How Do You Fix the Problem?

B

BigdaddyQH

Guest
This thread is for those who want to post their idea's on how to fix the problems at Talladega and Daytona. I have heard many ideas, from drivers, Crew Chiefs, Owners, fans, and Nascar (who basically is hoping that the problem goes away). These solutions range from flattening the corners, putting a chicane (sp?) in the back straight, putting heavy bumpers in the rear of the car, and lighter bumpers in the front of the cars, raising the potential of damage if you bump draft, further restricting the speed, and others. What is your idea?

My idea is to go back and do what Nascar did afgter the first two Talladega races and after the Daytona 500 in between. Nascar simply reduced the size of the engines, which dropped the speeds by about 13 MPH. People argue that it would be too expensive to have an engine for 4 races only, but I do not buy that. It is easy to get sponsorship for the Daytona 500, compared to other races. There are always 50 or more cars trying to qualify for that race. This would reduce the cost of the engines for the entire year for teams, because there would be teams that will not qualify, and want to sell their shorter block engines to teams that will qualify for the other 3 races. Just a thought. What are yours?
 
BigdaddyQH said:
This thread is for those who want to post their idea's on how to fix the problems at Talladega and Daytona. I have heard many ideas, from drivers, Crew Chiefs, Owners, fans, and Nascar (who basically is hoping that the problem goes away). These solutions range from flattening the corners, putting a chicane (sp?) in the back straight, putting heavy bumpers in the rear of the car, and lighter bumpers in the front of the cars, raising the potential of damage if you bump draft, further restricting the speed, and others. What is your idea?

My idea is to go back and do what Nascar did afgter the first two Talladega races and after the Daytona 500 in between. Nascar simply reduced the size of the engines, which dropped the speeds by about 13 MPH. People argue that it would be too expensive to have an engine for 4 races only, but I do not buy that. It is easy to get sponsorship for the Daytona 500, compared to other races. There are always 50 or more cars trying to qualify for that race. This would reduce the cost of the engines for the entire year for teams, because there would be teams that will not qualify, and want to sell their shorter block engines to teams that will qualify for the other 3 races. Just a thought. What are yours?
Click to expand...

Pull the plates off and add more weight to keep the car on the ground.
 
Please tell us which drivers, crew chiefs, owners and any of those in Nascar that you've "heard ideas from".

I don't want to contact anyone you've already had a consultation with and waste their time.
 
BigdaddyQH said:
This thread is for those who want to post their idea's on how to fix the problems at Talladega and Daytona. I have heard many ideas, from drivers, Crew Chiefs, Owners, fans, and Nascar (who basically is hoping that the problem goes away). These solutions range from flattening the corners, putting a chicane (sp?) in the back straight, putting heavy bumpers in the rear of the car, and lighter bumpers in the front of the cars, raising the potential of damage if you bump draft, further restricting the speed, and others. What is your idea?

My idea is to go back and do what Nascar did afgter the first two Talladega races and after the Daytona 500 in between. Nascar simply reduced the size of the engines, which dropped the speeds by about 13 MPH. People argue that it would be too expensive to have an engine for 4 races only, but I do not buy that. It is easy to get sponsorship for the Daytona 500, compared to other races. There are always 50 or more cars trying to qualify for that race. This would reduce the cost of the engines for the entire year for teams, because there would be teams that will not qualify, and want to sell their shorter block engines to teams that will qualify for the other 3 races. Just a thought. What are yours?
Click to expand...

I basically agree with this and have said this about 5 or 6 years ago that the plates need to go. Get rid of the plates go to a smaller displacement engine with about 400-500hp, tweak the aero package more and allow the teams to play with the shock/spring packages, then there would be racing again.
 
I have a few of ideas.

First would be to shave the banking in the corners to no more than 15 degrees and the straightaways to no more than 3 degrees.

Second, I like Chad Knaus' idea of runnning a chicane on the backstretches to unbunch the field.

The most likely is to make them run the body backards on the racecar. The roof flaps would constanly be deployed and the car would stay on the ground because of the brick like aerodynamics. :eek::eek:
 
SST55 said:
Please tell us which drivers, crew chiefs, owners and any of those in Nascar that you've "heard ideas from".

I don't want to contact anyone you've already had a consultation with and waste their time.
Click to expand...


I heard Ray Evernham, Dale Jarrett, Andy Petree, Mikey Waltrip, Chad Knaus, and Greg Biffle all offering these same suggestions on TV last night.
 
I think the one thing they will not do is make any drastic changes that can cost the tracks major money. They are having a tough enough time selling tickets in this economy, and can ill afford a major change to their tracks. Not with construction costs what they are today. Adding a Chicane is a minor expense, compared to cutting down the degree of banking in the corners.
 
Lowering the banking would be a huge expense to the tracks. Building smaller engines would be a big expense for the race teams. But since they already have specific plate motors, might as well make them smaller. Then eventually make them smaller for all races. I like the idea of the cars having 800+ horsepower, but that doesn't translate into good racing.
 
Easy..................Stick 'em each in one of these...
800px-Smart_car.jpg

Problem solved.
 
NASCAR hired a guy back about fifteen years ago, I cannot remember the name, he had been a crew chief and was an engineer to study ways to get rid of the plate. He came up with all kinds of theories but none of them worked as well as the plate. I am trying to find his name and figure out if he still works for NASCAR.

On a side note, maybe if they tear the old runways up and get rid of the remnants of the old air base the cars will stop rotating and lifting off! :sarcasm:
 
The ONLY real solution is to change the banking. Either that or tear the track down.

Both of the above changes is for those that don't like plate racing, otherwise let it alone.
 
I liked Mikey's suggestion to do the HUGE rear bumper and NO front bumper, that would end the bump drafting.
 
I say

make both bumpers super weak (say, 3/4 inch tube)
3/4" wicker bill on a 60° wing with 1/4" wickers on the endplates
no grille tape
up the minimum weight to 3800
take off the restrictor plates but keep them on a carburetor below 550 CFM
let teams pick rear suspension

the weight and aero drag counter the extra power, weak bumpers on both ends keep the front car from having the rear tires come up, but having the rear wing punch such a big hole still allows the pack racing. The cars will want to be tight because there will be more rear downforce than front, but the teams can counter this by picking their own rear suspension package.
 
Starve the engines more and slow them down to the point that they don't take off like a plane. I like the tight pack of cars @ the restrictor plate tracks & I'd hate to see that change. There's nothing else like it on the circuit. I don't want to see them take drastic actions with the track that would reduce the banking. To me, that sounds like we'd be heading towards the type of racing that we might see at Michigan or California. Basically back to 'follow the leaded'. No passing = no fun. I'd rather get my chance to see 50+ lead changes 4 times a year.
 
Smoke14 said:
NASCAR hired a guy back about fifteen years ago, I cannot remember the name, he had been a crew chief and was an engineer to study ways to get rid of the plate. He came up with all kinds of theories but none of them worked as well as the plate. I am trying to find his name and figure out if he still works for NASCAR.

On a side note, maybe if they tear the old runways up and get rid of the remnants of the old air base the cars will stop rotating and lifting off! :sarcasm:
Click to expand...


I think the one you're talking about is Brett Bodine.

I was to recent with Bodine, sorry about that but he is working strictly on the COT.
 
I'm with Muggle. There are two things that I can think of that will suit those who don't like what they have now. First off, and this has been done before, anyone who doesn't like what the setup is now can boycott the race. Secondly, and this one I don't like, is to unplug all but one cylinder of those engines and make a rule that you can't pass and that they all have to run single file. Anyone going over 15 mph should have their engines checked, but still be DQ'd. Oh, I thought of one more idea, but it still has some danger built into it. Let the cars go out and qualify (this is the dangerous part) and afterwards, award the finish order just as they qualified. No need to worry about going below the yellow line. No need to worry about blocking.

Lastly, well heck, just let people continue to gripe about plate racing. Publicize it and call any wreck "The Big One" and make a movie out of it. Interview all non-rednecks/non-hicks what their view of NASCAR is and be sure to show plenty of two teeth Rodney's.
 
Eagle1 said:
I think the one you're talking about is Brett Bodine.

I was to recent with Bodine, sorry about that but he is working strictly on the COT.
Click to expand...

No, it was Gary Nelson. He was hired by NASCAR long before the COT. And he honestly thought he could come up with a better way to slow the cars down without running plates but was not successful. I am looking through old magazines and searching the internet to find the article.

Look at the link I posted before.
 
I THOUGHT Gary was still with NASCAR...but he may have left when the COT came about, i haven't heard his name in a long while. I want to say he was replaced by pemberton though
 
Smoke14 said:
No, it was Gary Nelson. He was hired by NASCAR long before the COT. And he honestly thought he could come up with a better way to slow the cars down without running plates but was not successful. I am looking through old magazines and searching the internet to find the article.

Look at the link I posted before.
Click to expand...

I remember when Gary did that. Maybe with all the new safety feachers they could take off the restrictor plates now?
 
MRM said:
Lowering the banking would be a huge expense to the tracks. Building smaller engines would be a big expense for the race teams. But since they already have specific plate motors, might as well make them smaller. Then eventually make them smaller for all races. I like the idea of the cars having 800+ horsepower, but that doesn't translate into good racing.
Click to expand...

800HP is fine on the other tracks, cut the HP in half or there abouts for Daytona and Dega. Why try to change the track? That is absurd, the cost to change a track compared to a different engine package is a no brainer. Like I said before....change the engines or take these two tracks off the schedule! Come on people the answer is staring you right in the face, smaller engines, less horsepower = less speed, plus better aero/shock package = better handling. Why make this more complicated than it really is?
 
dpkimmel2001 said:
Starve the engines more and slow them down to the point that they don't take off like a plane. I like the tight pack of cars @ the restrictor plate tracks & I'd hate to see that change. There's nothing else like it on the circuit. I don't want to see them take drastic actions with the track that would reduce the banking. To me, that sounds like we'd be heading towards the type of racing that we might see at Michigan or California. Basically back to 'follow the leaded'. No passing = no fun. I'd rather get my chance to see 50+ lead changes 4 times a year.
Click to expand...

Come on really....are you serious, you actually call "Pack Racing" true racing? You like the fact that at any time the slighest slip up, the slightest error in judgement and 20 cars wipe out? Look an exciting race with an accident or 2 is fine , but when there is race that you know is going to wipe out at least 10 good cars eventually....I call that a lousy excuse for a race.
 
Mopardh9 said:
Come on really....are you serious, you actually call "Pack Racing" true racing? You like the fact that at any time the slighest slip up, the slightest error in judgement and 20 cars wipe out? Look an exciting race with an accident or 2 is fine , but when there is race that you know is going to wipe out at least 10 good cars eventually....I call that a lousy excuse for a race.
Click to expand...

We all have our opinions on racing and what we like or dislike. Yes, I like the racing at Talladega & Daytona as much as I like the racing at Martinsville or Watkins Glen. I'm not going to fault you for your opinion, respect mine.

I agree on slowing them down. However, if that is their decision, IMO you'll have the exact same racing that happens now, only at a slower speed.
 
dpkimmel2001 said:
Starve the engines more and slow them down to the point that they don't take off like a plane. I like the tight pack of cars @ the restrictor plate tracks & I'd hate to see that change. There's nothing else like it on the circuit. I don't want to see them take drastic actions with the track that would reduce the banking. To me, that sounds like we'd be heading towards the type of racing that we might see at Michigan or California. Basically back to 'follow the leaded'. No passing = no fun. I'd rather get my chance to see 50+ lead changes 4 times a year.
Click to expand...

Dont change a thing.......I love restrictor plate racing where just about anyone can win which Keselowski proved at the weekend on his 5th start in Cup.
....It was'nt the big one they wait for....it was Carl Edwards being an idiot and expecting the greenhorn to brake for him. Carl should be penalized
 
I just get concerned about the talk of a blocking rule. I look at that as being a total judgmental call that will open itself up to unneeded criticism of the sport. We all look at things differently. There would be shouts of favoritism should certain drivers be called for blocking. The same thing with bump drafting. I'd also like to see them remove the yellow line rule for that same reason.
 
I found this article from Forbes interesting!

Team owners and managers say it is time for a sweeping overhaul of the sport, which has been tightly controlled for 60 years by the France family. The Frances' ownership of the NASCAR sanctioning body gives it negotiating power over all television rights and licensing deals and wide latitude to enforce race-day rules. Thanks in part to a $4.5 billion, eight-year broadcast deal signed in 2005, the sanctioning body grosses between $250 million and $300 million a year, at least $50 million more than the richest racing team.
Click to expand...

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0302/082_trouble_at_tracks.html
 
For all of you who answered that you like the racing the way it is, and like packs of 30+ cars running around a track, I have a question for you. Answer it honestly if you can. I doubt that some will. How many of you like that type of racing because you want to see a huge wreck involving mulitple cars? I know that you are out there, so please answer honestly.
 
BigdaddyQH said:
For all of you who answered that you like the racing the way it is, and like packs of 30+ cars running around a track, I have a question for you. Answer it honestly if you can. I doubt that some will. How many of you like that type of racing because you want to see a huge wreck involving mulitple cars? I know that you are out there, so please answer honestly.
Click to expand...
I like the pack racing because all 43 cars have a chance to win. I don't like seeing 12, 14 cars caught in a single wreck. But both are byproducts of the same root situation.
 
Magnethead said:
I like the pack racing because all 43 cars have a chance to win. I don't like seeing 12, 14 cars caught in a single wreck. But both are byproducts of the same root situation.
Click to expand...

So if I understand you correctly, you like pack racing because you like seeing guys who would have no chance of winning a legitimate race have a shot because they have restricted the abilities of the good cars to perform. Does that sum it up? If that is the case, why not restrict all of the races? Why not just run 36 IROC races?
 
BigdaddyQH said:
For all of you who answered that you like the racing the way it is, and like packs of 30+ cars running around a track, I have a question for you. Answer it honestly if you can. I doubt that some will. How many of you like that type of racing because you want to see a huge wreck involving mulitple cars? I know that you are out there, so please answer honestly.
Click to expand...

I like it because of the tight racing from beginning to end. The chance of there being the 'big one' certainly adds 'edge of your seat excitement' to plate racing. You may not agree and that's fine. I don't watch it for the 'big one' and was just as satisfied after watching Mark Martin going from green to checkered without a caution. I do like watching the battle of the lines of cars and being able to see them get hooked up to make a run. Classic example at the end of last weekends race. I though it was pretty amazing watching Carl and Brad's run at the end of that race. You can say that it's not 'real racing' or that I'm not a 'real fan', that's certainly your right to do so. I would simply disagree.
 
It is a shame that Nascar has tweaked the rules so you get 30+ cars running in a pack. Exciting yes but just a simple miscalculation by anyone, rookie or vet, and a dozen or more cars are taken out of contention.

They are not going to do a dayum thing to the track, that costs $$$.

They are going to come up with yet another insane knee jerk reaction that in all probabilty will slow the cars down and do nothing to break up the pack. There will still be "big ones" but they'll happen at a slower speed reducing the possibilty of a car going into the stands, Nascar's biggest nightmare.

Pull the wing, splitter and any other down force producing devices. Raise nose height so air gets under the car, no more riding on bump stops. The cars will then be forced to brake and slow entering the corner. Then accelerate down the straight. In other words turn Daytona and Talledega into Martinsville/Dover/Darlington on steroids.
 
Where is the outrage about speed at a place like Michigan where they hit 200+ into turn one. Correct me if I am wrong, and I'm sure you all will, but isn't Atlanta one of the fastest tracks? Why aren't we concerned with the same type of thing happening there as we are Talladeg/Daytona? I am talking about the car into the catch fence issue. Please don't use the 'pack of cars' argument. It wasn't a pack of cars in that incident this past Sunday. Cars get into one another most every week. Where's the concern for the other fast tracks? Do we need to fix them too? :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom