On Feb 9, 8:53*am, Zombie of Woodstock wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 05:38:53 -0800 (PST), wrote:
Actually, teams are getting the new car dialed in nicely, and it's
making some damned good racing. What looks strange as all hell is the
way they've got those things crabbing to make them tighter. You see
them on the straight and it looks like the ass end is coming around!

You think?

Not to me - they are unstable as all hell and when you read what the
crew chiefs and drivers are saying "off the record" they hate the
freakin' car.

NASCAR designed a safe car - no doubt about it - but it drives like
crap and it's a constant battle to keep the thing on the track.

One of the SAE engineers I know that was marginally involved in the
project told me that NASCAR is requiring too much precision in the
manufacturing process which is stifling development.

When you watch the in-car cameras on the COT compared to the previous
model car, these things are jumping all over the place and have a
horrible tendency to suck up sideways in multi-car drafts. *And you
never know if you are getting a push or are loose until it happens -
it constantly changes from lap-to-lap.

And, just listening to a comment on SPEED from Mike Wallace, the car
eats tires - none of the compounds they used to use are any good on
the new car and according to Zipendelli, the compounds were never
right last year because what looked to be the right choice from
previous testing turned out, in general, to be wrong for track
conditions on race day.

Plus, it's ugly and you can't tell, unless there is a really
distinctive paint job, which car is whose like you used to be able to.

It's going to kill NASCAR and quicker than you might expect.

--

When I want your opinion, I'll beat it out of you

They didn't like the car at first, but are warming up to it, besides,
if they had everything they wanted (crew and driver) then it would
surely be a boring contest. Goodyear had problems dealing with tires,
but seems to have gotten a handle on it. And cars have always been
jumping around, it's just part of it, the tracks are sometimes rough
in spots (like turn #1 in Daytona where the tunnel is) etc. Again, if
you listen to the chiefs, they are horrible, but if you listened to
the chiefs before, they've always complained about one thing or
another. That's racin', I've been involved in racing even when I was a
little kid, I'd go to the shop and hang all day, then a little older,
got to go the the track and help pit the car, as well as help out with
the after race fights!

On Feb 9, 9:24*am, wrote:
On Feb 9, 8:53*am, Zombie of Woodstock wrote:





On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 05:38:53 -0800 (PST), wrote:
Actually, teams are getting the new car dialed in nicely, and it's
making some damned good racing. What looks strange as all hell is the
way they've got those things crabbing to make them tighter. You see
them on the straight and it looks like the ass end is coming around!

You think?

Not to me - they are unstable as all hell and when you read what the
crew chiefs and drivers are saying "off the record" they hate the
freakin' car.

NASCAR designed a safe car - no doubt about it - but it drives like
crap and it's a constant battle to keep the thing on the track.

One of the SAE engineers I know that was marginally involved in the
project told me that NASCAR is requiring too much precision in the
manufacturing process which is stifling development.

When you watch the in-car cameras on the COT compared to the previous
model car, these things are jumping all over the place and have a
horrible tendency to suck up sideways in multi-car drafts. *And you
never know if you are getting a push or are loose until it happens -
it constantly changes from lap-to-lap.

And, just listening to a comment on SPEED from Mike Wallace, the car
eats tires - none of the compounds they used to use are any good on
the new car and according to Zipendelli, the compounds were never
right last year because what looked to be the right choice from
previous testing turned out, in general, to be wrong for track
conditions on race day.

Plus, it's ugly and you can't tell, unless there is a really
distinctive paint job, which car is whose like you used to be able to.

It's going to kill NASCAR and quicker than you might expect.

--

When I want your opinion, I'll beat it out of you

Don't have a lot of time but the biggest problem with "parity" in
these cars and teams is 40 cars in the pack at the final laps.. I just
want to see a winner, not this green, white, checkered bull****...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Or friggin' fuel milage races.

wrote in message
...


Don't have a lot of time but the biggest problem with "parity" in
these cars and teams is 40 cars in the pack at the final laps.. I just
want to see a winner, not this green, white, checkered bull****...

--------------------------------------

Modern Nascar racing does nothing for me. It's changed so much over the
years and the focus is now on the driver and his/her personality than the
race itself. All the cars look the same and the regulations and rules make
them boring to me.

I liked the old days when a Nascar stock car race pitted 427ci Fords
against 427ci Chevys which were both blown off the map for a couple of
years by the MoPar 426 Hemi.

The cars looked like street versions (ergo 'stock car') and the winning
manufacturer enjoyed a spike in sales on the Monday following the weekend
race.

Eisboch

On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 10:41:56 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


wrote in message
...


Don't have a lot of time but the biggest problem with "parity" in
these cars and teams is 40 cars in the pack at the final laps.. I just
want to see a winner, not this green, white, checkered bull****...

--------------------------------------

Modern Nascar racing does nothing for me. It's changed so much over the
years and the focus is now on the driver and his/her personality than the
race itself. All the cars look the same and the regulations and rules make
them boring to me.

I liked the old days when a Nascar stock car race pitted 427ci Fords
against 427ci Chevys which were both blown off the map for a couple of
years by the MoPar 426 Hemi.

The cars looked like street versions (ergo 'stock car') and the winning
manufacturer enjoyed a spike in sales on the Monday following the weekend
race.

Couldn't agree with you more - the driver centric model replacing the
car centric model drives me nuts.

I stick with it only because I've been such a fan for such a long
time.

It seems to me that what the sport really needs is to return to the
manufacturer model with NASCAR regulating engine size, shocks, tranny
and rear end ratios. Let Hoosier (who actually builds a superior
tire), Goodyear and Bridgestone (Firestone) fight it out on the track.

Everything else should be left up to the teams. Like it used to be.

Conservative I know, but that's the way I roll. :)

--

If we aren't supposed to eat animals,
why are they made of meat?

Eisboch wrote:

wrote in message
...


Don't have a lot of time but the biggest problem with "parity" in
these cars and teams is 40 cars in the pack at the final laps.. I just
want to see a winner, not this green, white, checkered bull****...

--------------------------------------

Modern Nascar racing does nothing for me. It's changed so much over the
years and the focus is now on the driver and his/her personality than
the race itself. All the cars look the same and the regulations and
rules make them boring to me.

I liked the old days when a Nascar stock car race pitted 427ci Fords
against 427ci Chevys which were both blown off the map for a couple of
years by the MoPar 426 Hemi.

The cars looked like street versions (ergo 'stock car') and the winning
manufacturer enjoyed a spike in sales on the Monday following the
weekend race.

Eisboch

NASCAR is just another variation on the NFL theme: packaging a product
to sell other products.

Funniest of all are the fans who think their favorite "marque" is out
there, doing something. As if the cars are Fords or Chevys or whatevers.
Yeah, sure they are, with their space tube frames, hand-molded sheet
metal, and specialty running gear that is seen on no street car, and of
course the engine, which has nothing to do with a "stock" car.

Chevy Won!

Sure it did.

On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 06:55:51 -0800 (PST), wrote:

then a little older,
got to go the the track and help pit the car, as well as help out with
the after race fights!

Well, on that we can agree.

Ain't nuttin' like short track Saturday night Sportsman races when
some guy gets shoved into the wall and the riot starts in the pits -
or the stands for that matter. :)

Around here, Modifieds are the big thing - the Z class is particularly
fraught with danger in the pits. Half the time, it's more fun
watching different pit crews express their displeasure over this, that
and the other perception that somebody done did their driver wrong.

And the gals - WOW!! When they get going, it gets nasty quick.

Ah yes - short track Saturday night. :)

--

Time flies when you are sick and psychotic.

On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 10:41:56 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

I liked the old days when a Nascar stock car race pitted 427ci Fords
against 427ci Chevys which were both blown off the map for a couple of
years by the MoPar 426 Hemi.

Hemi is somewhat overrated. If you have a flat top piston, the
combustion chamber is hemispherical. If you want high compression, you
used a domed piston and get a combustion chamber that looks like the
peel from half an orange. It looks better in a long stroke engine, as
the piston can be flatter for any given compression ratio, but today
most mills are short stroke.

Casady

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 11:07:27 -0500, HK wrote:

and of
course the engine, which has nothing to do with a "stock" car.

It might use the same block as a street car.

Casady

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 10:41:56 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

I liked the old days when a Nascar stock car race pitted 427ci Fords
against 427ci Chevys which were both blown off the map for a couple of
years by the MoPar 426 Hemi.

Hemi is somewhat overrated. If you have a flat top piston, the
combustion chamber is hemispherical. If you want high compression, you
used a domed piston and get a combustion chamber that looks like the
peel from half an orange. It looks better in a long stroke engine, as
the piston can be flatter for any given compression ratio, but today
most mills are short stroke.

Casady


You would have to explain that to the Ford and Chevy fans of the 60's.
The fed had a limit on the maximum horsepower that a commercially available
car could produce in those days. The limit was 425hp. When Chrysler
introduced the 426 hemi in limited production, buyers were taking their new
car to be dyno'ed. Many of the stock, unmodified engines, straight from the
factory were producing over 500hp, even though they were "officially" rated
at 425hp.

What is over-rated is the newer, mini-hemi that came out in 2002 or 2003.
Depending on the vehicle, it's rated anywhere from 335hp to 345hp, but,
like most modern engines, it's horsepower and torque curve is peaked at very
high RPM. The monster 426 hemi was pure, brute power.

Chrysler made many versions of a hemi engine over the years. My father's
1955 Dodge Royal Lancer had a hemi. I think it was 331ci.

Eisboch

Eisboch

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 11:07:27 -0500, HK wrote:

and of
course the engine, which has nothing to do with a "stock" car.

It might use the same block as a street car.

Casady


I am not current with the rules for Nascar stock racing, but I believe the
block must be of a standard manufacturers design. However, that's where the
similarities ends.

Eisboch