On Feb 8, 11:46*am, Zombie of Woodstock wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 06:49:26 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Feb 7, 11:43*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Zombie of Woodstock" wrote in messagenews:u3kso4pu9djhbhfo28q82ahq75tfonm8tf@4ax .com...

On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 19:18:17 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Feb 7, 9:17 pm, Zombie of Woodstock wrote:
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 17:58:26 -0800 (PST),

wrote:
Just out of curiosity.. er. what's the fastest care you own? Could
it beeeeeeeeeeeeee a frekin' Cheby???

Ahem...um...er...

Yes. :)

Yes indeed....

Although technically, it's not a Chevy.

It's a Corvette.

Made by GM, but it's not a Chevy.

One Ford in the top ten?? I mean he's in first, but there are two laps
and he is surrounded by the enemy

It's a conspiracy by GM - all their Chevy drivers took out the Ford
drivers.

What's the matter - your Chevy drivers can't keep their cars straight?

Damn - my wife drives better than that.

Jeff Gordon. *How can they not shake a flag at him for such bad driving.
Gets to the almost front and then slows down through the middle of the pack
causing carnage. *Then speeds up again. *Couple times.

NASCAR has a reputation of letting their "stars" get away with
anything. *DE paved the way with his "If you can't beat 'em, wreck
'em" driving style. *NASCAR sold their soul to GM years ago, and now
with the COT, it's just a joke.

It's endemic in all motor sports. *Hell, even F1 got caught up in it
when they obviously knew that Schumacher was running rocket fuel until
word got out, then all of a sudden - whoops - naughty, naughty.

Ferrari owns F1 like GM owns NASCAR.

I hate the COT and I blame Jeff Burton for that - he caterwauled about
driver safety, driver safety and too expensive, too expensive, too
expensive and look what we got - crappy looking cars that don't handle
for squat on any type of track and you get lousy races like last
night.

Bring back Pearson and the Woods Brothers, and I'll watch again. *Race
on Sunday, sell on Monday. *:-)

Damn straight. *:)

--

"Far better it is to dare mighty things,
to win glorious triumphs even though
checkered by failure, than to rank with
those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor
suffer much because they live in the gray
twilight that knows neither victory nor
defeat."

Theodore Roosevelt- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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!

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

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****...

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, 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, 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

Richard Casady wrote:
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


It might have a block that measures the same as a street car's
block...that's about it.