19 replies to this topic

[simpson]

I’m interested in technology of any kind of race car, but I usually lean toward open-wheelers.

I see that NASCAR is changing their cookie-cutter car shapes and this made me wonder when the previous design took over from the real (albeit very modified) road-going cars that used to be raced.

There’s a brief history of NASCAR machinery at NASCAR.com, and I think that it was way back around the late 60s or early 70s that the racecar was made fairly standard.

This would seem to have stopped most technical innovation as well as the fans having less product identity. I suppose that the introduction of unit body construction and making the road cars more efficient aerodynamically made the cars less distinct in the showroom, so why not on the race track too?

Anyway, my question is, are there any books or information on the web on this era where the cars switched to the cars of the past couple of decades?

[John B]

Aerodynamics took on a larger role following Bill Elliott and Ford's run in 1985; the following year GM cars featured sloped rear windows instead of the angular ones they had run in the years following downsizing in 1981. The cars were still quite distinctive by brand, then in about 1989-90 Ford produced a Thunderbird which IIRC seemed to serve as the basis for the more rounded cars we see today. The 1995 Monte Carlo replaced the boxier Lumina and from that point on GM, Ford, and later Dodge basically rounded and reworked the existing bodies to what we have today.

An interesting question I think is worth considering with this Car of Tomorrow unibody is, would NASCAR's history be any better without the years when a particular marque was dominant? Elliott's 1985 season is well-remembered and got the sport a tremendous amount of publicity, more than any other year during that period when there was parity. 1992 was dominated by Ford, but also was one of the most memorable years, and to a lesser extent 1995, when it was all Chevy with a Gordon vs. Earnhardt showdown.

[McGuire]

The first step to the common-template body was the homologation of the four-door Taurus as a NASCAR Winston Cup car. Since there was no way to fit a real (4-door) Taurus body on a Winston Cup chassis, a "Taurus" body was invented from whole cloth via negotiations between Ford and NASCAR. When the Dodge Inteprid entered Winston Cup, NASCAR instructed Dodge to base it upon on the Taurus template, not on the production Intrepid. When the next-gen Monte Carlo was introduced, it too was based on the Taurus template. The new Toyota body also owes its profile to the fictional NASCAR "Taurus."

You will recall there was considerable controversy when NASCAR first suggested the "common template" concept several years ago. Well, NASCAR went ahead and adopted the policy anyway; they just stopped using the term "common template." There are four sets of body templates in the inspection garage -- color keyed for Ford, Chevy, Dodge and Toyota -- but they are all virtually identical. Only the quarter windows and front header panel are different, for branding purposes.

And at the moment NASCAR is doing the same thing with engines.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally posted by McGuire

And at the moment NASCAR is doing the same thing with engines. [/B]

NASCAR is doing with the engines, as of now, what Detroit is allowing.
It was on the ???ski - NASCAR site several years ago that the France boys drive to a generic engine came to a screeching halt when Detroit said " go ahead do it, we will be gone tomorrow."

The France boys want a generic engine, but Detroit, has so far, shown they are not complete idiots, but the Japanese scam will probably determine the future of NASCAR one way, or the other.

The France boys fear one thing more than a Detroit pull-out, the sponsor to pull-out.
Bob

[HDonaldCapps]

Allan Girdler did a nice book on NASCAR development some years and John Craft has done several over the years. There is another recent one that came out within the past year or so, but various other ones as well including one on the Mopar Winged cars a few years ago.

Actually, once you strip away the usual knee-jerk hysteria and bashing and counterattacks, NASCAR can't win with all the various factions regardless of what it does. If it used templates that made cars conform there would be the usual hue and cry when adjustments were made for one make or another and some of the standardized templates problems have been mentioned here.

They have made a decision to pursue the path they are on. Pursuing that Course of Action carries it own problems, but it is their series. NASCAR has survived the lack of factory support in the past and could probably do so again, especially with the azimuth along which they are heading.

Look back and closely peer into the history and background of NASCAR and its top divisions, what you will see is that NASCAR is very pragmatic. Keep in mind that it still considers the teams and drivers as independent contractors to whom they owe little to nothing outside honoring any pursues owed at the end of the day.

[WDH74]

There is a pretty good book called "NASCAR: The Wild Years" (I forget the author at the moment) that focuses on the late fifties and sixties, up to the Mopar wing cars. It makes for some interesting reading. Published by CarTech.

Originally posted by John B
Aerodynamics took on a larger role following Bill Elliott and Ford's run in 1985; the following year GM cars featured sloped rear windows instead of the angular ones they had run in the years following downsizing in 1981.

That would've been the Monte Carlo, correct? ISTR that GM had to homologate the window, so we were then blessed with the Monte Carlo "sportsback" or something similar. I still see Montes with the fastback window once in a while, but they seem to have attained a sort of collectible status so they tend to be in good shape and not used in winter. I always found that interesting because by then the cars were pretty far from stock, as opposed to the decades before.

-William

[Allen Brown]

So is it just the body that is a template? Who builds the rest of the car and how much freedom do they have in what they build.

I've always been perplexed by NASCAR but I'm trying to understand more.

Allen

[WDH74]

Originally posted by Allen Brown
So is it just the body that is a template? Who builds the rest of the car and how much freedom do they have in what they build.

I've always been perplexed by NASCAR but I'm trying to understand more.

Allen

Well, they had templates way back when to ensure that nobody was chopping or sectioning the bodies of the cars to make 'em more aerodynamic. Smokey Yunick did that, with his "3/4 scale" Chevy, which didn't then fit the templates. Now the bodies are pretty much identical with minor differences to differentiate manufacturer. I think the bodies were still significantly different even up till a few years ago-when Dodge introduced the Intrepid (I think it was the Intrepid) it looked quite different from the Ford and GM cars.

As far as chassis are concerned, I believe that the teams can construct them, but the regulations are pretty strict so theres not all that much room for advancement (like many formulae these days, you can't tell a driver without a scorecard). Same I suppose with engines.

Y'know, a lot of people condemn NASCAR because the cars are low tech and are virtually spec cars, with few real differences between the manufacturers. But I've always been of the opinion that this really puts the focus on the drivers.

-William

[cosworth bdg]

Y'know, a lot of people condemn NASCAR because the cars are low tech and are virtually spec cars, with few real differences between the manufacturers. But I've always been of the opinion that this really puts the focus on the drivers.

-William [/B]

NASCAR is where the windtunnel rules supreme i belive , more so than F1........................?

[HDonaldCapps]

I am stunned, stunned I tell you, that anyone here would actually place F1 behind NASCAR in any technical area. This is heresy.... No, wait! It was a criticism of NASCAR. That's okay. As you were. Stand down.

[Jim Thurman]

Originally posted by Allen Brown
So is it just the body that is a template? Who builds the rest of the car and how much freedom do they have in what they build.

I've always been perplexed by NASCAR but I'm trying to understand more.

Allen, I can guarantee you it isn't as difficult as trying to sort out (or for that matter explain) the cross-pollenation between Super Modifieds and Sprint Cars ;)

[cosworth bdg]

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
I am stunned, stunned I tell you, that anyone here would actually place F1 behind NASCAR in any technical area. This is heresy.... No, wait! It was a criticism of NASCAR. That's okay. As you were. Stand down.

"WHEW"

[Allen Brown]

Originally posted by WDH74
But I've always been of the opinion that this really puts the focus on the drivers.

Which could be why I can't get into it. I prefer the series that put the focus on the cars.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally posted by WDH74
There is a pretty good book called "NASCAR: The Wild Years" (I forget the author at the moment) that focuses on the late fifties and sixties, up to the Mopar wing cars. It makes for some interesting reading. Published by CarTech.



That would've been the Monte Carlo, correct? ISTR that GM had to homologate the window, so we were then blessed with the Monte Carlo "sportsback" or something similar. I still see Montes with the fastback window once in a while, but they seem to have attained a sort of collectible status so they tend to be in good shape and not used in winter. I always found that interesting because by then the cars were pretty far from stock, as opposed to the decades before.

-William

Big Bill France was still alive then, and no matter what his "retired" tiltle may have been, as long as he was alive, when he said crap, Bill Jr. dropped his pants.

As long as Sr. was alive, if Detroit wanted to race it, they had to sell it, which was why the fast-back Monte Carlos, and Pontiac Grand Prixs were built and sold.
Bob

[canon1753]

Originally posted by Allen Brown
Which could be why I can't get into it. I prefer the series that put the focus on the cars.

That encapsulates the differences between NASCAR (dare I say US focused?) Racing and F1 (dare I say European focused?) Racing.

NASCAR tech is as focused on what is needed to go fast and will pass muster as F1 is. Both probably have the best tech that works within the rules.

NASCAR mythology likes to portray an "Aw Shucks, I jes built it in my backyard" image. A lot of the time that "backyard" was in Detroit....

F1 mythology likes to portray an almost NASA type scientific approach throughout history. Now it is fairly accurate, but not always. John Cooper the creative blacksmith, or Tyrrell running their champion cars out of a former woodshop- not the NASAesque image of today- (I miss Uncle Ken...)

Both are cutthroat racing businesses today. Both are heading towards the "Driver is King" model of racing due to F1's insistence on getting closer to spec cars.

Oh well, we have TNF to remember the good old days, and can enjoy the close racing and get our interesting racer fix with sportscars.


EDIT- Sorry for the sermon and thread hijack. Mea culpa mea culpa mea maxima culpa.

[Allen Brown]

Originally posted by canon1753
That encapsulates the differences between NASCAR (dare I say US focused?) Racing and F1 (dare I say European focused?) Racing.

I'm not sure it's that simple. European racing is now full of 'spec' formulae which are aiming to put the focus on the driver. At least the US still has a good sports car series.

Allen

[canon1753]

It certainly does seem that the simple American/European split is not an absolute, and, given another few years, will not make any sense at all.

"It's the show" is all the rage it seems everywhere except the ALMS ("Where the Cars are the Stars") and some other other road racing tintop series.

[HDonaldCapps]

Oh well, we have TNF to remember the good old days,

"The Good Old Days! They were terrible!" Otto Bettmann.

[RA Historian]

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
"The Good Old Days! They were terrible!" Otto Bettmann.

Reminds me of a great quote by Bobby Rahal a goodly number of years ago. Rahal was having his last great season, 1992, when he won the then CART championship. In an interview he was asked something about what the reporter termed the "good old days" only to be interrupted by Rahal who exclaimed, "The good old days...........THESE ARE THE GOOD OLD DAYS!"

[HDonaldCapps]

Originally posted by RA Historian
Reminds me of a great quote by Bobby Rahal a goodly number of years ago. Rahal was having his last great season, 1992, when he won the then CART championship. In an interview he was asked something about what the reporter termed the "good old days" only to be interrupted by Rahal who exclaimed, "The good old days...........THESE ARE THE GOOD OLD DAYS!"

As per Carly Simon, "Anticipation."