Jump to content


Photo

Have NASCAR got it wrong?


  • Please log in to reply
239 replies to this topic

#151 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 02 March 2012 - 12:35

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


Ended up the usual "pushrods and turn left" bigoted jibberish.


Advertisement

#152 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,878 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 02 March 2012 - 13:45

Pffft. Most NASCAR drivers spend their lives with the wheel to the right.

#153 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 02 March 2012 - 13:49

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.


I think within that is contained a lot of the problem in the mindset of American car enthusiasts.Firstly the EU,at least in Britain's case,certainly doesn't operate under the theory of balanced trade although Germany is probably the closest at getting it right.However assuming that your argument,about Americans not wanting to run decent cars at $4 per gallon, (admittedly US gallons) is correct,then it's obvious that they'd all obviously prefer to walk at the $10 per gallon that we have to pay bearing in mind just how bad the economy and wage levels actually are here. :eek: :lol:

However having said that it's obvious that the type of cars in question aren't really going to be used as general local commuting and shopping cars.

I think the US auto industry and the American government really need to be told to shove their ideas of CAFE where the sun don't shine and the idea seems to have that commie sob Obama's grubby finger prints all over it.


#154 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 02 March 2012 - 13:57

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


Because just like the US government and most other 'racing' organisations they've turned into control freaks.Which as I've said just means that when we go to watch a motor 'race' what we're actually watching is a stage managed event which is more of a show than a real race in which the fastest car wins.


#155 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,878 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 02 March 2012 - 15:00

'Free Market Racing' would work if motor sport didn't live within a subsection of the economy.

#156 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 02 March 2012 - 17:05

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 !

ROFLMAO-- thumb twittlers unite, you will be millionaires.

If computer games are the future, society deserves any misery in encounters.

Stupidity has just rewards.


#157 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,086 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 02 March 2012 - 17:27



#158 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 02 March 2012 - 17:29

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


They adapted the tube-frame not related to any thing cluster-f deal because FORD quit making a RWD and two-door vehicles that could be homologated for NASCAR racing.

By this time Big Bill was dead and his son was not even a shadow of his father as far as racing management.
When NASCAR allowed FORD to put a farce on the track, Chevy figured if they can do so can we, so FWD 4 dorr crap-wagons became the farce parent.
When Chevy built the Monte Carlo body which was supposed to be their ace hole just for NASCAR and it turned out to be a turd, rather than do as Big Bill would have done and told Chevy that is your problem, Little Bill caved in and let Chevy run something not even close to the shape of the street car.

As far as engines go two reasons they use non-street based engines is: A: NASCAR told Chevy they could not use the LS, B: NASCAR told Dodge that there block gave them a bore advantage so they changed the rules so that using a production block was a waste of time, C: Ford quit putting push-rod engines in their vehicles, even though they were the last manufacturer to use a street based engine.

Washington is involved as their sh-t for brain arrogant, we are god laws, killed family sedans because asinine mpg rules made producing and selling truck and utility vehicles more profitable and easier than trying to fight or deal with Washington passenger car laws.
I.e. that helped kill the RWD passenger car.

One last factor was for Detroit, FWD crap-wagons were cheaper to produce and Detroit did not care that they are more expensive to repair, have performance disadvantages compared to RWD, and when they get old rather being capable of being fixed comparatively cheaply, at home by many owners, so as to soldier on for decades, they are pretty much junk worth scrap metal within a decade.

My cousin had Dodge Intrepid which a utility truck owner backed into the front wheel of. The fender repair was no worse than any car, but what the impact to the front wheel did to the drive train, caused the car to be scrapped. It was rust free and had never been in any other accident, but repair was more than the car was worth.
Had that happened to a RWD car, I or my cousin and I could have replaced any front suspension pieces needed and fixed it ourselves

Edited by Bob Riebe, 02 March 2012 - 20:29.


#159 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,878 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 02 March 2012 - 18:12

Yeah but if a RWD car had significant rear end damage...

This has become an argument about wishing RWD was more prevalent on the road. Which is honestly nothing more than nostalgia.

Advertisement

#160 phoenix101

phoenix101
  • Member

  • 268 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 02 March 2012 - 18:52

They adapted the tube-frame not related to any thing cluster-f because FORD quit making a RWD vehicle that could be homologated for NASCAR racing.

By this time Big Bill was dead and his son was not even a shadow of his father as far as racing management.
When NASCAR allowed FORD to put a farce on the track, Chevy figured if they can do so can we, so FWD 4 dorr crap-wagons became the farce parent.
When Chevy built the Monte Carlo body which was supposed to be their ace hole just for NASCAR and it turned out to be a turd, rather than do as Big Bill would have done and told Chevy that is your problem, Little Bill caved in and let Chevy run something not even close to the shape of the street car.

As far as engines go two reasons they use non-street based engines is: A: NASCAR told Chevy they could not use the LS, B: NASCAR told Dodge that there block gave them a bore advantage so they changed the rules that using a production block was a waste of time, C: Ford quit putting push-rod engines in their vehicles, even though they were the last manufacturer to use a street based engine.

Washington is involved as their sh-t for brain arrogant, we are god laws, killed family sedans because asinine mpg rules made producing and selling truck and utility vehicles more profitable and easier than trying to fight or deal with Washington passenger car laws.
I.e. that helped kill the RWD passenger car.

One last factor was for Detroit, FWD crap-wagons were cheaper to produce and Detroit did not care that they are more expensive to repair, have performance disadvantages compared to RWD, and when they get old rather being capable of being fixed comparatively cheaply, at home by many owners, so as to soldier on for decades, they are pretty much junk worth scrap metal within a decade.

My cousin had Dodge Intrepid which a utility truck owner backed into the front wheel of. The fender repair was no worse than any car, but what the impact to the front wheel did to the drive train, caused the car to be scrapped. It was rust free and had never been in any other accident, but repair was more that the car was worth.
Had that happened to a RWD car, I or my cousin and I could have replace any front suspension pieces needed and fixed it ourselves


Yes, thanks for the good info. A few things I'd not heard before. I was hoping that if VP answered the question, he would realize there was a long list of political, technical, and governmental regulatory reasons why NASCAR looks the way it looks today. If NASCAR were to return to production bodies, all of these complexities would have to be unwound, or cars would simply re-evolve into spec tube frames with bespoke engines.

The government definitely killed American V8 saloons with CAFE regulations, and I doubt the new footprint rules are going to alleviate the situation.

#161 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,086 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 02 March 2012 - 19:01

They could just allow the manufacturers to convert their FWDs to RWD. and still run original bodies. It would have made series like WTCC much better.
Its quite a common thing in national rallycross series.

Edited by MatsNorway, 02 March 2012 - 19:03.


#162 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,878 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 02 March 2012 - 19:47

So like they do with the Toyota Camry.

#163 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 02 March 2012 - 20:07

Yes, thanks for the good info. A few things I'd not heard before. I was hoping that if VP answered the question, he would realize there was a long list of political, technical, and governmental regulatory reasons why NASCAR looks the way it looks today. If NASCAR were to return to production bodies, all of these complexities would have to be unwound, or cars would simply re-evolve into spec tube frames with bespoke engines.

The government definitely killed American V8 saloons with CAFE regulations, and I doubt the new footprint rules are going to alleviate the situation.


I'm trying to work out where you're getting your evidence that big V8 rwd saloons are dead :eek: :stoned: .

Not yet they aren't by a long way and anything that the control freak governments have proposed for the future can be undone simply by the manufacturers refusing to comply and their customers voting out any of the present congress if they refuse to change their minds.The same applies in regard to NASCAR.If it refuses to return the series to what it should be (unlimited production saloon car racing),peferably with a new open international format,in which the only rules are that the thing must be in production and available for customers to buy as a road saloon car.Then natural selection says under those criterea those cars would obviously be RWD large capacity forced induction saloons if their entrants want to stand a chance of winning anything on big oval and big road tracks like Le Mans.

I've posted a video of the CTSV here's a decent European competitor in addition to the XFR and the BMW M5.

http://www.insidelin...-and-video.html

Therefore the future seems to be in the hands of car enthusiasts around the world and it's up to us wether we want to keep the original idea of NASCAR alive and make it even better than it was during the 1960's,or just let what is now just an over regulated,irrelevant series go before the combination of NASCAR's rules and the manufacturers and the government's ridiculous ideas on the future of car production and design,eventually ends it anyway.

Edited by Vanishing Point, 02 March 2012 - 20:12.


#164 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,878 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 02 March 2012 - 20:17

If people loved production racing something like Speed World Challenge or Grand-Am Cup would be top billing in North America.

The 24 Hours of LeMons would beat Daytona, Chump Car would have more prestige than the Indianapolis 500.

#165 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 02 March 2012 - 20:24

Yeah but if a RWD car had significant rear end damage...

This has become an argument about wishing RWD was more prevalent on the road. Which is honestly nothing more than nostalgia.

One winter a car ran a red-light, so late and so fast, it spun my '66 Plymouth Fury around 180 degrees over a curb, neatly slicing off a road sign. (There was a semi in the turn lane, so I could not see it coming. Had I not waited briefly because of local red-light runners, it probably would have gone through behind me.)

I hit me in the rear wheel just behind the axle center.
I drove the car home, replaced the bent wheel, pulled the fender out and drove the car for another three years.

So your rear-end analogy does not hold up.

More RWD cars were being planned by Detroit, especially GM, including a new Cadillac V-8, until Bush's Washington stuck its nose where it did not belong some years back.

Edited by Bob Riebe, 02 March 2012 - 20:31.


#166 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,878 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 02 March 2012 - 20:25

What are you, the NTSB? :lol:

#167 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 02 March 2012 - 20:36

They could just allow the manufacturers to convert their FWDs to RWD. and still run original bodies. It would have made series like WTCC much better.
Its quite a common thing in national rallycross series.

Some Chevrolet employees did that to a Lumina/Monte Carlo, with the idea of marketing a kit to do so.

It was so difficult and time consuming, one car was built and the idea died.

It turned to, cut to the chase, one was doing the equivalent of putting a fairly highly modified Lumina body on an entirely new chassis.

Edited by Bob Riebe, 02 March 2012 - 20:36.


#168 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 02 March 2012 - 21:22

If people loved production racing something like Speed World Challenge or Grand-Am Cup would be top billing in North America.

The 24 Hours of LeMons would beat Daytona, Chump Car would have more prestige than the Indianapolis 500.


I don't think that any of those have any relevance to 1960's NASCAR and even the GT classes at Le Mans and in FIA GT are subject to restrictor and engine capacity etc equalisation rules compared to what is available in their production counterparts.Unlike the days of the Cobra v Ferrari sports car battles.

However if 1960's NASCAR didn't have a good following,during the 1960's,it seems obvious that the manufacturers wouldn't have wanted to invest in the 1960's horsepower races like those between Ford and MOPAR at that time and the series would probably never have survived into the modern era anyway.

Edited by Vanishing Point, 02 March 2012 - 21:24.


#169 phoenix101

phoenix101
  • Member

  • 268 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 02 March 2012 - 21:49

I'm trying to work out where you're getting your evidence that big V8 rwd saloons are dead :eek: :stoned: .


I'm looking at the non-existent sales numbers, and the product mix, which relegates V8 power saloons to irrelevant-halo-product-status.

As entertaining as Group N (or production-based) rules would be, they won't fix the lack of V8 sales b/c the volumes are too low and the fuel prices to high for small/big blocks to be affordable. NASCAR needs to get the V8 ready or 21st century high-volume production, or they need to search for other ways to get road relevance. It will need to be more substantial than manufacturer specific bodywork. If not updating the V8, they should see if they can get the manufacturers to develop forced-induction miniblocks. They can be used in NNS and CWTS. Maybe the manufacturers will green light them for production to replace V6s.

NASCAR need more production-relevance regarding the engines, and they need to start turning right. If they don't have big plans in the works, they aren't going to grow. Worse still, the manufacturers will pressure them to implement changes they don't like. The manufacturers are most interested in direct sales relevance, while NASCAR do not seem to care one bit.

#170 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,878 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 02 March 2012 - 22:14

IT IS 2012

#171 phoenix101

phoenix101
  • Member

  • 268 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 02 March 2012 - 23:12

IT IS 2012


We're not driving around in cars from the 1980s (1960s before Daytona). You need to forward this message to NASCAR. If they need to be in 2.0L turbocharged inline-four-bangers, feel free to let them know the 21st century has dawned.

I think the rest of us are more content to analyze how V8 sedans, then all V8s, have died an ignoble and acrimonious death. Also, we think that the production market has a dearth of decent exhaust notes. In my last post I floated the idea of a blown miniblock. That's a V4, if you're unfamiliar with the parlance. Blown four-cylinders are, like, so 2012.

Killing the V6 with a blown V4. Now that could get interesting. Those blown V4s would sound like their great great grandpappies who still race in NASCAR Sprint Cup.

Edited by phoenix101, 02 March 2012 - 23:12.


#172 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 02 March 2012 - 23:33

We're not driving around in cars from the 1980s (1960s before Daytona). You need to forward this message to NASCAR. If they need to be in 2.0L turbocharged inline-four-bangers, feel free to let them know the 21st century has dawned.

I think the rest of us are more content to analyze how V8 sedans, then all V8s, have died an ignoble and acrimonious death. Also, we think that the production market has a dearth of decent exhaust notes. In my last post I floated the idea of a blown miniblock. That's a V4, if you're unfamiliar with the parlance. Blown four-cylinders are, like, so 2012.

Killing the V6 with a blown V4. Now that could get interesting. Those blown V4s would sound like their great great grandpappies who still race in NASCAR Sprint Cup.


So you're all about downsizing using mickey mouse engines in probably equally mickey mouse cars and you want ovals replaced with mickey mouse tracks to suit your mickey mouse cars.I think what you're looking for is something like our so called British 'Touring Cars' on mini tracks built somewhere like Disney World where you'll probably find plenty of fans who wouldn't know the difference between a CTSV to a Honda Civic.Or at least if not now they soon won't when they've all let Obama finish with his idea of wrecking US car culture. :stoned: :rotfl:

Edited by Vanishing Point, 02 March 2012 - 23:35.


#173 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 02 March 2012 - 23:34

IT IS 2012


I know that's why I prefer historic racing until/unless someone comes up with something at least as good let alone better.

#174 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,878 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 03 March 2012 - 00:26

If you want 1960s style racing, that's fine.

If you want road relevant, or production based, or whatever term you want to use; style racing that is also fine.

But you can't have both. Because it's no longer the 1960s.

#175 phoenix101

phoenix101
  • Member

  • 268 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 03 March 2012 - 01:30

So you're all about downsizing using mickey mouse engines in probably equally mickey mouse cars and you want ovals replaced with mickey mouse tracks to suit your mickey mouse cars.I think what you're looking for is something like our so called British 'Touring Cars' on mini tracks built somewhere like Disney World where you'll probably find plenty of fans who wouldn't know the difference between a CTSV to a Honda Civic.Or at least if not now they soon won't when they've all let Obama finish with his idea of wrecking US car culture. :stoned: :rotfl:


No. My post clearly said that the 358 OHV/OHC(maybe) would STILL be in NASCAR Sprint Cup. The blown mini-block would be used to replace naturally-aspirated V6s in production. The point of the production mini-block is to use sound and basic performance-V architecture to create a link between production cars and NASCAR. Odds are at least 100:1 that the mini-block will never get built, but I think you can understand the concept of creating V8 sound with fewer cylinders, less displacement, and less fuel consumption. The big V8s will still exist.

I only know of one mini-block that has ever been built for production in the last 40 years. LINK It's built by Katech for Motus Motorcycles, and the engine will allegedly be available in crate form. It's not Mickey Mouse, and it could potentially recreate the American pony car segment. While Ross might think it's too 1960s, GM unveiled a new Gen Y pony car with RWD. It wasn't a great concept, but they see the need.

#176 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 894 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 03 March 2012 - 02:25

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


Magoo,

The OP linked to a short article in the Economist proposing NASCAR should make regulation changes in order to grow revenues for some of the teams and race promoters. The article was more about the business of NASCAR, and not NASCAR's technical sophistication (or lack thereof). But even from a business standpoint, the Economist misses most of the relevant issues.

First, the Economist seems to think that NASCAR is in bad shape because some teams have far more financial resources than others. All racing series are like this, even at the amateur/club racing level. It's just the nature of the sport.

The Economist also seems to think that NASCAR's success is because fans can relate to the appearance of the race cars. "......one of NASCAR’s attractions is that its cars look like those in fans’ driveways." Once again, the Economist demonstrates its ignorance of why NASCAR's business model works. Cup cars don't bear any resemblance to the car of an average NASCAR fan, and the fans don't care. Instead, NASCAR fans relate to the drivers, teams, and crews. The fans care more about the show and the atmosphere. Most fans love NASCAR because they feel that the sport "belongs" to them, it is uniquely American and an ingrained part of southern culture. NASCAR racing is popular because it rebels against modern forms of political correctness, like environmentalism, rather than conforming to them.

Lastly, the Economist thinks NASCAR racing overall is in financial trouble because the revenues of some teams and race promoters has declined in the past 3 years. Unfortunately, the Economist fails to appreciate that almost every other US business in entertainment or marketing has suffered financially as bad, or worse, than NASCAR. NASCAR didn't get where it is by thinking short term. NASCAR survived much worse US economic conditions, such as those in the late 70's. It will do just fine in the years to come.

Hope that helps clear things up for you.

Regards,
riff_raff


#177 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 03 March 2012 - 03:31

If you want 1960s style racing, that's fine.

If you want road relevant, or production based, or whatever term you want to use; style racing that is also fine.

But you can't have both. Because it's no longer the 1960s.


What I'm saying is just the 1960's NASCAR 'idea' of production car racing in the sense of unrestricted big engined production cars not the lookalike purpose built big Karts using the restricted undersized engines of today.However unbelievably some seem to be saying lets continue with such garbage with,even worse,the option of even smaller engines used on smaller tracks.Whereas what I'm saying is the 1960's ideas of racing brought up to date using 2012 style big engined unrestricted production saloons like the CTSV and to add some interest some international competition like big engined european saloon cars like V8 Mercedes and Jaguars both on the big ovals in the US and on the big road tracks like Le Mans in Europe considering that all the cars in question are all sold as production cars in both the US market and in the Euro market.


#178 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 03 March 2012 - 03:45

Magoo,

The OP linked to a short article in the Economist proposing NASCAR should make regulation changes in order to grow revenues for some of the teams and race promoters. The article was more about the business of NASCAR, and not NASCAR's technical sophistication (or lack thereof). But even from a business standpoint, the Economist misses most of the relevant issues.

First, the Economist seems to think that NASCAR is in bad shape because some teams have far more financial resources than others. All racing series are like this, even at the amateur/club racing level. It's just the nature of the sport.

The Economist also seems to think that NASCAR's success is because fans can relate to the appearance of the race cars. "......one of NASCAR’s attractions is that its cars look like those in fans’ driveways." Once again, the Economist demonstrates its ignorance of why NASCAR's business model works. Cup cars don't bear any resemblance to the car of an average NASCAR fan, and the fans don't care. Instead, NASCAR fans relate to the drivers, teams, and crews.NASCAR racing is popular because it rebels against modern forms of political correctness, like environmentalism, rather than conforming to them.

Lastly, the Economist thinks NASCAR racing overall is in financial trouble because the revenues of some teams and race promoters has declined in the past 3 years. Unfortunately, the Economist fails to appreciate that almost every other US business in entertainment or marketing has suffered financially as bad, or worse, than NASCAR. NASCAR didn't get where it is by thinking short term. NASCAR survived much worse US economic conditions, such as those in the late 70's. It will do just fine in the years to come.

Hope that helps clear things up for you.

Regards,
riff_raff


It's really unbelievable to think that something which could be as good as NASCAR was during the 1960's has been reduced to a series that is just really overegulated big engined big Karts made up to look like saloon cars and the fans are so brainwashed by the change in the object of the excercise,from racing proper cars,to a staged managed show,in which the heros are no longer the big US manufacturers but 'drivers,teams and crews'.

Meanwhile,ironically,in this case,all of the rebelling,against the rule makers,political correctness,and environmentalism,seems to be coming from a solitary voice in the wilderness this side of the Atlantic in England not from Dixie in the face of calls to take the series even further from it's roots and,what should be,it's rebellious ideals than it is now.Most of which seem to be coming from 'over there'. :drunk: :stoned:

Edited by Vanishing Point, 03 March 2012 - 03:50.


#179 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,878 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 03 March 2012 - 04:00

Jags in NASCAR and races at Le Mans.

Right.



Advertisement

#180 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 03 March 2012 - 08:55

This has become an argument about wishing RWD was more prevalent on the road. Which is honestly nothing more than nostalgia.


Nostalgia that's apparently winning over if you look at current trends and plans manufacturers have - just have a look at the current publicity the Toyota 86 is getting worldwide.

Of course the beancounters will never let them go away from FWD cause it's just too cheap to make and most people don't care but the ones that do care are a big enough market to swing it, Kia and Hyundai seem to think so along with others.

Will be interesting to see what happens with the Australian Ford Falcon sales when it inevitably goes FWD.




#181 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 03 March 2012 - 08:58

They could just allow the manufacturers to convert their FWDs to RWD. and still run original bodies. It would have made series like WTCC much better.
Its quite a common thing in national rallycross series.


This would fix the WRC in one simple hit.

#182 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,878 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 03 March 2012 - 11:55

WRC is one place I would definitely like to see RWD

#183 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 943 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 03 March 2012 - 12:39

Jags in NASCAR and races at Le Mans.

Right.


Jaguar has won a NASCAR race.


#184 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,878 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 03 March 2012 - 13:01

Yeah, in the 1950s :p

NASCAR isn't going to become a DTM/ITC-series.

#185 jatwarks

jatwarks
  • Member

  • 202 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 03 March 2012 - 14:17

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

I accept your point, and agree that strategy is often overlooked by those wanting instant entertainment.

Trouble is, TV coverage would have to be presented in a way that followed such strategic thinking, with full, live coverage that I don't have access to; highlights coverage would not come close.

And, attending the races is not an option for a UK resident like me.

#186 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 03 March 2012 - 14:19

Nostalgia that's apparently winning over if you look at current trends and plans manufacturers have - just have a look at the current publicity the Toyota 86 is getting worldwide.

Of course the beancounters will never let them go away from FWD cause it's just too cheap to make and most people don't care but the ones that do care are a big enough market to swing it, Kia and Hyundai seem to think so along with others.

Will be interesting to see what happens with the Australian Ford Falcon sales when it inevitably goes FWD.


^ +1.

All it takes then is someone in the industry to tell the beancounters (bankers) and the environmentalists everyone has had enough of their interference and for the governments to stop taxing road fuel and then for the manufacturers to start making VXR8 Bathursts and CTSV's etc etc at an affordable price and suddenly it's the 1960's all over again but even better.Let the good times roll. :clap:

However as things stand it seems like it's just a load of miserable,killjoy,interfering,green voting,liberal do gooders who are all that's standing in the way (but unbelievably also it seems that there's a load of southern US states senators and car enthusiasts who are helping them to do it :eek: ).

Edited by Vanishing Point, 03 March 2012 - 14:27.


#187 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 03 March 2012 - 14:22

Yeah, in the 1950s :p

NASCAR isn't going to become a DTM/ITC-series.


I don't think that there's any connection between the 1960's ideas of unrestricted 7 litre + production car NASCAR series type racing and DTM.


#188 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,878 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 03 March 2012 - 15:53

Listen dipshit, pick a side. Either you want 1960s historic racing or you want current luxury car RWD racers. They're not going to race an E-Type with a fire bottle at the Nordschleiffe nor a Cadillac GT car at Le Mans. Whether Cup or Nationwide.

#189 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 03 March 2012 - 17:02

I only know of one mini-block that has ever been built for production in the last 40 years. LINK It's built by Katech for Motus Motorcycles, and the engine will allegedly be available in crate form. It's not Mickey Mouse, and it could potentially recreate the American pony car segment. While Ross might think it's too 1960s, GM unveiled a new Gen Y pony car with RWD. It wasn't a great concept, but they see the need.

Pony cars already exist and the market it doing just fine. (it would make sense for NASCAR to adapt those as the bae cars for the cup)

One item U.S. car mags often quoted as being wrong with the last small Camaros and the small Mustang was they were TOO SMALL. They were cramped and one could only carry a fraction of the load, of any type, the pre-74 cars could carry.
That was important to the secretary type car which was the life blood of pony cars, and in the new one that point has been addressed.
Now if they would just drop the belt line down where it should be.


#190 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 03 March 2012 - 17:11

Yeah, in the 1950s :p

NASCAR isn't going to become a DTM/ITC-series.

Mainly because the current France boy has not even a tiny fraction of instinct and knowledge that Big Bill France did.
Bill was a former racer and a gear-head; Brian is a panti-waist metrosexual.

A series could be made with production chassis (the space-frame roll cage would function as the real chassis as was done in the Trans-Am) but unless Detroit demanded it, it will not happen.

To those who keep saying "unresticted" NASCAR engines have NEVER BEEN unrestricted, they had homologation requirements and only approved carbs could be used.
Gear ratios, jet settings etc. were open to what was available over the counter.


#191 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,878 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 03 March 2012 - 17:23

Brian France is Metrosexual? Do you live in a mudpit?

#192 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 03 March 2012 - 18:05

Brian France is Metrosexual? Do you live in a mudpit?

Anyone who says in an interview, as he did, he is soooo busy and overwhelmed he cannot sit down and enjoy a NASCAR race, is a whiny metrosexual little boy.

He reminds me more of Martha Stewart than his grandfather.

#193 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 03 March 2012 - 18:05

Brian France is Metrosexual? Do you live in a mudpit?

Anyone who says in an interview, as he did, he is soooo busy and overwhelmed he cannot sit down and enjoy a NASCAR race, is a whiny metrosexual little boy.

He reminds me more of Martha Stewart than his grandfather.

#194 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,554 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 03 March 2012 - 18:20

Brian France is Metrosexual?


To be a true metrosexual, I would think one's suit would have to fit properly.

I think I know something about NASCAR, and I think I know something about the North American passenger car market. And yet this discussion makes no sense whatsoever.

#195 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,878 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 03 March 2012 - 18:35

I'm genuinely confused as to what we're arguing over. I think time travel? Because we want road car relevant racing, but we want a 1960s rule package.

Who knew the move to EFI would be so divisive.

#196 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 03 March 2012 - 20:46

Listen dipshit, pick a side. Either you want 1960s historic racing or you want current luxury car RWD racers. They're not going to race an E-Type with a fire bottle at the Nordschleiffe nor a Cadillac GT car at Le Mans. Whether Cup or Nationwide.


I said what I want is '1960's type' rules which would allow unrestricted 7 Litre + engines in production saloons.In which case why wouldn't they want to race the current supercharged CTSV and cars like it ??.

I didn't say anywhere that I want 1960's historic racing other than in the case of preferring to watch that than current NASCAR and most other forms of so called modern day 'racing'.It's not my fault that you seem to have some sort of malfunction in being able to understand,what should be,simple,easy to understand,ideas.

Edited by Vanishing Point, 03 March 2012 - 20:47.


#197 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 03 March 2012 - 20:54

Mainly because the current France boy has not even a tiny fraction of instinct and knowledge that Big Bill France did.
Bill was a former racer and a gear-head; Brian is a panti-waist metrosexual.

A series could be made with production chassis (the space-frame roll cage would function as the real chassis as was done in the Trans-Am) but unless Detroit demanded it, it will not happen.

To those who keep saying "unresticted" NASCAR engines have NEVER BEEN unrestricted, they had homologation requirements and only approved carbs could be used.
Gear ratios, jet settings etc. were open to what was available over the counter.


Yes but what I'm saying is what reason would anyone have for saying,that current production forced induction 6-7 Litre engined production saloons,such as the CTSV,even with the LS 7 motor assuming it was made available as a production option, couldn't be homologated for a present day production car based NASCAR series ???.


#198 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,878 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 03 March 2012 - 20:57

Wtf would we want to do that? Does something magical happen when we get to 7 litres?

#199 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 03 March 2012 - 21:01

To be a true metrosexual, I would think one's suit would have to fit properly.

I think I know something about NASCAR, and I think I know something about the North American passenger car market. And yet this discussion makes no sense whatsoever.


If a supercharged LS 7 powered CTSV no longer makes sense in the North American market then the term 'metro sexual' or even worse would apply there in general compared to the better days of the 1960's. :rotfl:


Advertisement

#200 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 03 March 2012 - 21:15

Wtf would we want to do that? Does something magical happen when we get to 7 litres?


If anyone thinks that they can make a production saloon fitted with something much smaller go much faster there'd be nothing in the rules to stop them.But I thought it was all because of the fact that there really ain't no substitute for cubic inches that created all the whingeing from competitors getting beat by bigger engined opposition that created all the bullcrap rules over the years related to 'equalisation' by way of restrictors,capacity limits,and weight penalties in most types of so called 'racing'.