Jump to content


Photo

Have NASCAR got it wrong?


  • Please log in to reply
239 replies to this topic

#101 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 01 March 2012 - 05:28

NASCAR. They are clueless.


Yeah we get it mate, America sux because everycar they make doesn't have quad cam, triple turbo charged over supercharged titanium blocked carbon fibre cylinder headed engines - and they only turn left :lol:


Yes, the US auto industry has been going backwards since the 60s-70s ... the American V8 won't be a significant part of the product mix


Apparently there's a lot you don't know about America. including vehicle sales figures.



Advertisement

#102 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 808 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 01 March 2012 - 05:56

My two cents worth ( as it is NASCAR) . The most exciting racing left is World of Outlaws sprintcars IMHO.

Ancient technology but lots of very subtle engineering and dynamics. Two valve engines but what a noise. Bad tracks and tyres to match but super racing.

Virtually spec cars ( by evolution not rules) but power to weight ratio close to F!

USP - no big team/sponsor/mfr. involvement

Sadly I understand some NASCAR teams have started playing in the sprints

Dirt, noise, beer, V-8's , pick up truck pushers = heaven



mariner,

A bit OT, but dirt track racing is definitely lots of fun to watch, whether on four wheels or two. A couple months back, I went to see the AMA flat track national finals at the 5/8 mile horse racing track in Pomona. There were Ducatis, Hondas, Kawasakis, and Harleys. It was amazing to watch the riders go down the straights at well over 100mph and then slide their bikes through the turns, handlebar to handlebar. Lots of rider skill and not much technology.

slider

#103 phoenix101

phoenix101
  • Member

  • 238 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 01 March 2012 - 06:14

Yeah we get it mate, America sux because everycar they make doesn't have quad cam, triple turbo charged over supercharged titanium blocked carbon fibre cylinder headed engines - and they only turn left :lol:




Apparently there's a lot you don't know about America. including vehicle sales figures.


I already quoted you the relevant sales figures. V8s account for just 16% of new auto sales. V8 sales are falling steeply along with market share for full size SUVs which has been cut in half since 2005. Furthermore, Sergio Marchionne said he wants Chrysler's mix to drop from 18% V8s to just 11% V8s by 2014. Maybe you need a picture? Do I need to remind you that neither CAFE 2016 nor CAFE 2025 have made any impact yet?

Posted Image

If you'd be so kind as to read my posts, I already said OHV is not a technological abomination. The problem with OHV is that few car manufacturers use it. Half of the manufacturers in NASCAR don't sell a pushrod engine anymore. The 358 OHV is a problem b/c it keeps manufacturers away.

Edited by phoenix101, 01 March 2012 - 06:23.


#104 Engineguy

Engineguy
  • Member

  • 989 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 01 March 2012 - 07:07

Have NASCAR got it right? No. NASCAR's focus limits its growth potential, and the sport is a monumental underachievement. NASCAR doesn't see its own potential so they are content to be king of the fools. Not much of an accolade, but don't tell NASCAR.


[sarcasm]Have NFL got it right? No. NFL's focus limits its growth potential, and the sport is a monumental underachievement. NFL doesn't see its own potential so they are content to be king of the fools. Not much of an accolade, but don't tell NFL. NFL should quit playing their antiquated American "football" and graduate to real football like the rest of the world. [/sarcasim]

That's what this thread sounds like. Giving unneeded advice to a wildly successful organization telling them they should be something different. If your tastes are different you're not forced to watch. Most of us have friends and family that love NASCAR for what it is... the implication that they're morons because they don't share your apparently elite taste is insulting.

I'm not a big fan of NASCAR myself, but if you have a plan for a sanctioning/promotional body that can put NASCAR's success to shame... time's a wastin'... find a venture capitalist to back you and get on with it. Or just bloviate on a forum about how much brighter you are than the people who are doing it and have been for decades, providing steady careers for thousands of team employees, and entertainment for millions.


#105 Todd

Todd
  • Member

  • 18,936 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 01 March 2012 - 08:17

The 358 OHV is a problem b/c it keeps manufacturers away.


As a racing fan for about the past 35 years, the manufacturers can stay away. Many great racing series have flamed up, burned brightly, and then vanished in a puff of smoke due to the shifting whims of involved manufacturers.

#106 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 01 March 2012 - 08:22

Half of the manufacturers in NASCAR don't sell a pushrod engine anymore. The 358 OHV is a problem b/c it keeps manufacturers away.


Yeah and half of them still do.

So what? It's a race series steeped in and based on history and no one wants to see Hyundai or Skoda win the Daytona 500. No one makes 3.5 V10's or 2.4 litre V8's either yet F1 allegedly is the most popular race series in the world.

Oh and Toyota's most recent engine to it's American range; a 350cu V8, their biggest yet.

V8 sales are being affected by simple economics, ie; the price of fuel, not because people don't want them.

BTW Did you know those backward American rednecks who are drowning in the '60's make the highest specific hp mass production engine in the world? Higher than Ferrari, Lambo, Aston Martin etc. - and it's mass production and comes in a family car with warranty. Imagine that.

#107 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 01 March 2012 - 08:23

As a racing fan for about the past 35 years, the manufacturers can stay away. Many great racing series have flamed up, burned brightly, and then vanished in a puff of smoke due to the shifting whims of involved manufacturers.


Indeed, get a John Bishop to run the FIA ....


http://en.wikipedia....i/IMSA_(racing)

#108 phoenix101

phoenix101
  • Member

  • 238 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 01 March 2012 - 09:51

That's what this thread sounds like. Giving unneeded advice to a wildly successful organization telling them they should be something different. If your tastes are different you're not forced to watch. Most of us have friends and family that love NASCAR for what it is... the implication that they're morons because they don't share your apparently elite taste is insulting.


Did you read the title of this thread or the source article?

The company has executed a successful national expansion. They introduced the COT, which was not well-received. Viewership and attendance numbers have stagnated. They are politicking around with the manufacturers, marketers, sponsors, and TV networks, trying to get a bit of traction b/c they want to renegotiate their TV contract by the end of 2013. They've not "righted" the issues of the last 4 years. Manufacturer specific bodywork will give them a lift, but it's not going to keep the sport growing.

I never implied that NASCAR fans are morons, though, it is becoming clear that NASCAR fans have an insecurity about the sport they watch. I said NASCAR do very little with a lot. They have a lot of power, but they do very little with it. On the flip, you could say they've done a lot with a little. They develop little product (2.5 hours driving on ovals with 50 year old engines), but they've turned it into a lot of cash.

Everyone focuses on the latter, typical, I suppose. They congratulate NASCAR for making a C+ by using only half of their brain. [sarcasm]Oh my god, they're savants[/sarcasm]

#109 phoenix101

phoenix101
  • Member

  • 238 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 01 March 2012 - 10:06

V8 sales are being affected by simple economics, ie; the price of fuel, not because people don't want them.


First, V8s aren't selling, which is something you didn't know before a provided you with a chart. Second, when people want something, but an economically viable (or legal) version is not available, it's called a market failure. As far as I can tell, I'm the only person who gives a rat's ass about the market failure. Everyone else, like NASCAR, seem to think the death of the American V8 is not even worth noticing. NASCAR is part of V8 culture, and they need to pull their heads out of their asses.


BTW Did you know those backward American rednecks who are drowning in the '60's make the highest specific hp mass production engine in the world? Higher than Ferrari, Lambo, Aston Martin etc. - and it's mass production and comes in a family car with warranty. Imagine that.


No, I don't know them. I've not mentioned any backwoods rednecks, nor have I suggested American car manufacturers can't build engines. I've mentioned some short-sighted, opportunistic businessmen, who are pigeon-holing their sport into kitsch retro for social security recipients.


#110 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 01 March 2012 - 11:49

Yes, the US auto industry has been going backwards since the 60s-70s, with only a brief respite during the SUV boom. Where have you been for the last 40 years? The American V8 RWD power saloon is dead as a doornail unless you're a 1% with enough money to buy a premium brand.

As much as I like the idea of racing production bodies on 1 mile or 1.5 mile circuits, it won't save the V8. The American V8 won't be a significant part of the product mix unless it gets updated to meet consumer demand and government regulation. NASCAR need to do it b/c the manufacturers are more interested in making the V8 a rich man's toy. Needless to say, the situation isn't good for NASCAR. They are clueless. They just realized this year that the 358 lacks fuel injection.


The problem has nothing whatsoever to do with the bullcrap about the American V8 rwd saloon being dead at all.As I've said if that was the case then cars like the new CTSV wouldn't be just about one of the fastest saloon cars that money can buy at the moment proving that the formula is still alive and kicking better than ever.

The problem of racing based on race on Saturday/Sunday sell on Monday is firstly that issue of the 99% who can no longer go out there with the $ and the £ in their pockets and buy the things and allow manuafacturers to sell them like hot cakes just like they did in the 1960's.That's an economic problem not a racing problem.There's no way that you're going to solve that problem by continuing to offer those buyers zombie imports instead and then turning NASCAR into some sort of series that based even more on big Karts that just look like the Zombie cars which they have to drive because of the stupid idiots in government who haven't got a clue when it comes to being able to run a developed industrial economy.Unlike things were in the 1960's.



#111 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 01 March 2012 - 11:57

Yeah and half of them still do.

So what? It's a race series steeped in and based on history and no one wants to see Hyundai or Skoda win the Daytona

Oh and Toyota's most recent engine to it's American range; a 350cu V8, their biggest yet.

V8 sales are being affected by simple economics, ie; the price of fuel, not because people don't want them.

BTW Did you know those backward American rednecks who are drowning in the '60's make the highest specific hp mass production engine in the world? Higher than Ferrari, Lambo, Aston Martin etc. - and it's mass production and comes in a family car with warranty. Imagine that.


^ + 1

So why doesn't NASCAR just bite the bullet and get rid of all the cars as they stand and forget about all the regulations and politics and safety bullcrap and just get back to racing proper cars so that the fans can then see cars like that supercharged LS 7 powered CTSV on the track.The worst that can happen is that those fans will then be so p'd off that they can't afford to buy or run the thing that they will then put pressure on their local congressman to do something about the economy so that they can go out and buy one.Which means more jobs which means more wages which means more sales.But the problem is that the modern day generation seem to have been brainwashed to the new way of running the economy to the point where they think that the 1960's was all just a fantasy.

Edited by Vanishing Point, 01 March 2012 - 12:03.


#112 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,667 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 01 March 2012 - 18:29

The fact is forced induction makes large capacity engines go even better.Which is why the new supercharged CTSV is faster than the old naturally aspirated one in which case the LS 7 engine would obviously make the thing even faster and where better to prove the superiority of it's engineering than on the track and there's nothing better than a good old fashioned horsepower race in a production car racing environment for making progress in production car design and sales.

The blowers cost more to buy, cost more to fix and it is not a matter of if one goes out but when.

The old- a blower makes a small engine as good as a big engine is a silly false analogy.

If one is 300 inches with blower and the other 400 inches without one, put a blower on the larger engine and it will stomp all over the small one, with all the extra cost and maintenance involved, plus it takes extra space and therefore just to access anything in the engine bay costs as it takes longer to perform a task when one has work around anything in the way.

Some people have near fetish for blowers just as some do for the letters IRS, OHC DOHC etc.

If anyone want to see what U.S. engine builders are doing or capable of doing the new issue of Engine Masters covers the competition for 2011 detailing the winning engne and listing all entered with pictures.

#113 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 01 March 2012 - 19:09

The blowers cost more to buy, cost more to fix and it is not a matter of if one goes out but when.

The old- a blower makes a small engine as good as a big engine is a silly false analogy.

If one is 300 inches with blower and the other 400 inches without one, put a blower on the larger engine and it will stomp all over the small one, with all the extra cost and maintenance involved, plus it takes extra space and therefore just to access anything in the engine bay costs as it takes longer to perform a task when one has work around anything in the way.


But in this case the analogy is a blower makes a big engine better not makes a small engine as good as a naturally aspirated big one.Put a blower on a larger engine and it will stomp all over everything else until someone comes up with something even bigger.In which case surely GM would be ahead to start with just as they seem to be now with the supercharged CTSV.Surely that can only be a good thing for NASCAR and the US car industry ?.That's 'if' NASCAR decided to change the format of it's race series to one of what it should be of unlimited international production saloon car racing or ISCAR to put it another way.

But if the drawbacks of forced induction outweigh the benefits why is it that BMW,Mercedes,Jaguar and now GM/Cadillac all seem to think that it's the right way to go for all of their current fast saloon ranges ?.


#114 phoenix101

phoenix101
  • Member

  • 238 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 01 March 2012 - 19:52

The problem has nothing whatsoever to do with the bullcrap about the American V8 rwd saloon being dead at all.As I've said if that was the case then cars like the new CTSV wouldn't be just about one of the fastest saloon cars that money can buy at the moment proving that the formula is still alive and kicking better than ever.

The problem of racing based on race on Saturday/Sunday sell on Monday is firstly that issue of the 99% who can no longer go out there with the $ and the £ in their pockets and buy the things and allow manuafacturers to sell them like hot cakes just like they did in the 1960's.That's an economic problem not a racing problem.There's no way that you're going to solve that problem by continuing to offer those buyers zombie imports instead and then turning NASCAR into some sort of series that based even more on big Karts that just look like the Zombie cars which they have to drive because of the stupid idiots in government who haven't got a clue when it comes to being able to run a developed industrial economy.Unlike things were in the 1960's.


Did you really stop reading halfway through a sentence? The power saloon is dead unless you're a 1%. CTS-V starts at $65,000, and there will never be a time when 99% of the population can afford a car that costs twice the median per capita income. The CTS-V starts higher than the M3 and the C63 AMG, and in case you haven't noticed, Cadillac, BMW, and Mercedes don't race in NASCAR. If you want the people to rush from the racetrack to the showroom, the problem is the lack of middle class front-engine rear-drive power saloons from American car manufacturers. Dodge Charger is the last one, but as Cheapracer points out, though people want to buy 5.7L and 6.4L V8s, they can not conjure up a reason to spend an extra $4,000 for the V8 engine and an extra 20% for their annual fuel bills. Furthermore, Chrysler want to sell 40% fewer V8s by 2014 for CAFE reasons. Full-size sedans, in general, are on the outs b/c the price point and powertrains are wrong.

Your NASCAR idea is perfectly good, but no one at NASCAR or the manufacturers wants to race stock cars. You'd have to pitch your idea to the SCCA as a new Trans Am or World Challenge format. You'll have to convince them that racing stock cars will be entertaining, and attract manufacturer/dealer investment. Don't get too bent if they refuse. The luxury nameplates have already started throwing money around to get American DTM off the ground--a spec series, run by NASCAR/Grand-Am, for luxury touring brands. I don't have a problem with the idea, but I have no idea how you would sell it. It would have to be a tuner class with no manufacturer involvement, and NASCAR probably wouldn't take it lying down if you started racing on banked ovals. Drifting at least gives you a ray of hope b/c it is a rapidly-growing tuner class, and the show doesn't rely on particularly close racing.

On the other hand, I'm merely suggesting that NASCAR update their engine architecture in a bid to promote V8 saloons, which are an integral part of NASCAR's long term viability. I also think they need to update the race format and diversify the banked circuit concept. NASCAR are oblivious. The only pressure on the race format is likely from TV companies who want to change from distanced races to timed races. Imo, they are closer to revolutionizing the race format (for broadcasters, not fans) than they are to making less controversial, higher value changes to the engine and circuits.



#115 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 01 March 2012 - 20:52

Did you really stop reading halfway through a sentence? The power saloon is dead unless you're a 1%. CTS-V starts at $65,000, and there will never be a time when 99% of the population can afford a car that costs twice the median per capita income. The CTS-V starts higher than the M3 and the C63 AMG, and in case you haven't noticed, Cadillac, BMW, and Mercedes don't race in NASCAR. If you want the people to rush from the racetrack to the showroom, the problem is the lack of middle class front-engine rear-drive power saloons from American car manufacturers. Dodge Charger is the last one, but as Cheapracer points out, though people want to buy 5.7L and 6.4L V8s, they can not conjure up a reason to spend an extra $4,000 for the V8 engine and an extra 20% for their annual fuel bills. Furthermore, Chrysler want to sell 40% fewer V8s by 2014 for CAFE reasons. Full-size sedans, in general, are on the outs b/c the price point and powertrains are wrong.

Your NASCAR idea is perfectly good, but no one at NASCAR or the manufacturers wants to race stock cars. You'd have to pitch your idea to the SCCA as a new Trans Am or World Challenge format. You'll have to convince them that racing stock cars will be entertaining, and attract manufacturer/dealer investment. Don't get too bent if they refuse. The luxury nameplates have already started throwing money around to get American DTM off the ground--a spec series, run by NASCAR/Grand-Am, for luxury touring brands. I don't have a problem with the idea, but I have no idea how you would sell it. It would have to be a tuner class with no manufacturer involvement, and NASCAR probably wouldn't take it lying down if you started racing on banked ovals. Drifting at least gives you a ray of hope b/c it is a rapidly-growing tuner class, and the show doesn't rely on particularly close racing.

On the other hand, I'm merely suggesting that NASCAR update their engine architecture in a bid to promote V8 saloons, which are an integral part of NASCAR's long term viability. I also think they need to update the race format and diversify the banked circuit concept. NASCAR are oblivious. The only pressure on the race format is likely from TV companies who want to change from distanced races to timed races. Imo, they are closer to revolutionizing the race format (for broadcasters, not fans) than they are to making less controversial, higher value changes to the engine and circuits.


It wouldn't be much of a problem to make a CTSV type car without all the toys and gizmos which would appeal more to the type of market that we're talking about which isn't 99% of the general population it's just the 99% of buyers in that specific performance sector of the car buying market who,at present,are priced out of that market by the combination of stagnant wage levels,caused by a stagnant economy,and incorrect market placing and pricing of the product.Which is mostly the result of forgetting the idea of paying workers enough to buy what they want to buy and then using that demand to create more jobs therefore wealth and therefore even more demand and manufacturers who don't seem to have a clue about the difference in demographics between buyers who want a limo or a performance orientated fast road car that doesn't have or need the automated climate control,computerised navigation etc etc or even electric windows.

I really can't see the problem as to why performance car buyers wouldn't be able to relate to cars like the CTSV and why manufacturers can't meet the challenge of providing such cars at an affordable price.It also seems obvious that the politicians are trying to kill off proper cars and remove the demand for them and any move that would help them to do that seems like a case of turkeys voting for Christmas to me.There's no way that given the choice between just accepting that situation or just walking away,that anyone with any sense,would want to just accept the continuous political pressures to downsize cars and engines and reduce power outputs etc etc when the best way of saying to the politicians no thanks is by taking the latter option instead.Which seems to be the most likely reason for the original question contained in the topic to me ?.

The problem is more one of too many limits and restrictions not one one of any inherent issue in using the idea of the basic architecture which has provided and continues to provide just as good returns as anything available elsewhere.Therefore big pushrod V8's no problem.It's all the restrictions that the rule makers keep imposing on the idea,since the late 1960's which is the problem instead of just allowing it to be developed to the point where there's no further development potential left.I think the output of top fuel dragster engines shows that point isn't going to be found in saloon car applications any time soon.

#116 phoenix101

phoenix101
  • Member

  • 238 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 01 March 2012 - 22:01

It wouldn't be much of a problem to make a CTSV type car without all the toys and gizmos which would appeal more to the type of market that we're talking about which isn't 99% of the general population it's just the 99% of buyers in that specific performance sector of the car buying market who,at present,are priced out of that market by the combination of stagnant wage levels,caused by a stagnant economy,and incorrect market placing and pricing of the product.Which is mostly the result of forgetting the idea of paying workers enough to buy what they want to buy and then using that demand to create more jobs therefore wealth and therefore even more demand and manufacturers who don't seem to have a clue about the difference in demographics between buyers who want a limo or a performance orientated fast road car that doesn't have or need the automated climate control,computerised navigation etc etc or even electric windows.

I really can't see the problem as to why performance car buyers wouldn't be able to relate to cars like the CTSV and why manufacturers can't meet the challenge of providing such cars at an affordable price.It also seems obvious that the politicians are trying to kill off proper cars and remove the demand for them and any move that would help them to do that seems like a case of turkeys voting for Christmas to me.There's no way that given the choice between just accepting that situation or just walking away,that anyone with any sense,would want to just accept the continuous political pressures to downsize cars and engines and reduce power outputs etc etc when the best way of saying to the politicians no thanks is by taking the latter option instead.Which seems to be the most likely reason for the original question contained in the topic to me ?.

The problem is more one of too many limits and restrictions not one one of any inherent issue in using the idea of the basic architecture which has provided and continues to provide just as good returns as anything available elsewhere.Therefore big pushrod V8's no problem.It's all the restrictions that the rule makers keep imposing on the idea,since the late 1960's which is the problem instead of just allowing it to be developed to the point where there's no further development potential left.I think the output of top fuel dragster engines shows that point isn't going to be found in saloon car applications any time soon.


If you want something like your idea to happen, you need to spend a lot more time going over the basics of the automobile industry, imo. The LS7 will not be affordable to middle class consumers b/c it is an aluminum-block, low-volume, performance engine. The fuel economy is not good enough to give it mainstream appeal so the inefficiencies of low-volume production cannot be alleviated. You'd need oil prices to be cut in half, but that will likely not happen b/c the cost of Canadian oil is estimated around $75-$85 (depending on exchange rate and project site) per barrel.

Furthermore, the automobile manufacturers do not want increasing demand for gasoline in the US b/c oil price volatility is what got them into this mess. The US economy can't afford to export $200B to buy oil either. The manufacturers are stuck between a rock and a hard place b/c they must meet CAFE standards, but customers cannot really endure higher costs. If manufacturers want profitability, they must figure out a way to reallocate consumer spending from gasoline purchases to automobile purchases. Automobiles like the CTS-V are not even on the radar. To the boardroom, they are ridiculous halo products, like the art house films Hollywood studios make to win Academy Awards.

You've either got to make production racing a tuner affair (no manufacturer money) or you've got to convince the manufacturers that they will sell equipment. If you can promise them $3M in LS7 sales or car sales, they might pay attention. That's how GT3 racing works, but GT3 is performance-balanced. If you don't want BoP, you'll need to devise a new model for allocating prize money so lots of manufacturers get orders, and you'll have to convince them that losing is offset by marketing exposure. You'll have to make a killer brand.

If you want the V8 to survive it must be updated. The manufacturers are not interested in updating the V8. They want to sell four bangers and V6s b/c they are less politically contentious, and they already meet CAFE standards. Besides premium manufacturers, no one cares about saving the V8, but 1% consumers don't fret about oil so they can continue using the 6L engines. NASCAR are the high-profile business who have an interest in saving middle-class power saloons and the mainstream appeal of American V8s. They are asleep at the wheel. Since Little Bill stepped down, NASCAR are constantly on the back foot. If you ask NASCAR officials or NASCAR fans, it is the world's fault for changing. Earnhardt was killed b/c he wasn't wearing a HANS device. Naturally, they changed the cars, the catch fences, the walls. While they've been reacting to Dale's death, the world has changed again. The Big 3 went under, and they were either bailed out by TARP or by EPA/DOE loans. NASCAR is permanently on the back foot.



#117 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 55,899 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 01 March 2012 - 22:15

This makes me long for the global warming thread.

#118 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 01 March 2012 - 22:47

If you want something like your idea to happen, you need to spend a lot more time going over the basics of the automobile industry, imo. The LS7 will not be affordable to middle class consumers b/c it is an aluminum-block, low-volume, performance engine. The fuel economy is not good enough to give it mainstream appeal so the inefficiencies of low-volume production cannot be alleviated. You'd need oil prices to be cut in half, but that will likely not happen b/c the cost of Canadian oil is estimated around $75-$85 (depending on exchange rate and project site) per barrel.

Furthermore, the automobile manufacturers do not want increasing demand for gasoline in the US b/c oil price volatility is what got them into this mess. The US economy can't afford to export $200B to buy oil either. The manufacturers are stuck between a rock and a hard place b/c they must meet CAFE standards, but customers cannot really endure higher costs. If manufacturers want profitability, they must figure out a way to reallocate consumer spending from gasoline purchases to automobile purchases. Automobiles like the CTS-V are not even on the radar. To the boardroom, they are ridiculous halo products, like the art house films Hollywood studios make to win Academy Awards.

You've either got to make production racing a tuner affair (no manufacturer money) or you've got to convince the manufacturers that they will sell equipment. If you can promise them $3M in LS7 sales or car sales, they might pay attention. That's how GT3 racing works, but GT3 is performance-balanced. If you don't want BoP, you'll need to devise a new model for allocating prize money so lots of manufacturers get orders, and you'll have to convince them that losing is offset by marketing exposure. You'll have to make a killer brand.

If you want the V8 to survive it must be updated. The manufacturers are not interested in updating the V8. They want to sell four bangers and V6s b/c they are less politically contentious, and they already meet CAFE standards. Besides premium manufacturers, no one cares about saving the V8, but 1% consumers don't fret about oil so they can continue using the 6L engines. NASCAR are the high-profile business who have an interest in saving middle-class power saloons and the mainstream appeal of American V8s. They are asleep at the wheel. Since Little Bill stepped down, NASCAR are constantly on the back foot. If you ask NASCAR officials or NASCAR fans, it is the world's fault for changing. Earnhardt was killed b/c he wasn't wearing a HANS device. Naturally, they changed the cars, the catch fences, the walls. While they've been reacting to Dale's death, the world has changed again. The Big 3 went under, and they were either bailed out by TARP or by EPA/DOE loans. NASCAR is permanently on the back foot.


Most of that would have been exactly the type of hysterical arguments for 'change' and downsizing etc etc and the double nickel speed limits in the early 1970's.Just as then the Americans are whingeing about fuel price rises that,in real terms,are less than those at that time and even then were and still are at pump price levels that would have the market for V8 and V12 6 Litre + powered cars taking off through the roof here,considering our taxes that add more than the actual cost price of petrol itself.Trust me during race events like Le Mans etc the roads throughout Europe come alive with fans driving all types of cars,usually the bigger engined and faster the better.All done at pump prices of around 10 $ per gallon and if we haven't admitted defeat yet then there's no reason why the US car users should even be thinking about change other than,as I've said,telling the politicians we don't buy the green bullcrap arguments and we know that the only reason why fuel prices are at these rip off levels at the pump is because the governments want it that way.Not because that's what the stuff actually costs.

However the main problem with the race when we get there is that the rule makers have neutered the actual 'racing' by way of reducing the lengths of straights and restrictions on engine ccapacities and induction etc.

Edited by Vanishing Point, 01 March 2012 - 22:51.


#119 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,491 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 01 March 2012 - 23:19

I think it's quite exciting when entire posts are repeated, just to add an answer. You feel you are getting so much more for your money.

Advertisement

#120 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,667 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 01 March 2012 - 23:48

But in this case the analogy is a blower makes a big engine better not makes a small engine as good as a naturally aspirated big one.Put a blower on a larger engine and it will stomp all over everything else until someone comes up with something even bigger.In which case surely GM would be ahead to start with just as they seem to be now with the supercharged CTSV.Surely that can only be a good thing for NASCAR and the US car industry ?.That's 'if' NASCAR decided to change the format of it's race series to one of what it should be of unlimited international production saloon car racing or ISCAR to put it another way.

But if the drawbacks of forced induction outweigh the benefits why is it that BMW,Mercedes,Jaguar and now GM/Cadillac all seem to think that it's the right way to go for all of their current fast saloon ranges ?.

Because some countries have huge penalties on engines larger than X inches cubed, i.e. CHINA for one.

The new Autoweek says that is one reason Bentley now puts a blown V-8, also, in a car that used to use a W12 for wow factor, is because of displacement penalties. (In this case the lighter weight of the V-8 over the 12 has definite advantages.

There is a article written by a liberal chick car writer, also, in the new Autoweek that says much about why Detroit is doing, whether you agree with it or not, what it is and it has nothing to do with consumers, it is because of god wannbes in Washington.


#121 phoenix101

phoenix101
  • Member

  • 238 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 01 March 2012 - 23:56

This makes me long for the global warming thread.


I don't think that you or Tony are cut out for in-depth discussions about race sanctioning and its relationship to production markets. Suffice it to say, sanctioning is as complicated as any soft science from government theory to product development to economic theory. The history of racing is replete with schisms, disagreements, and business warfare.

If you're not comfortable with the all encompassing nature of private governance, you don't have to weigh in.

Edited by phoenix101, 01 March 2012 - 23:59.


#122 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 55,899 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 02 March 2012 - 00:15

No it's just that by comparison that thread was reasoned and informed.

#123 phoenix101

phoenix101
  • Member

  • 238 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 02 March 2012 - 00:24

Most of that would have been exactly the type of hysterical arguments for 'change' and downsizing etc etc and the double nickel speed limits in the early 1970's.Just as then the Americans are whingeing about fuel price rises that,in real terms,are less than those at that time and even then were and still are at pump price levels that would have the market for V8 and V12 6 Litre + powered cars taking off through the roof here,considering our taxes that add more than the actual cost price of petrol itself.Trust me during race events like Le Mans etc the roads throughout Europe come alive with fans driving all types of cars,usually the bigger engined and faster the better.All done at pump prices of around 10 $ per gallon and if we haven't admitted defeat yet then there's no reason why the US car users should even be thinking about change other than,as I've said,telling the politicians we don't buy the green bullcrap arguments and we know that the only reason why fuel prices are at these rip off levels at the pump is because the governments want it that way.Not because that's what the stuff actually costs.

However the main problem with the race when we get there is that the rule makers have neutered the actual 'racing' by way of reducing the lengths of straights and restrictions on engine ccapacities and induction etc.


Our oil imports are not alarmism. Furthermore, we have no leverage with China in the WTO regarding their currency practices when we have high oil deficits. How are you supposed to tell a trade partner to let their currency float more aggressively (to reduce trade imbalance) when you carelessly import $100B-$150B of oil for passenger cars? Hint: You can't. Trade imbalance is hurting the United States nearly as bad as the credit implosion so it's not something we can gloss over. I understand you don't like the liberal overtones, but the real reason we are reducing fuel consumption has little to do with carbon emissions, alternative energy, or banning evil V8s. Plus, the last time we had oil volatility, American industry switched to domestic natural gas (alternative energy at the time). OPEC and the Seven Sisters cried uncle. We didn't fix the problem by doing nothing.

US governments do not have a major impact on the price of gas. Taxes are between 10%-15% of price per gallon, and we have a weird system of regulatory costs and subsidies that don't have a significant impact. While the current political party like to pretend they are making gasoline expensive, the oil companies are equally happy with stable high prices. They have invested billions in the Canadian oil sands, but those projects do not make returns for Canadians, oil companies, or US jobs unless the price of oil hovers around $85-$90 per barrel.

The conspiracy is that people are screwing with us to pretend like politicians are in control. In reality, the world is just changing. NASCAR is not changing, and their diversification strategy sucks. NASCAR is like USA 2004. Flying around in F22 raptors, killing t-squad, driving fullsize SUVs back to the McMansions. Gettin' rich flippin houses in the new economy. Don't talk sh*t cuz we're the best. Ooopsy. NASCAR will end up the same way. Change will be impossible until they are on life-support.

Intangible assessment of a highly theoretical industry, but the decision-making patterns are important.

Edited by phoenix101, 02 March 2012 - 01:27.


#124 phoenix101

phoenix101
  • Member

  • 238 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 02 March 2012 - 00:27

No it's just that by comparison that thread was reasoned and informed.


What are you saying? The marketing information from Polk is bunk? Sergio Marchionne didn't say that Chrysler want V8s to drop to 11% of the product sales mix?

Everything else is opinion and inference.

#125 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,719 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 02 March 2012 - 01:10

I think it's quite exciting when entire posts are repeated, just to add an answer. You feel you are getting so much more for your money.


Indeed.


#126 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 55,899 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 02 March 2012 - 01:11

We're talking about a racing championship that has never tried to be a manufacturer play ground. It's the most entertainment/customer angled series out there. They found a tech package and a rulebook that works for them and for the most part they've left it the hell alone because it continues to work.

NASCAR does have a 'marketing problem' but it's one of advertising that any media group has to adapt to.

#127 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 02 March 2012 - 02:00

Our oil imports are not alarmism. Furthermore, we have no leverage with China in the WTO regarding their currency practices when we have high oil deficits. How are you supposed to tell a trade partner to let their currency float more aggressively (to reduce trade imbalance) when you carelessly import $150B-$200B of oil for passenger cars? Hint: You can't. Trade imbalance is hurting the United States nearly as bad as the credit implosion so it's not something we can gloss over. I understand you don't like the liberal overtones, but the real reason we are reducing fuel consumption has little to do with carbon emissions, alternative energy, or banning evil V8s. Plus, the last time we had oil volatility, American industry switched to domestic natural gas (alternative energy at the time). OPEC and the Seven Sisters cried uncle. We didn't do nothing.

US governments do not have a major impact on the price of gas. Taxes are between 10%-15% of price per gallon, and we have a weird system of regulatory costs and subsidies that don't have a significant impact. While the current political party like to pretend they are making gasoline expensive, the oil companies are equally happy with stable high prices. They have invested billions in the Canadian oil sands, but those projects do not make returns for Canadians, oil companies, or US jobs unless the price of oil hovers around $85-$90 per barrel.

The conspiracy is that people are screwing with us to pretend like politicians are in control. In reality, the world is just changing. NASCAR is not changing, and their diversification strategy sucks. NASCAR is like USA 2004. Flying around in F22 raptors, killing t-squad, driving fullsize SUVs back to the McMansions. Gettin' rich flippin houses in the new economy. Don't talk sh*t cuz we're the best. Ooopsy. NASCAR will end up the same way. Change will be impossible until they are on life-support.

Intangible assessment of a highly theoretical industry, but it the decision-making patterns are important.


I'm still trying to understand how you can say that the pump price of 'gas' petrol in the States or most places outside of Europe for that matter is actually expensive in real terms.The fact is it's only local government imposed taxation that's making the stuff economically unviable in relation to wage rates.However,as I've said,if we can afford to run proper cars with the price of fuel in Europe then there's no reason why anyone in the States should be worried about fuel costs considering the price in Europe hasn't resulted in the end of all fast car use.So no the world isn't changing just yet although that's exactly what the Americans thought back in 1973 too.However if this was mine it would have the manual 'box option in it.




#128 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 02 March 2012 - 02:06

We're talking about a racing championship that has never tried to be a manufacturer play ground.


:eek: ??.

I think that was the whole object of the excercise at least throughout it's best days during the 1960's.


#129 phoenix101

phoenix101
  • Member

  • 238 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 02 March 2012 - 02:18

We're talking about a racing championship that has never tried to be a manufacturer play ground. It's the most entertainment/customer angled series out there. They found a tech package and a rulebook that works for them and for the most part they've left it the hell alone because it continues to work.

NASCAR does have a 'marketing problem' but it's one of advertising that any media group has to adapt to.


I've read the entire thread from the beginning, and as far as I can tell, no one has suggested that NASCAR should be a manufacturers playground. Todd brought it up b/c he had a little soapbox he needed to jump on. In NASCAR, the manufacturers are basically just suppliers. Adding more suppliers doesn't hurt the sport, especially since its just a fun marketing show and the brands are important. People get confused b/c NASCAR let the engines creep towards prototypes when they included Toyota.

The NASCAR formula has not been static. They started off racing production cars. Then they went to frame clips. Then prototype tubular space frames with body templates. Finally, they got to the COT basically-spec car. In 2013, they will supposedly allow manufacturer specific bodywork that has been aero balanced. The engines have changed along the way as well, but the rules are not very public. It was a ci/weight equivalency. Strict displacement. Reduced displacement. Air restrictors for long tracks. Surely, there have been scores of specifications added to the homologation papers during the same time. The last major change was bespoke engine blocks for Toyota, IIRC, which moved the sport towards prototype paradigms. This year they added fuel injection at the manufacturers request and a spec McLaren ECU. The rules change constantly, thus, rolling rulebook.

The brand has been constant. Turn one direction. Make one engine note. Involve Detroit muscle. Smash and bash and rub all the way to the finish line. Of those 4 fundamental elements, 3 of them are generally positive attributes, while no right turns is probably hurting their brand. Those are very general brand attributes, and NASCAR can do a lot more within that framework. They are too afraid to mess with NASCAR. They can no longer imagine lucrative success. They can only imagine the possibility of screwing it up. Either the legacy of Little Bill's retirement or Earnhardt's untimely death.

#130 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 02 March 2012 - 02:41

I've read the entire thread from the beginning, and as far as I can tell, no one has suggested that NASCAR should be a manufacturers playground.


That's exactly what I'm saying is the format that it should return to just as it was during it's best years.If not it just means yet more of the same ideas which we've seen since of a stage managed neutered show instead of a real 'race' series between production cars.


#131 phoenix101

phoenix101
  • Member

  • 238 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 02 March 2012 - 02:49

I'm still trying to understand how you can say that the pump price of 'gas' petrol in the States or most places outside of Europe for that matter is actually expensive in real terms.The fact is it's only local government imposed taxation that's making the stuff economically unviable in relation to wage rates.However,as I've said,if we can afford to run proper cars with the price of fuel in Europe then there's no reason why anyone in the States should be worried about fuel costs considering the price in Europe hasn't resulted in the end of all fast car use.So no the world isn't changing just yet although that's exactly what the Americans thought back in 1973 too.However if this was mine it would have the manual 'box option in it.


The EU demands 30% less oil than the United States. Furthermore, the EU more or less operates under the theory of balanced trade. Trade deficits and current account deficits are not something that trouble your economy, while in the US they are a serious problem, politically and economically. For this reason, the US auto industry and the US Federal government have agreed to CAFE 2025 which will make 5.0L V8s undesirable for a majority of the population.

Fuel is relatively cheap in the US compared to Europe, but we don't like paying for it. Furthermore, when the price of oil increases, our economy is more sensitive to the changes b/c the inflation percentage is much greater. Theoretically, we could put a 100% excise tax on the cost of gasoline, and after 30 years our economy might adjust, but, generally, Americans hate spending money on gasoline, even if it is "cheap". We also have a penchant for fuel-saving technology and Japanese cars, thus, Americans do strange things like buy 500% more Prius than Europeans, though gas is "cheap".

It's a weird world. What can I say? $4 gas takes the wind out of our sails, and it causes cost-push inflation throughout our entire economy.

#132 phoenix101

phoenix101
  • Member

  • 238 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 02 March 2012 - 02:58

That's exactly what I'm saying is the format that it should return to just as it was during it's best years.If not it just means yet more of the same ideas which we've seen since of a stage managed neutered show instead of a real 'race' series between production cars.


You're saying they should run production bodies. That's hardly a manufacturers playground. Anyone can walk into a dealership and buy a CTS-V, and NASCAR could homologate the entire race car, just like they do in GT3 or S2000 or other production-based series.

Manufacturers playground is like F1, Group C, IMSA GTO, or any series where the manufacturers and teams can exploit some kind of insurmountable advantage at extraordinary cost. Rules sets that force manufacturers to build stuff they don't want to build are equally problematic.

#133 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 5,645 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 02 March 2012 - 03:14

Is there an easier way to add people to the ignored user list?

Congrats phoenix101 you have made the team.

#134 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 02 March 2012 - 03:33

You're saying they should run production bodies. That's hardly a manufacturers playground. Anyone can walk into a dealership and buy a CTS-V, and NASCAR could homologate the entire race car, just like they do in GT3 or S2000 or other production-based series.

Manufacturers playground is like F1, Group C, IMSA GTO, or any series where the manufacturers and teams can exploit some kind of insurmountable advantage at extraordinary cost. Rules sets that force manufacturers to build stuff they don't want to build are equally problematic.


I'm saying in the type of competition which I'm referring to it was all about the manufacturer that took the credit for a win using production based cars,not seperate entrants using purpose built race formula based cars with very little,if any,actual production based technology.As such the object of the racing was all about wether it was GM or MOPAR or Ford for example who took the chequered flag and won the championship.The emphasis was never so much on the drivers and/or seperate team entrants such has been more the case in recent times compared to those years during the 1960's.Which seems logical considering that the cars are all made to an artificial,rigid,purpose built,race formula which doesn't allow any of the type of differences,at least in engine specs and power outputs and therefore actual performance levels,as would be found between actual production road cars as built by each seperate manufacturer and which I'm saying is the main issue and problem.

However there's no connection betwen that and Group C or F1 etc.While even GT3 is subject to more typical race type regulations which force equalisation between cars that should just be left to reflect the same type of differences which exist between the production cars which they are based on with no artificial equalisation measures whatsoever.


#135 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 55,899 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 02 March 2012 - 03:39

Going back to the racecars of the 1960s is dumb because they don't sell those road cars anymore. If the complaint is lack of road relevance in 2012 NASCAR, increasing the gap between Win on Sunday and Sell on Monday isn't the answer.

#136 phoenix101

phoenix101
  • Member

  • 238 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 02 March 2012 - 03:52

Is there an easier way to add people to the ignored user list?

Congrats phoenix101 you have made the team.


Do you have some kind of psychological problems that require you to ignore people you've never conversed with? Whatever, I guess its better for the gander.

#137 phoenix101

phoenix101
  • Member

  • 238 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 02 March 2012 - 03:58

I'm saying in the type of competition which I'm referring to it was all about the manufacturer that took the credit for a win using production based cars,not seperate entrants using purpose built race formula based cars with very little,if any,actual production based technology.As such the object of the racing was all about wether it was GM or MOPAR or Ford for example who took the chequered flag and won the championship.The emphasis was never so much on the drivers and/or seperate team entrants such has been more the case in recent times compared to those years during the 1960's.Which seems logical considering that the cars are all made to an artificial,rigid,purpose built,race formula which doesn't allow any of the type of differences,at least in engine specs and power outputs and therefore actual performance levels,as would be found between actual production road cars as built by each seperate manufacturer and which I'm saying is the main issue and problem.

However there's no connection betwen that and Group C or F1 etc.While even GT3 is subject to more typical race type regulations which force equalisation between cars that should just be left to reflect the same type of differences which exist between the production cars which they are based on with no artificial equalisation measures whatsoever.


Why do you think NASCAR and the manufacturers switched from production cars to bespoke space frames and strictly regulated bespoke engines?

#138 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 02 March 2012 - 04:07

as far as I can tell, no one has suggested that NASCAR should be a manufacturers playground.


Half of the manufacturers in NASCAR don't sell a pushrod engine anymore. The 358 OHV is a problem b/c it keeps manufacturers away.


Actually your whole overtone throughout this thread is that NASCAR is a big baddy who force long suffering manufacturer's hands.

And where have manufacturers actually complained?


#139 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 02 March 2012 - 04:10

Do you have some kind of psychological problems that require you to ignore people you've never conversed with? Whatever, I guess its better for the gander.


No he's just smarter than most of us but I'm trying hard to keep up, so bye bye ....


Advertisement

#140 phoenix101

phoenix101
  • Member

  • 238 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 02 March 2012 - 04:41

Actually your whole overtone throughout this thread is that NASCAR is a big baddy who force long suffering manufacturer's hands.

And where have manufacturers actually complained?


You are turning the thread into big baddy NASCAR rednecks are evil and punishing the manufacturers.

I'm saying NASCAR have little leadership. They've been on the back foot for a decade, dealing with Dale's death, Little Bill's departure, and the challenges of the first national TV contract. An article was written in The Economist as to whether or not manufacturer specific bodywork was going to start NASCAR on another long boom. The obvious answer is "no".

I've expressed disappointment with NASCAR management since the beginning. I'm not insulting any particular aspect of the sport as it is now. I'm insulting the negligent omissions from the NASCAR product, which would obviate the need for economics articles detailing NASCAR's bumpy road. Would it kill the sport if they added right turns by developing the banked Superspeedway concept? Would NASCAR die if they started developing new production relevant engine architecture for V8s?

NASCAR are afraid to put chocolate chips in their cookies b/c they don't think they will sell. Poor decision-making and lack of vision are failures whether you're rich or not.

#141 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,719 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 02 March 2012 - 05:09

All this bashing strikes me as pointless. NASCAR knows their target demographic, provides a product that sells like no other racing series except perhaps F1 and makes boatloads doing it. Why should they make any wholesale changes? It's not my cuppa but it's highly professionally and competently run. It simply ain't broke.

#142 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 02 March 2012 - 07:10

NASCAR knows their target demographic, provides a product that sells like no other racing series except perhaps F1 and makes boatloads doing it.


Exactly, they are packaged race/entertainment series and nothing to do with the outside world other than branding.


#143 jatwarks

jatwarks
  • Member

  • 202 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 02 March 2012 - 08:07

Which festival? 1600s on treaded tires?

Definitely.

This thread is making me wonder how many of us are actually watching any NASCAR.

Tried it once; fell asleep.

I admit that TV ruins the sense of speed in all motorsports, and that, never having attended a NASCAR race, I don't appreciate the spectacle as much as I, perhaps, might. With TV cameras panning with groups of cars, they seem to be racing in slow motion, as the relative speeds are so close, however high they are. The telephoto lens has killed speed much more effectively than any technical regulation could ever hope to do!

Shear speed has never been my thing, and that seems to be the attraction of NASCAR, so I wouldn't expect to be entertained by a live race either.

#144 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 5,645 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 02 March 2012 - 09:33

No he's just smarter than most of us but I'm trying hard to keep up, so bye bye ....

I'm not smarter, I just have a lower tolerance to pain.

#145 phoenix101

phoenix101
  • Member

  • 238 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 02 March 2012 - 10:27

All this bashing strikes me as pointless. NASCAR knows their target demographic, provides a product that sells like no other racing series except perhaps F1 and makes boatloads doing it. Why should they make any wholesale changes? It's not my cuppa but it's highly professionally and competently run. It simply ain't broke.


Without getting into the nitty-gritty details (that no one will read or understand anyway), motorsport in the terrestrial world is under threat from the digital world. A series that turns left for 3 hours, on 30 different versions of the same oval, is not in a good competitive position. Motorsports, in general, are not in a good position. While software studios engage their fans, and crowd-source as much as humanly possible, terrestrial motorsport is concerned with keeping the fans at an arms length.

When you view motorsport through the lens of entertainment, the picture is much less rosy. Most series can barely compete with TV programming, let alone on-demand interactive digital motorsport. Spec racing and BoP hold no promise for the future. Formulas and formats will have to change. Motorsport is fundamentally broken.

Edited by phoenix101, 02 March 2012 - 10:32.


#146 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 02 March 2012 - 11:08

Shear speed has never been my thing, and that seems to be the attraction of NASCAR, so I wouldn't expect to be entertained by a live race either.


It's a shame you don't 'get it', no disrespect meant, as I didn't for many years then one day I was watching the Daytona 500 and it struck me - the strategies that play out on track are amazing (ruined a bit by the recent trailer racing though).

You will see 3 to 10 guys working with each other to get themselves to the front then become mortal enemies once they are there, sometimes pushing one out and he might go from 2nd to 15th within a few laps then he gangs up with others to get himself/them back to the front - and so it goes on, really amazing stuff (long tracks, don't care much for the short track stuff).

So try again and watch for the thinking racing rather than the redneck racing and it may just surprise you.


#147 jatwarks

jatwarks
  • Member

  • 202 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 02 March 2012 - 11:21

When you view motorsport through the lens of entertainment, the picture is much less rosy. Most series can barely compete with TV programming, let alone on-demand interactive digital motorsport. Spec racing and BoP hold no promise for the future. Formulas and formats will have to change. Motorsport is fundamentally broken.

I agree.

Retro race series', for the likes of us, will be the only surviving motorsport, while we're still around to watch it.

We've already lost the next generation of potential fans; subsequent generations won't be interested in watching, when they can compete themselves in high-tech virtual racing across the internet.

In 20 years some teenager will be more famous as motorsport world champion, and richer, than Seb Vettel is now, without leaving their lounge.

In 50 years our kids entire life experience will be provided by computers !

#148 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,362 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 02 March 2012 - 12:02

All this bashing strikes me as pointless. NASCAR knows their target demographic, provides a product that sells like no other racing series except perhaps F1 and makes boatloads doing it. Why should they make any wholesale changes? It's not my cuppa but it's highly professionally and competently run. It simply ain't broke.


What is this thread even about, exactly? I can't make hide nor hair of it.

#149 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,491 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 02 March 2012 - 12:19

Nor me - and I have tried...

#150 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 5,645 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 02 March 2012 - 12:21

I didn't try.