.

call_me_andrew

8th June 2008, 03:44

Jag_Warrior

8th June 2008, 04:33

Yes, racing can be used for validation. But not so much so in NASCAR. NASCAR has built a large and growing audience by focusing on the drivers and the racing... not the technology.

Manufacturers are still somewhat free to use Le Mans for product and process validation. At Le Mans and in the ALMS, the "cars are the stars" (right? :) ). In NASCAR, the drivers are the stars. Each form of racing is meeting with success right now. I enjoy both, though for different reasons. I'd prefer that neither changes, just for the sake of change.

Yankee Racer

8th June 2008, 14:22

I'd be more interested in them using hydrogen or something like that, but I don't think NASCAR will make the switch for a while. The fact is, NASCAR has bigger problems on their plate to fix, and despite being too liberal for my own good, I don't think fuel is one of them.

On the topic of innovation, ditch the COT, ditch common templates, and go to a more 90s-ish format. Or Late Models.

wbcobrar

8th June 2008, 14:29

Go stop the sky from falling somewhere else Chicken Little . Some of us just want to watch a good race .

Yankee Racer

8th June 2008, 14:42

Go stop the sky from falling somewhere else Chicken Little . Some of us just want to watch a good race .
Which is why I don't watch NASCAR anymore.

tstran17_88

8th June 2008, 15:33

What could a naturally aspirated gas burner do that a forced induction bio diesel couldn’t? They have competed in WTCC with great success…. :confused:

It’s not practical at all in the short term. Every team that has engine development would have to retool, costing millions. New testing from the dyno to the track...basically you’re starting over. I could see a lot of the smaller teams folding, not being able to support the added costs of trying to implement a new engine package.

It’s typical liberal thinking...spend millions to save hundreds!

Plus, biodiesel and other bio fuels don’t burn very well in colder weather. It still get’s cold in Florida in February...Tennessee and Georgia in March.

On the plus side though, I could see food concessions go up at the tracks if they switch to biodiesel! :D

call_me_andrew

8th June 2008, 22:47

NASCAR would be better off with out some of the small teams in Sprint Cup. There are more cars than talented drivers. It used to be a Nationwide driver would go to a small team like Wood Brothers, Junie Donlavey, or Morgan McClure. After proving themselves with a small team, they'd go to a larger one like Roush, Hendrick, or Childress. Now that the Nationwide Series is incorectly treated as a new driver proving ground, the small teams are nothing more than filler. They get drivers like Terry Labonte, Ken Shrader, and Joe Nemecheck who should have gotten out of racing years ago.

Saabaru

8th June 2008, 23:11

It’s not practical at all in the short term. Every team that has engine development would have to retool, costing millions. New testing from the dyno to the track...basically you’re starting over. I could see a lot of the smaller teams folding, not being able to support the added costs of trying to implement a new engine package.

It’s typical liberal thinking...spend millions to save hundreds!

Plus, biodiesel and other bio fuels don’t burn very well in colder weather. It still get’s cold in Florida in February...Tennessee and Georgia in March.

On the plus side though, I could see food concessions go up at the tracks if they switch to biodiesel! :D

Millions, why? You could take GM’s 6.8 Duramax diesel engine and have it up to a NASCAR’s HP/Torque level for less than $5000. I know they wouldn’t want to use this engine, but the technology has already been developed. All that would need doing is adapting the technology to a NASCAR platform with bio fuel. There is no reason it would cost millions of dollars unless the teams just wanted to spend it. The same thing is happening in the WRC with the conversion to a forced induction S2000 spec car. The FIA wants the cars cost to be reduced from the 1.2 million price tag that they are hovering around right now, down to around the $300000 mark. But the president of the WRC made the remark at a press conference that even if they required the cars to be in the $300000 price range. There is no way to keep the top teams from tearing down the engines and investing another $100000 in them even though it wouldn’t make any difference in the performance.

Lee Roy

9th June 2008, 00:30

There is no reason it would cost millions of dollars unless the teams just wanted to spend it.

They would spend it. The cost of a competing for a championship is directly related to the level of desire and prestige to win it. There's no reason for it to cost around half a billion a year to compete in Formula One, but some of the teams want to win the championship bad enough to spend it.

Saabaru

9th June 2008, 04:20

They would spend it. The cost of a competing for a championship is directly related to the level of desire and prestige to win it. There's no reason for it to cost around half a billion a year to compete in Formula One, but some of the teams want to win the championship bad enough to spend it.

So your saying that all it takes is money to win in NASCAR? The team with the deepest pocket takes the Cup? :(

harvick#1

9th June 2008, 04:29

So your saying that all it takes is money to win in NASCAR? The team with the deepest pocket takes the Cup? :(

ding,ding,ding

hey you figured it out, but you still need all the right people (look at Toyota's F1 team)

since when is any form of motorsport has the teams not spending more that each for test, and R&D. its in Nascar, F1, WRC, Le Mans, IRL, etc...

Lee Roy

9th June 2008, 10:51

So your saying that all it takes is money to win in NASCAR? The team with the deepest pocket takes the Cup? :(

That's what it takes to win in any form of motorsports. Cup is no different.

Saabaru

9th June 2008, 15:06

ding,ding,ding

hey you figured it out, but you still need all the right people (look at Toyota's F1 team)

since when is any form of motorsport has the teams not spending more that each for test, and R&D. its in Nascar, F1, WRC, Le Mans, IRL, etc...

If the field isn’t level and it’s all about research and development, then what’s the point of having these specialties built cars? Why not go more production based like Super Touring cars?

That's what it takes to win in any form of motorsports. Cup is no different.

I was always told NASCAR was different, that’s why all the cars are built the same? I thought one of NASCAR’s main selling points was that anyone could win, that’s why they’ve worked so hard at leveling the playing field (all about the team and not the car)?

e2mtt

9th June 2008, 15:41

Spending the most money is no guarantee of success. However, not spending enough money will guarantee failure.

Lee Roy

9th June 2008, 15:56

I was always told NASCAR was different, that’s why all the cars are built the same? I thought one of NASCAR’s main selling points was that anyone could win, that’s why they’ve worked so hard at leveling the playing field (all about the team and not the car)?

Whoever was telling you such things didn't have a clue what they were talking about. I wouldn't listen to anything that person ever said again.

The cars and engines are built by the teams, just like in Formula One and other constructor series. There are tighter parameters than in F1, but the teams still have some lattitude in how the cars and engines are constructed. It would make sense that a team like Hendrick, with around 400 employees (approximately 125 in the engine room alone) would have the number of championships that they have.

SOD

9th June 2008, 16:34

A stock car running on french fries interesting? I'm not so sure.

but aroma from the oil would be a boon to the snack vendors!

SOD

9th June 2008, 16:37

Whoever was telling you such things didn't have a clue what they were talking about. I wouldn't listen to anything that person ever said again.

The cars and engines are built by the teams, just like in Formula One and other constructor series. There are tighter parameters than in F1, but the teams still have some lattitude in how the cars and engines are constructed. It would make sense that a team like Hendrick, with around 400 employees (approximately 125 in the engine room alone) would have the number of championships that they have.

if you're Penske racing, NASCAR opens up your engine for all to see. The bastion of pioneerism it aint, but that aint why I watch nascar.

tstran17_88

9th June 2008, 17:59

but aroma from the oil would be a boon to the snack vendors!And we'll feel good about ourselves because we are saving the planet one french fry at a time! :D

tstran17_88

9th June 2008, 18:17

Millions, why? You could take GM’s 6.8 Duramax diesel engine and have it up to a NASCAR’s HP/Torque level for less than $5000. I know they wouldn’t want to use this engine, but the technology has already been developed. All that would need doing is adapting the technology to a NASCAR platform with bio fuel. There is no reason it would cost millions of dollars unless the teams just wanted to spend it. The same thing is happening in the WRC with the conversion to a forced induction S2000 spec car. The FIA wants the cars cost to be reduced from the 1.2 million price tag that they are hovering around right now, down to around the $300000 mark. But the president of the WRC made the remark at a press conference that even if they required the cars to be in the $300000 price range. There is no way to keep the top teams from tearing down the engines and investing another $100000 in them even though it wouldn’t make any difference in the performance.Yeah and Ford has the Power Stroke diesel and Dodge has a Cummins diesel...great!

But you seemed to gloss over the fact that biodiesel doesn't run well in cold weather, that the fuel tends to gel. Or doesn't it fit into the argument that NASCAR should become more 'green'?

Saabaru

9th June 2008, 18:49

Yeah and Ford has the Power Stroke diesel and Dodge has a Cummins diesel...great!

But you seemed to gloss over the fact that biodiesel doesn't run well in cold weather, that the fuel tends to gel. Or doesn't it fit into the argument that NASCAR should become more 'green'?

At what temperature dose it gel? What was lowest temperature that has been raced in this year?

SOD

9th June 2008, 22:19

Saabaru

9th June 2008, 23:16

NASCAR will never be the forefront of tech innovation. Dont worry, NASCAR will never go 'green' because Mike Helton will ressuect a survey saying that NASCAR uses lesss fuel than other sports. They might axe a race because it would take too much fuel to get the trucks to said location *cough* loudon* *cough* or races beyond 300 miles radius from Charlotte must double up so that the trucks can go from race to race withought heading back to charlotte.

Like it or not this new generation NASCAR was brought about to attract new fans, most old school fans/fanatics couldn’t care less about the change. If NASCAR would take it just a step further by moving ahead instead of holding on to the past just think of how much more appealing that would be to a new fan base. No one in this thread is talking about how much fuel the cars burn, that I’ve read anyway. :rolleyes: It’s about the cars showcasing alternative fuel sources to be more appealing to the public, both for NASCAR and car companies investing millions into the sport. What the race cars burn isn’t a drop in the bucket compared to what fans use driving to a race.

ressuect?

harvick#1

10th June 2008, 06:15

new fan base :confused:

all I know is, the F1 race was miles ahead of the Pocono race this week in excitement.

there is a big reason why Nascar is is trouble is that they tried to appeal to a "new" fan base and it worked for maybe a year or two, but they shunted out the "old" fan base (me) by basically taking out the racing and acting like they are playing safety, the old car was just as safe as the CoT, whether Nascar ever wants to admit that, I don't know. France took away Labor day weekend and now, I don't bother watching to borefest at Calibornia, then they throw some stupid 10 race shootout to determine a champion, and have mostly all cookie cutter tracks, which hardly determines a champion. then Nextel throws a hissy fit with Cingular and AT&T, then Nextel gets bought out. it took them a long time to switch from Leaded to Unleaded, Its gonna take a long time before they change from Unleaded to anything else.

Ethanol is a waste, thats not the solution to anything.

SOD

10th June 2008, 09:27

look at bass fishing, its got the same sponsors , the same colours as NASCAR. I'd say pound for pound, the prize money is better in bass fishing.

tstran17_88

12th June 2008, 03:48

At what temperature dose it gel? What was lowest temperature that has been raced in this year?
I have no clue at what temperature it starts to gel at. I assume that you should know since you are such a huge proponent of biodiesel.

You are suggesting that NASCAR totally revamp their engine program (and as Lee Roy mentioned, it’s not as easy and cheap as you think), and you want to base whether or not they can run this fuel in cold weather on only 14 races run so far this season? Is that really smart? There have been a couple races run in fairly cold weather this season. I'd find out the information on how cold it really was for you, if I knew where to look.

I can tell you that I’ve been in Bristol in March, where the temperature at race time was in the mid 30's F, and it snowed during the race. I was at a race in Charlotte in the middle of May where the temperature was in the low 40's and the wind was blowing at 20-30 mph and it felt like it was in the 20's.

I guess NASCAR could tell the team owners to idle their cars overnight in the case of cold weather, but that would increase their carbon footprint and defeat the purpose of running a more fuel efficient engine.

Would it really be cost effective to run biodiesel in NASCAR as you claim? Soy bean prices are rocketing through the roof, almost as much as corn prices. Ethanol costs more to produce than gasoline, but the reason it’s cheaper at the pump is because the government subsidizes it with taxpayer dollars. I don’t know for sure, but I’d guess the government subsidizes biodiesel also.

Quite honestly, your going after a small fish in a big pond. If your main goal in life is to save the planet, convince your senator or congressman to vote for nukes and to get rid of coal burning power plants. Even the French use nukes to generate most of their electricity.

Saabaru

12th June 2008, 16:48

I have no clue at what temperature it starts to gel at. I assume that you should know since you are such a huge proponent of biodiesel.

I have no clue ether :confused: you are the one that has been preaching it would never work because the fuel gels. So you've been pushing a point that you have no clue what you're talking about? I have never even heard of it being any worse that regular diesel. Car companies make and sale biodiesels in Scandinavia and if they work there they should have no problem working in the US. How come so many NASCAR fans will make any excuse not to change anything, legitimate or NOT! Maybe it gels in the rain, then NASCAR would have a legitimate excuse not to race in the rain. :rolleyes:

harvick#1

12th June 2008, 17:03

like its said earlier in the post, Le Mans is the one series that pushes for biofuels, in 2009, the ACO has said all 4 classes has to run bio-fuels in the series.

why does every series have to run on the same bio-fuels. its NOT nascars fault gas prices are rising, its all the idiots out there today that drive around and don't know where they are going.

Nascar is more about its drivers, than cars, has been for quite sometime now. its not gonna change for a long time, so there is no need to argue.

Lee Roy

12th June 2008, 17:51

How come so many NASCAR fans will make any excuse not to change anything, legitimate or NOT!

They're "reasons", not "excuses".

Maybe it gels in the rain, then NASCAR would have a legitimate excuse not to race in the rain. :rolleyes:

Rain on an oval track is a very legitimate reason not to race in the rain.

Saabaru

12th June 2008, 19:58

They're "reasons", not "excuses".

Rain on an oval track is a very legitimate reason not to race in the rain.

Care to elaborate on ether one of those comments? Bring any new views to the table because I've heard all the usual excuses.

RaceFanStan

12th June 2008, 20:08

Trust me, NASCAR won't adopt bio-fuels any time in the near future !!!
Look how long unleaded was on the highways before NASCAR switched to unleaded.

Lee Roy

12th June 2008, 20:14

Care to elaborate on ether one of those comments? Bring any new views to the table because I've heard all the usual excuses.

First, you just don't like the legitimate "reasons" you are being given as to why the changes in the type of engine and fuel for NASCAR won't work, so therefore you denigrate them by calling them "excuses".

Second, on an oval, there are concrete walls and not wide open run off areas on the sides of the track like on a road course. To run a race on an oval in the rain would result in significant (and unecessary) carnage in equipment and also significant physical risk to the drivers. There is nowhere in the US where oval races are run in the rain. Again, a legitimate reason, not an "excuse".

Saabaru

12th June 2008, 21:35

First, you just don't like the legitimate "reasons" you are being given as to why the changes in the type of engine and fuel for NASCAR won't work, so therefore you denigrate them by calling them "excuses".

Second, on an oval, there are concrete walls and not wide open run off areas on the sides of the track like on a road course. To run a race on an oval in the rain would result in significant (and unecessary) carnage in equipment and also significant physical risk to the drivers. There is nowhere in the US where oval races are run in the rain. Again, a legitimate reason, not an "excuse".

I know NASCAR will never change, and the reason why is "because some people just want to see a good race". Some times I question weather or not some people would know a good race if it sat in their lap and called them Mama... :eek:

BenRoethig

12th June 2008, 21:48

Saabaru

13th June 2008, 01:20

No it is because at oval speeds, the cars will hydroplane causing them to hit the walls at high speed with no ability to control the car or slow down. There are no grooves on slicks and the cars are going too fast to rain tires.

Wrong, you can have groves in slicks. You can go into the wall under any condition wet or dry, thats when drivers actually have to use there talents and drive. F1 races in the rain with their drivers fully exposed to all the elements. :( NASCAR acts like 180 to 200mph is some level of speed that no other form of motor sport reaches. Ever hear of Rally Racing? Racing down blocked off public roads in an all out sprint to get the best time, sometimes covering over 300km in three days? Petter Solberg drove his Subaru WRC STI (a production based car that anyone can buy) past a control point in Rally Argentina at an amazing 150.3mph on GRAVEL! :eek: Kind of makes a 180mph drive around a specially designed oval, in a specially desined race car look like a joy ride. :rolleyes: You should checkout this link, it's not Petter bout it is a Subaru WRC STI. http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=32050631

BenRoethig

13th June 2008, 02:10

Saabaru

13th June 2008, 02:46

Seriously, are you just here to troll or something? It's pretty obvious that you don't like NASCAR and are just here to belittle everything. You have been given the answers, but if it differs at all than how it is in Rallying, you consider an excuse.

No... I do like NASCAR. I would just like to see it grow up a little. Use something besides a 1960's technology carburetor, and the drivers actually have to race insted of having the caution flag waved every time the conditions change. Look at what happent in Las Vegas with the water seeping through the seams in the track, it was ridicules. The way they were crying about that tiny amount of moisture on the track you would think it was black ice.

Rollo

13th June 2008, 03:07

Alternative fuel wouldn't be a problem, as long is its not Ethanol (biggest bunch of BS ever) and everyone uses the same stuff.

Despite the fact that CART used it for years without a bother? I pooh-pooh you.

Would it really be cost effective to run biodiesel in NASCAR as you claim? Soy bean prices are rocketing through the roof, almost as much as corn prices. Ethanol costs more to produce than gasoline, but the reason it’s cheaper at the pump is because the government subsidizes it with taxpayer dollars. I don’t know for sure, but I’d guess the government subsidizes biodiesel also.

Ethanol produced from corn is between 7-12 times more expensive than producing it from sugar cane. Corn production is a result of taxation and government subsidy more than anything else.

NASCAR will always be resistant to change because of vested interests and politics. Even CoT which seems to be working and producing less accidents, was slammed by Kyle Busch on opening day with his famous "They Suck" speech after winning the first race.
I doubt whether the fuel issue would be different, if at all.

jeffconn

13th June 2008, 04:25

For what it's worth, here's something about a Green racing event, the Jetta TDI Cup.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/06/2008-jetta-tdi-cup-motor-racing.php

And personally, i can't wait until this baby gets around the Oak Tree turn at VIR: :D
http://www.teslamotors.com/

call_me_andrew

13th June 2008, 07:37

No... I do like NASCAR. I would just like to see it grow up a little. Use something besides a 1960's technology carburetor, and the drivers actually have to race insted of having the caution flag waved every time the conditions change. Look at what happent in Las Vegas with the water seeping through the seams in the track, it was ridicules. The way they were crying about that tiny amount of moisture on the track you would think it was black ice.

1. I know how you feel. I was obsessed with NASCAR until I got bored with the technology.
2. That was California, not Las Vegas.
3. Weepers are a problem at all oval tracks. CART almost cancelled a race at Rockingham (UK) because of weepers. Indy was repaved in 2005 because at the start of the 2004 Indy 500, weepers opened up all over the front streach. When you're on slick tires, water from a spray bottle might as well be black ice.

Lee Roy

13th June 2008, 10:41

Saabaru

13th June 2008, 16:11

I started this thread to cut through the BS and see why NASCAR dosn't step into the 21st century and I found my answer. "Because some people just want to see a good race." Race on gentlemen, race on... :)

DavePI2

16th June 2008, 01:19

speaking on a high note, did anyone notice all those empty seats today.
Didn't used to be that way , not even last year.
Nascar is in trouble and they better do something fast
or in a few years it will just have been another fad that was popular for a short time and then people moved on.

oh wait , how could i be so blind,
nascar already has done something to address the problem, jr. received the morning call this week.

david

Hoss Ghoul

16th June 2008, 02:59

Despite the fact that CART used it for years without a bother? I pooh-pooh you.

Ethanol produced from corn is between 7-12 times more expensive than producing it from sugar cane. Corn production is a result of taxation and government subsidy more than anything else.

NASCAR will always be resistant to change because of vested interests and politics. Even CoT which seems to be working and producing less accidents, was slammed by Kyle Busch on opening day with his famous "They Suck" speech after winning the first race.
I doubt whether the fuel issue would be different, if at all.

CART used Methanol. The IRL uses Ethanol.

Don't forget also, taxes and subsidies are certainly a factor, but so is the fact that you can actually grow corn in the midwest-not sugar cane.

Dave, Jr. got the call my ass, easy to see what you're here about...move along...

Lee Roy

16th June 2008, 15:36

Nascar is in trouble and they better do something fast
or in a few years it will just have been another fad that was popular for a short time and then people moved on.

Speaking of fads, how's CART and Champ Car and the Pet Rock doing these days.

racefan20

17th June 2008, 05:14

I think they need to get rid of the lucky dog, if you get a lap down, there is a reason for it. Double file restarts with lap cars in the back. No green, white, checkers finish. Qualify on time, if you are not fast enough, go home!!!!

Galveston dunes

17th June 2008, 23:50

My change , like it or not, would be 4 sensors in the head rest and two in front of the steering wheel, with accompaning senors on the visor or top of the visor; to be used as the on board camers angle guidance and positioning locators.To truely see what the drivers see and don't see as they drive. Then we could more clearly see how vision is obsrtucted and the importance of spotters, and of course the "in the smoke" look of an oncoming accident.
Other than that use you're imagination of the possibilities. What was he looking at when he kissed his girl before he pulled away.I didn't want to get too graphic, but i'm sure you get the idea..Could have changed the whole Dale Sr. questions about Simpons equiptment. IMO