NASCRAP...what a joke.

In reply to Klayfish:

I agree with you. I still watch NASCAR. My only gripes are phantom yellows and I would like cars to be more unique and be related to their production counterparts. I would also like less restrictions on engine design. Give me that and I will deal with the "grand spectacle aspect.

The title of this thread is insulting in it's stupidity. Lots of genuine motorheads like NASCAR, and even though I'm not a fan, I'd love to be a driver in that sort of roundy-round racing.

Now one thing that NASCAR has over road racing is making most if not all of tracks viewable from a given point. From most spectators POV, an arena is much more interesting than camping on a turn and viewing the thundering herd every 2 minutes.

I used to hate NASCAR and used to think the same way as the haters do. But I really started to appreciate the strategy, setup, and constant tweaking through the race that is required to make the car competitive. As far as someone being in last after a round of pit stops and being back in the top 10 makes it awesome. Yeah, there definitely a WWF/WWE style to the soap opera-ish interviews, but I kinda like it.

There are, however, parts that I don't like. One which has been mentioned alot in this thread is the EXACT same bodies. It is stupid and not necessary. Look at Australian supercar they use cars built in the factory that you can buy and it is pretty competitive. It worked in the 60s in NASCAR even. This "It's cheaper and evens the field" stuff is garbage. Another part is not keeping up with modern technology. It doesn't have to be leading technology, but keep it relevant so you can sell the car on Monday.

If it so damn easy to go in a circle ask this guy what his hold up is to winning on an oval. It surely isn't Gnassi's equipment or money.

Anti-stance wrote: There are, however, parts that I don't like. One which has been mentioned alot in this thread is the EXACT same bodies. It is stupid and not necessary. Look at Australian supercar they use cars built in the factory that you can buy and it is pretty competitive. It worked in the 60s in NASCAR even. This "It's cheaper and evens the field" stuff is garbage. Another part is not keeping up with modern technology.

Having read thru a number of articles on the V8 Supercars in Racecar Engineering, they are a lot more spec then you think.

In reply to 93EXCivic:

Yeah, there really will not be a way drivetrain wise to make them really different and be so close. LMS and ALMS, the cars the cars act vastly different in the GT field but that is the way sportscar/endurance racing is. V8 Supercars are still pack style racing with the whole field being two makes. But the point I was trying to make is the manufacturers can produce cars aesthetically different from each other, make them perform close to each other, and sell the body style on the showroom floor. I think there should still be specs the drivetrain, suspension, weight, etc to keep the cars close but let them design to the specs. Thats basically what LMP cars are built to and come out looking very similar to each other. People will buy the cars that they make. Could you imagine what Toyota could build? My mind wonders.

Hell people even bought this cat abortion of a car basically because of NASCAR:

And I state again, I am a NASCAR fan as of only the last 3 years or so. After crewing for a couple of race teams(sportscars) I appreciate more types motorsports than I used to. I took my sportscar blinders off.

Here we go again...so once more, I'll chime in. I have crewed in IMSA, SCCA and NASCAR, so I have a little experience here. First, if you think NASCAR isn't hard, then get off your butt and go do it. It is extremely tough and makes an event like like a typical Grand Am race feel like a spring picnic.

And while it seems like they are not very advanced, try really looking underneath one and then find out how much time they spend on shaker rigs (yeah, just like F!) and in wind tunnels. And then lets talk about setting up a car on an oval. You adjust each corner individually, not front to rear like a road race car, and there are numerous adjustments to each corner. Then let's throw in how much each corner will change during the race, and how you have to adjust each one during a 14 second pit stop. The driver being able to explain how the car works is paramount. If your driver cannot communicate and work with the crew chief, your car will be junk.

And while the car is about 98% at tracks like Daytona, the race itself is anything but easy. Your grandmother could qualify the car, but she couldn't make the first corner in a race. Once you get all 43 cars out there, it's a different story completely. Imagine driving on the windiest day you can think of with the car blowing all around, and them multiply it by a hundred. Then imagine you are doing 200mph at the same time with all your buddy's banging into you. Oh, and the car turns left really well, but right, not so much. It's why when Kyle Busch saves his car like that, it really is a big deal.

We were a road racing team fresh off a championship, and I can assure you, these are highly skilled people and it is real racing. It's very different from road racing, but no less demanding. In fact, it takes a ball size (sorry Danica ) much greater to run an oval than a road course, and a vastly different skill set. There are very few drivers from other disiplines that can jump into a NASCAR and win right away, no matter what team they drive for.

The OP is 100% wrong on every topic he listed. And while NASCAR is not my favorite racing series to watch or drive in, it is complete wrong to say it is without skill or that is not real racing. And though I think Kyle Busch is the biggest putz in racing, I think you could drop him into an Indycar, or even a Red Bull and he would run at the front and win.

This thread should with RacerDave600:-)

honestly.. I understand why they did the COT and all that.. but I think a spec tube frame and suspension with a spec engine coupled with a body that is free to any design they want, but must comply to height, wedth, CD, and downforce... and go from there.

At least the cars would look similar to the real things

mad_machine wrote:

forzav12 wrote: Also, I'm quite certain that many NASCAR fans are every bit as knowledgable about cars as you might think your are-and are just as passionate about the products they use.

Actually, as much as I may respect the drivers and stuff in NASCAR, the people I know who watch it, do NOT know about cars. For instance, my Sister watches NASCAR and she only got her license when she turned 30.

Don't know about your sister, but mine tracks her new 911 on a regular basis and still enjoys the Daytona 500. As to finding NASCAR fans that aren't car experts-well, duh. When you have hundreds of thousands of fans its a lot easier to find casual fans with limited knowledge about the mechanical workings of their sleds. I'm sure all three ALMS fans know quite a bit about cars. Why, just last year at Laguna Seca I heard a tool in his "M" cap going on about how his M3 was faster than a ZR1-cuz thats the way it happened on the track.

In reply to racerdave600:

Well put sir. I agree with everything you stated. I have yet to run into many people in sportscar racing paddocks that trash on stockcar racing. The constant tweaking of the car through the race, especially day to night races, is absolutely interesting as hell to me. Getting a driver that can communicate with the crew chief to figure out the degree of changes that needs to be made is an art form all its own.

Love or hate Kyle Busch, what he did on Saturday night was pretty damn amazing.

And can I go out on a limb and say you worked for TRG?

I say let the manufacturers enter what they build. If they want to win, let them build a more competitive car. It may not be practical, but it sure would be interesting.

They are discussing the Chrysler NASCAR inspired cars of the Let 60s on American Icon on Velocity right now.

I think they should initiate some kind of claim rule...

FWIW, I heard today that the 2013 cars are supposed to more closely resemble their production counterparts. Ford already showed the Fusion and the new Dodge will debut in a few weeks (I believe).

I watched the shootout and was wondering what caused all the dramatic sparks every time a car gets even a little bit sideways. At first I thought maybe they were hitting the rims on the pavement but in some cases they drove out and continued racing without pitting. I believe Kyle did it a couple times with no serious contact and there was no noticeable affect to the car. It almost looked like there was something intentionally placed on the cars to cause the sparks for "show" appeal. Does anyone know what causes the sparks?

Klayfish wrote: All racing series have a degree of "fake" to them. Whether it's team orders, which happens in all major racing forms, or fake debris cautions, it's all in the name of better ratings and ticket sales.

What does team orders have to do with fake? They call it a "team" for a reason, strategy doesn't make anything "fake". Beyond that, I find it insulting that you make it sound like all major racing is based on lies rather than competition.

Never said it was all based on lies. But NASCAR, F1, Indy, etc...are all businesses at the end of the day. Their goal is to draw crowds, get people to watch on TV and buy the merchandise. I don't think any racing series is based on lies or things that are fake. I have no doubt that drivers go out there and hang it all out. But at the same time, there are some elements in each series aimed at the business side of things. And I'm saying this as a huge motorsports fan. I love racing, and believe everything racerdave wrote. My point is that each organization builds in things to try to put a better product out there that aren't "real racing".

To me, team orders aren't real racing. If one driver lays over to let the other win, it could be called strategy. I understand why a team does it, but I still wouldn't call that real racing.

NASCAR should institute a formula rather than specs. ANY car built within the formula can run.

I stopped watching Indy when it became a spec series (I am looking forward to this year). I loved watching the Indy 500, especially qualifying with all the "specials" via for a spot. Buick Turbo 6 effort was a great story. Bring those days back to all racing.

Klayfish wrote: Never said it was all based on lies. But NASCAR, F1, Indy, etc...are all businesses at the end of the day. Their goal is to draw crowds, get people to watch on TV and buy the merchandise. I don't think any racing series is based on lies or things that are fake. I have no doubt that drivers go out there and hang it all out. But at the same time, there are some elements in each series aimed at the business side of things. And I'm saying this as a huge motorsports fan. I love racing, and believe everything racerdave wrote. My point is that each organization builds in things to try to put a better product out there that aren't "real racing".

I agree with this.

I have even thought that there has been some scripting in the sense of letting a certain team have a larger holed restrictor. To be more specific, when Dale Earnhardt Jr. drove the number 3 Wrangler car in the Nationwide series and he took the lead on the 3rd lap and stayed there the whole race. Sounds like a Hollywood story to me. There are other stories of someone having a relative die, or something like that and the person goes out and wins the next week. I don't buy that story tale crap. I am not saying its rehearsed like wrestling or something, but I think certain people are allowed to cheat and keep it on a hush-hush.

Rad_Capz wrote: I watched the shootout and was wondering what caused all the dramatic sparks every time a car gets even a little bit sideways. At first I thought maybe they were hitting the rims on the pavement but in some cases they drove out and continued racing without pitting. I believe Kyle did it a couple times with no serious contact and there was no noticeable affect to the car. It almost looked like there was something intentionally placed on the cars to cause the sparks for "show" appeal. Does anyone know what causes the sparks?

The cars have very little ground clearance and the cars are set as low as possible for less drag. Once the car is the least bit upset, some of the parts rub on the pavement. Night racing makes it more visible.

One other thing about NASCAR. The fans get to meet the drivers and even touch the cars. Try that in F1.

One thing that everyone seemed to miss about racing in the rain is that a lot of people paid money to watch the race. As dumb as many of you think we are, most of us would rather not sit in the rain for 4 hours getting water in our beer waiting for the lightning to come.

drink faster

Football is just about the only game that continues in the rain. Thunder and lightning ? Forget it.

I personally just can't get into the racing. I appreciate the skill (both engineering and driving) and balls required but the oval racing is just not interesting to me. You can tell that it's an inherently boring thing to watch by the camera angles. In road courses, the turtle cam isn't used very often but the only exciting shot in oval racing is the cars zipping by the camera on the wall.

The best analogy I can make to my feelings about NASCAR ovals, is Golf. I think Golf is a highly entertaining and challenging game to play. It's not my regular past time but I've tried it, I sucked at it and I enjoyed it. But I'd rather rearrange my sock drawer than watch it on TV.

NASCAR road courses are an entirely different animal, I would argue that it's the BEST pro road racing there is - seeing those cars move around the way they do through the Glen bus stop is breathtaking. And it's further proof for anyone who doubts the skill of the oval drivers. Many teams bring road course ringers like Boris, and while they do well, the good oval drivers still do well or win (I think more than the ringers do) on the road courses.