emodspitfire wrote: Guys, This thread is very entertaining, but got a BIT off topic (Grin). I saw suggestions for running cast iron motors, low octane fuel, etc to lower the speeds and re-introduce racing at Talledega. Any other ideas? Rog

The one thing that does bug me about Cup drivers is when they complain that they can't be WOT around some of these larger tracks. I would say change the aero package to reduce downforce. Higher front spoiler, more real drag. Since they don't have to lift- it makes it hard to really break them up.

So break up areo, and then put 5.0l, low octane fuel'ed engines in.

One can say the same thing about Indy and the 500.

E-

For the sake of arguement, a broader view:

So what's wrong with something having low-tech roots? Heck, we ourselves are adherents to grassroots philosophy, making do with available materials, using available means. Surely that is not high-tech.

Taken in a broader context, the whole concept of a 4-wheeled vehicle with a frame, brakes, steering, suspension, and motive power independant of the driver has low-tech roots. Cars are basically just horse-and-buggies, updated over time. Sure, most everything about them has been improved, but the basic design remains the same. There was a time when rubber tires were considered high-tech. When the internal combustion engine was designed and pressed into service, wasn't it just a horse substitute, built out of iron, and hidden from the rain? Certainly modern seating is high-tech compared to the bare wooden seat of a buckboard, but at the end of the day, it's just someplace to set your arse while you hold onto the steering wheel, which is basically just a fixed set of reins, redesigned for comfort., etc, etc.

Many will think my take on this proves I'm crazy (and frankly, one could make a pretty strong case to support that), but if you think about it long enough (and if your head doesn't implode), you may realize that most modern cars cannot run without the wheel, and fire, both discovered/invented before written history.

How's that for low-tech?

I am sorry but live axle is not as good as double wishbone for several reasons. One it allows for four wheel independence. Two an unequal unparallel double wishbone allows for the roll center of the vehicle to be placed wherever. As far as the whole argument about the air jacks and single lug wheels, endurance racers have those right. Next people will be telling me that NASCAR does more for production cars then endurance race cars.

Kia_racer wrote: Do you remember the CanAm? The team that won more races in that series didn;t use the highest tech. They went with big push rod american V8's. They lest it up to others to try new tech and lots of people did. but new tech has a very steep curve to make it workable. If you want to win races you use what is known to work and try little improvements.

That was true, until the endurance racing rules were changed and Porsche needed somewhere else to play with the 917. It was fun to watch (esp. if you were a Porsche guy) for a while, but their total dominance quickly killed that great series.

To me, the thing that sucks the most about modern NASCAR is that the old manufacturers rivalry aspect has been totally killed by the current rules. It used to be a blood sport between Ford, Chevy, Pontiac, Dodge, Plymouth, and on and on. That makes for great racing, like the original Trans Am series. (IMHO, the best US road race series EVER.) The only remnant of that left is the good old boy resentment of Toyota. But for the most part, when the cars are all identical, who cares?

Now, the only way you can even tell the cars apart is by their sponsors, ya think that's an accident?

I really wish VW would get into the NASCAR mix.

96DXCivic wrote: I am sorry but live axle is not as good as double wishbone for several reasons.

It all depends on what use the vehicle sees. There are, as Andy Nelson said, "all kinds of restrictions on an independent rear end in drag racing." (I sure hope I got that quote right!) Solid axles work much better for rock-crawling, as they allow for "an equal and opposite reaction" rather than an independently suspended wheel hanging uselessly. And there's a reason trucks have soldiered on with solid axles over the years. However, for most racing purposes--especially those that most interest the majority of this magazine/board's readership--an independent rear end is the way to go.

I recall reading a chassis book (Herb Adams?) in which it stated that in later Trans-Am they had both IRS and live axle configurations. Neither proved superior. Mind you, this was on a smooth race track, but, still.

Appleseed wrote: I recall reading a chassis book (Herb Adams?) in which it stated that in later Trans-Am they had both IRS and live axle configurations. Neither proved superior. Mind you, this was on a smooth race track, but, still.

• Pi

There was no clear advantage in that class, which is front engine, V8, RWD road courses, between solid axles and independent axles.

On a smooth track, there's no real measureable performance difference between stick and IRS rear axles (assuming both were designed using a small amount of sense). On a rough track, hell yeah gimme IRS.

About roll centers: on an IRS sure you can put your roll center anywhere you want but what if it turns out you need to move it? Better get it right the first time. (Lucky for me, all the head scratching and etc that went into the Abomination's IRS was right the first time. Whew.) A 3 link/Panhard rod puts the roll center in the middle of the Panhard. Lots easier to raise/lower the Panhard than to try to shuffle control arm pivot points... that's why the Jensenator currently is running a 3 link/Panhard setup.

96DXCivic wrote: I am sorry but live axle is not as good as double wishbone for several reasons. One it allows for four wheel independence. Two an unequal unparallel double wishbone allows for the roll center of the vehicle to be placed wherever. As far as the whole argument about the air jacks and single lug wheels, endurance racers have those right. Next people will be telling me that NASCAR does more for production cars then endurance race cars.

Since you continue to ignore your teachers, you'd probably be a lot better off just ignoring NASCAR.

Wheel independence isn't always needed. If the car doesn't roll, why do you need wishbones. And a poor IRS is so, so evil, it's not even funny, So what if IRS can be better, what's the point? Trans Am is still live axles. Trophy trucks use live axles (and their rules are actually open).

I see nothing really high tech about center lugs and air jacks. Center lugs is another word for knock offs. Since the dawn of cars. And why such a bias against a simple jack? You still don't see that these two instances are WHAT NASCAR IS ABOUT- teamwork. Take 5 guys, and change 4 tires in 12 seconds- that's far more impressive than 16 people doing the same in 6.

BTW, I'm not sure if you forgot to pay attention when you watch F1- but they don't have air jacks either. Most don't even use a hydraulic jack- they go to the most simple and old tech solution- mechanical advantage. My God, F1 is SOOOO old tech.

It's just a list of different engineering challenges. If you can't see that, you may want to find a different career. Having a bias before you even start a project is very, very bad. Especially before you even are an engineer.

Eric

alfadriver wrote: Having a large car, with high power, low downforce, and small tires takes a LOT of skill to drive fast.. It's not exciting skill, no, but very skillful. Eric

pretty much what JPM said after he and Jeff Gordon swapped cars at Indy several yrs ago

Eric

Number 1. You said that no cars are on the road had air jacks and center lugs. I took this as you saying something that made NASCAR have more in common with road cars. And I was pointing out endurance racers even the production based ones have this and it is hard to argue that those don't have more in common with road cars then either NASCAR or F1. I never was trying to argue against the use of hydraulic jacks.

Number 2. I was not saying that tube frames are old fashion. I was simply pointing out that not many new cars have tube frames. In fact I think more new cars are produced using carbon fiber monocoque similar to those used in F1 or LMP1 prototypes.

Number 3. I knew a guy at my school that had a Chevy V-8 that would spin to 9k rpm and was street driven. And I have seen Willys gassers with Chevy V-8s that spin to 11k rpm. So 9.5k rpm out of a race motor fails to impress me that much considering the resources these teams have versus these backyard racers that don't have nearly the resources they do.

Number 4. What car does roll? Sure race cars have very small roll gradients but they still roll. Very few cars have active suspensions that remove all roll.

There are lots of applications in which live axles are great; trucks, off-roading and drag racing. But IRS is much better suited for racing because like I said it gives four wheel independence (correct me if I am wrong but the road coarses have curbing on them) and the ability to design around a desired roll center height and movement. I would like to point Carroll Smith agreed with me on these points.

So what?

Your rants are so amusing- if they weren't coming from someone trying to be an engineer. Knowing your opinion, I would have a tough time hiring you, since you have already decided upon a position w/o even knowing the restrictions.

And then you come back with caveats on your position.

Why can't you just accept NASCAR for what it is? It's not sporty car racing, it's racing that came out of running ilegal liquor in large sedans and coupes. It's never pretended to be sporty, just racing.

You are just trying to project your 'ideal' of racing on a system that's already sucessful enough, and your 'ideal' isn't popular in the US. deal with it.

For your answers- 1) jacks and lugs- I just don't see how that helps the sport. And why that's even a measure of "tech". Different, yes. But better? Depends on what the measurement is. For what I see as NASCAR, it's not better. 2) you did say low tech tube frame chassis. The chassis is what they allow it to be. Again, what benefit, besides being a lot more expensive, would it bring to this kind of racing? I just don't see the point. Even road racing cars are custom fabbed are generally tube framed. 3) great. Then why rant over it? Again, if you are not impressed by them, time for another cup of coffee before that combustion engine class. Will your buddy's engine run at 9500 rpm for 3-4 hours non stop? And if you are not impressed by that, then you should NOT be impressed by F1 motors at all. Assuming you understand the core tech. 4) roll- aero sensitive cars are set up not to move much on their suspension. F1 cars are almost cars, since they are very sensitive to ride height and pitch. Cup cars are not. I don't much like the race at indy, since the cars are set up to run at spring bind. 5) live axles- and? How does it REALLY help going around in circles on a smooth track? There are, what, 30 cup races- all of tow turn right. Why change just for two races. Oh, and on smooth surfaces, the live axle will maintain wheel patch in roll and pitch, since both tires are "fixed" to the road surface relative to the chassis movement. Bringing up Carroll Smith just points out to me that you just don't get it. It's circle racing on smooth tracks- IRS bring 0 advantage, except for complexity and cost.

Either wake up in class, or find another profession. It's pretty clear you can't engineer around a given envelope that is defined by whatever system you work for, if you dont' agree with the envelope. That's bad. And quite sad, too.

Eric- Not a nascar fan, but do 100% appreciate what they are, and the tech that goes into them.

Nascar facts:

1 Take the numbers off the car, and you can't tell who is driving what(except Kyle Busch and Tony Stewart)

2 I don't think anyone disputes the technology and engineering to make the cars work

3 I think most people(even drivers) are not happy with the COT premise( makes it a spec series)

4 There really are some very talented drivers in the series-watch them on the road courses

5 Helton and crew have made it the WWE on wheels

Nascar fixes: #1 Stock bodied cars w/ smaller tires, engines, & less downforce-make the drivers drive.(look at Bristol where these are not major factors, to see what I mean)

2 Do away with "the chase"

3 Reward winning over stroking

4 Return it to family friendly pricing

.....When I build my race series, I'll run it my way!

I will argue one point: At 200mph none of these "smooth" tracks are smooth. WATCH a race and watch how much the suspensions move you can get a 3" range of motion.

Shock R&D is much higher in the big league than most people could dream.

In acceleration versus deceleration to keep the rear tires planted while trying to get 800hp to hook up on a 10" tire the chassis compliance is unbelievable. You hear them crying for more forward bite all the time.

If anyone gets a chance to run a car with autocross tires then the same car on Cup tires... tell me what you think about driving on the glass slippers.

Vinz Clortho wrote: I will argue one point: At 200mph none of these "smooth" tracks are smooth. WATCH a race and watch how much the suspensions move you can get a 3" range of motion.

Yea, smooth is relative. But it's still smooth enough that the live axle does a fine job. Good enough, at least. No obvious reason to change all the cars.

E-

On the IRS vs solid axle. The cars have adjustable roll centers in the rear via an adjustable panhard bar. You can see the crews adjusting on them all the time during a race. A few years ago, some teams played around with camber on the rear axle/wheels. It is said that it was't worth the bother. On the push rod engines. Dodge and Ford recently spent a lot of money developing new engines. They must feel it is worth it. Since most of their road cars don't have pushrods.

Production based cars:

Would be so much cooler than:

+1 to the above comment. Eric maybe you should read my post more careful because I never said tube frame chassis was old tech. What I said was how many cars cars used tube frames, pushrods or carbs? I was simply countering your argument that NASCAR had a lot in common with street cars. As far as the whole air jacks and centerlugs thing, you clearly didn't read my post. And I'll admit I was a bit wrong on the whole engine reving thing because I didn't know that it was all lot easier to get a SBC to rev then a big block Chevy. That being said I was simply trying to point out in my other why I won't watch NASCAR. I admit I wasn't always that clear in what I was trying to say. I would not mind at all being an engineer in a Cup team simply because it would be one hell of a challenge. If you can get one of those heavy POS to handle, you can get anything to handle.

Looks like I may have been replying to someone else about the chassis thing.

Still, nobody is forcing you to watch, first of all, and second- if that racing were really popular here in the US- we'd have it.

Other than that, find the repeats whereever. I'm sure NASCAR does not care much that people on this board don't watch.

nderwater- there's IS that availble in the US. Just not enough to change the focus of the top viewed racing group in the US. Go watch the other stuff, and stop complaining about NASCAR. Unless you like drain the oceans with a teaspoon. (I'll give you a hint- Grand Am- that exact same car is called a Pontiac)

Still, I dont' get the idea that center lugs and air jacks will make NASCAR any better. you really think that they are worried about a 40lb jack vs. teh wheels tires, gas can, and other cars around them? Ceter lugs? Better? Just different.

My point about street cars is that Cup cars have more in common with real cars than ANY open wheel "tech" car. And, like I said before, too, if you want air jacks, center lugs, IRS, carbon tubs- NASCAR owns a series just for you. It's called Grand Am. Check it out someday. You might notice that it's a lot easier to get tickets, find elbow room, etc for a race than a cup race. Which should be an indication WHY your suggestions will stay in GrandAm and out of NASCAR.

Eric

I honestly cannot see how NASCAR has any more in common with street cars then the open wheel series. Both of them really have no relation to street cars. Sure you can argue that lots of street cars have live axles but just as many have IRS. No new cars in the US have a tube frame chassis but a few have a composite monocoque chassis. Very few cars have pushrods and none have carbs. But plenty have OHC engines and EFI. Sure they weight about the same as a lot of street cars they are based but most of those street cars are front wheel drive.

Aero studies. Yes, drag is important.

Crash zones- there are areas on the new cup cars.

Engines- spring materials to keep valve float to a minimum (F1 uses air springs- pointless). Bearings/oiling- realistic sizes for real cars that are capable of high loads.

Materials- better use of steel. So far, nobody has figured out how to make more than a handful of compisite chassis in a day. I think we make more F150's in a day than all of the compisite chassis in a year.

I can tell you with 100% certainty that EFI development goes TOWARD racing and not the other way. Real cars are way more advanced than racing cars. Have you checked a GM lot recently for pushrods? You may find some.

Stop thinking the 1% of the market, and think about the rest of the 99%. Roughly 50% of the market buys vehicles with live axles. Or have you forgotten the truck sales? So having ONE series that uses them seems pretty reasonable to me.

What magic do you get if you go EFI, OHC, and IRS? In the end, it's still cars going around a track, however it's done. Will your preceptions change if all the cars circling Matinsville for 3 hours really have different types of systems on it? And if you go with a composite chaissis, all you really get is a stiff and expensive car. Still going around in circles.

Open wheel racing is pointless, right now, for an OEM. Well, except Ferrari. Fun to watch as a spectator, bad investment for engineering. Hopefully, once you get out in the real world, you'll see that.

And if you REALLY think making them do more road courses will make them more popular- again, go to a Grand Am race. Tell me when Grand Am live is on. Or when 3 hours of Grand Am testing on Friday will be on Speed.

But, hey, if you really like jousting with those windmills, just be careful of Sancho.

E-

nderwater wrote: Production based cars:

Something like this?

If you can drive flat out around the track all the time..... you get what you pay for...

Give them 500 cubic inch, quad cam engines producing 1500 hp. That will require them to use the brakes going into the turns...

Either that, or it was the 4th posting ......

add a chicane