Right now, we saddle everybody who ISN'T the leader with a big aerodynamic disadvantage, so how would this be much different?
To me, the sport was built on being faster than the other cars you are competing against, whether that is 80 MPH or 280 MPH. The actual speed is of little concern to me. There have been restrictions on how fast the cars theoretically go since day one, so how is this any different? As I said, I'm not a fan of the plate because of HOW it reduces the horsepower, but I have absolutely NO ISSUE with reducing the power. The tracks we have, even the newer ones which are just copies of 50-60 year old designs, are just not built to provide compelling action at the higher speeds, not to mention it gets stupidly unsafe at some point. I have been in love with the Indy 500 since I was six years old in 1973. From 1911 to 1996, Indy was a never ending quest to go ever faster. It was interesting, but eventually unsustainable. Finally, it reached the point of absurdity, and they have settled into the same 10 MPH speed range for the last 20 years. Truthfully, the excitement on the track has NEVER been better.
as long as they sound the same and are still V8s, Im on board.
Exactly my point too, that grey area might become reality, scary stuff.
Yeah, let's come up with yet another set of special rules so we can run on another outdated track.
Whats an outdated track?
At least NASCAR is trying something. And since it's the All-Star, a non points paying race, I think it's the perfect time. And since Charlotte is the
Daytona, Talladega. They require rules and configurations different from the other tracks in order for modern cars to compete on them. This would add Indy, a track demonstrated as not well-suited to stock car racing, to that list. In this era of attempted cost reduction, I'm sure owners aren't pleased about having to build yet another different style of car.
I agree that Charlotte is the basis for the other 1.5s. That's why I don't understand why Indy (and Pocono in the closed discussion) keep being brought up. In my ignorant opinion, there's little in common between Indy and the 1.5s, especially if a comparison cites last year's Xfinity race.
I was answering Spotter32's question regarding my use of the phrase 'outdated tracks', lumping Indy into that category.
I don't really know what the fans want anymore. Fans are walking away from this sport en masse. NASCAR is simply going to try something in a meaningless race under race conditions to see if they can learn from it to perhaps produce better racing in the future, whatever that is. Better racing is debatable and always will be. We can't all agree on anything but kudo's to them, NASCAR, for giving it a shot. No harm done.
Nothing wrong with the tracks, you can race on them non restricted. Its the people who are the problem, you cant please them all and NASCAR has gotten in to that situation where they are trying.
What does a winner of one of the first three stages get? I don't get why they have the ot rules for the first three stages.
I haven't seen the format, but I would guess that the points for all of the stages count towards the win.
Then why don't they? Other than that whole annoying spectator safety thing, of course. Silly me, that's the real solution - don't sell any tickets.
I've been assured frequently that throttle response is irrelevant, as long as the top speed is the same between restricted larger blockes and unrestricted smaller blocks.
Perhaps you guys should go speak to NASCAR and their engineers and let them know you figured it out. Who knew?
Ford was even the only one pushing for the spacer when the engine changes were being discussed in 2014. Chevy and Toyota wanted 5.0L engines. Ford wanted to be cheap and got it I guess.
I guess you didn't know when you signed up here that we've got the largest contingent of engineers that have been seen this side of the internet. Maybe even larger than NASA in the 60's. We'll get to the bottom of this problem yet. I'm sure our infinite number of remedies are being taken into account by the powers that be at NASCAR and all will be fixed in short order.
Perhaps you would try again to convince me why acceleration rate doesn't matter in stock car racing? At least, that's what I understand your position to be as regards plates.
I don't think it make much of a tinker's dam either way. There are too many other variables to consider, rear end gearing, grip level, aero, and the big one, track surface, corner speeds, width and banking.
Charlie, what kind of motor are you asking for, other than it not have intake restrictions? Speeds at Daytona and Tallaedega are strictly a function of horsepower, aerodynamic drag, and some slight influence from driveline friction.
On a dragstrip it would matter. On an oval where you are running 500 miles it doesnt once you have reached Max speed and the draft takes over. Thats my best shot right there. Hope you got it.
Yeah, I believe this is more caused by sudden loss of side force rather than the reduction of downforce. When a car gets on "my" right side, I suddenly loose side force and get really loose and tend to spin out. This is much less predictable and less gradual than aero rules that reduce downforce.
of course you would think so, and we could argue until we are blue in the face about if they are there are not. But every 1.5 so far has been a runaway
This. Dirty air "restricts" these cars anyway
