Parity?

dpkimmel2001 said:
Hey, gotta give credit where credit is do..... And I was all out of gold stars.
Click to expand...
I feel bad, all I had was one of these to give him
upload_2017-9-28_12-24-13.gif
 
It's widely reported by industry insiders that Nascar implemented a mid-year template change in the spring that slowed the Fords, and since then they haven'y been competitive. In May and beyond, the six TRD Toyotas have had dominating speed. When Mopar built a better mousetrap in 1970 - completely legally - how long did Nascar allow the parity imbalance to remain? Why should Toyota's better mousetrap be different?
Superbird 1970.jpg
 
Perhaps the wing had something to do with that.

Just a thought.
 
LewTheShoe said:
... When Mopar built a better mousetrap in 1970 - completely legally - how long did Nascar allow the parity imbalance to remain? Why should Toyota's better mousetrap be different?
Click to expand...
Ask the reverse question: Why didn't NASCAR leave Plymouth and Dodge alone and make their competitors catch up?
 
I would sure like to see a comparison in downforce between the Super Bird and the new cup cars. notice how the spoiler on top of the wing is adjustable.;)
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Ask the reverse question: Why didn't NASCAR leave Plymouth and Dodge alone and make their competitors catch up?
Click to expand...

I think it was because they said the wind tunnel broke so they couldn't test competitive models but I don't believe the wind tunnel was broken....:)
 
StandOnIt said:
to keep it from going in the same direction it is going now before it gets out of hand like it was back then.
Click to expand...
I must be missing your point. What's wrong with the current situation? Why penalize any manufacturer if its competitors can't keep up?

STICK AND BALL ALERT
You don't see other sports handicapping champions just because they're dominant.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
I must be missing your point. What's wrong with the current situation? Why penalize any manufacturer if its competitors can't keep up?

STICK AND BALL ALERT
You don't see other sports handicapping champions just because they're dominant.
Click to expand...
again another crappy comparison. SuperBird on bias ply tires and a 426 hemi was setting speed records. Ford came out with a single cammer Hemi, and it was getting crazy. Both were outlawed soon after. It isn't like tennis shoe technology and steroid use.
Same thing now on a smaller scale. The box is small today, not like then, and even a small advantage given to one manufacturer gives the sport a lopsided result like we have and will continue to have all year. Just like it was back then with a larger box to work in. Chevy is coming out with a new car next year, it could be as soon as that for better competition at least between two brands. In the original post above Chad doesn't sound too worried. I think he likes the new Chevy numbers
 
Last edited:
Levels OEM involvement, as I see it:

1. Toyota/TRD

2. Ford/Ford Performance


3. Chevy

I very rarely here anything from GM management regarding NASCAR, which seems odd to me. You hear from Wilson of TRD all the time, same with Pericak and Nair at Ford. GM is oddly silent. And they didn't do a single body kit update with the SS, while the Fusion and Camry each have had multiple.
 
StandOnIt said:
again another crappy comparison. SuperBird on bias ply tires and a 426 hemi was setting speed records. Ford came out with a single cammer Hemi, and it was getting crazy. ...
Click to expand...
What do you mean by 'getting crazy', and what was the downside? That was before I was following the sport.
 
StandOnIt said:
again another crappy comparison. SuperBird on bias ply tires and a 426 hemi was setting speed records. Ford came out with a single cammer Hemi, and it was getting crazy. Both were outlawed soon after. It isn't like tennis shoe technology and steroid use.
Same thing now on a smaller scale. The box is small today, not like then, and even a small advantage given to one manufacturer gives the sport a lopsided result like we have and will continue to have all year. Just like it was back then with a larger box to work in. Chevy is coming out with a new car next year, it could be as soon as that for better competition at least between two brands. In the original post above Chad doesn't sound too worried. I think he likes the new Chevy numbers
Click to expand...

probably should have said tennis shoe bribery :cool:
 
ChexOrWrex said:
While thats the best looking front end on the gen 6 since the Challenger, the rest of the car is an embarrassment to the Camaro.
Click to expand...
Seriously? I think the huge fake grille is ass-ugly. The narrow band for the fake headlights and bowtie doesn't do much for me either.

To each his own, beauty in the eye of the beerholder, etc.
 
FLRacingFan said:
Levels OEM involvement, as I see it:

1. Toyota/TRD

2. Ford/Ford Performance


3. Chevy

I very rarely here anything from GM management regarding NASCAR, which seems odd to me. You hear from Wilson of TRD all the time, same with Pericak and Nair at Ford. GM is oddly silent. And they didn't do a single body kit update with the SS, while the Fusion and Camry each have had multiple.
Click to expand...

yeah Chevy was involved in the late 50's making factory cars, pretty much left out of the aero wars in the late 60's, 70's and today are pretty absent. The teams that run Chevys are credited with the winners. Unlike today when Chad pointed out that in Toyota's case it's Factory involvement, Ford with getting SHR and Penske to move recently probably promised a lot of factory help. Barney left Chevy because of less Chevy involvement.
 
StandOnIt said:
here is one of many publications about it
http://www.aerowarriors.com/naw.html
Click to expand...
This is what I took away from that:

"... The greater the parity, the greater the number of ticket buying spectators that would also be interested in buying sponsors' products. ... NASCAR had its roots in competition between pure stock cars - those cars that the average person could purchase off the dealer showroom floor."

And since nobody can go to the showroom and buy what won on Sunday, that doesn't seem to apply any more.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
This is what I took away from that:

"... The greater the parity, the greater the number of ticket buying spectators that would also be interested in buying sponsors' products. ... NASCAR had its roots in competition between pure stock cars - those cars that the average person could purchase off the dealer showroom floor."

And since nobody can go to the showroom and buy what won on Sunday, that doesn't seem to apply any more.
Click to expand...
I don't know why I bother pretty much figured out the answer before I posted it. But for the rest
gettin crazy meant:
Safety:
NASCAR experienced growing concerns about safety throughout the decade of the '60s, due to the increased speeds. The miles-per-hour had grown faster than the safety technology, exposing drivers to increasingly greater risks. Several well known drivers lost their lives on the tracks in the '60s, and several more notables retired, apparently at least in part due to safety concerns. Deaths and serious injuries on the tracks were not good PR for the sport, and ironically, those were the kinds of happenings that often received the widest press coverage. The aero cars were bumping against the 200 mph barrier, and a reduction in engine size (such as that mandated for the aero cars in the '71 season) was one logical way to slow the cars. Incidently, the now infamous restrictor plate was first introduced in the heyday of the aero cars, as another speed control measure. Along with safety, a reduction in speed would also reduce wear and tear on equipment, which would lessen expenses for the teams.

The word Parity is used here. Expenses also:
And speaking of expenses, as the racing equipment became more exotic, so did the cost of fielding a team in NASCAR. This, especially during the Aero War years, had a tendency to reduce the number of teams that had a reasonable chance to win on any given Sunday. By effectively eliminating the most exotic of the factory equipment, NASCAR moved toward greater parity between competitors. The greater the parity, the greater the number of ticket buying spectators that would also be interested in buying sponsors' products.
What FL alluded to about GM's lack of involvment in Nascar racing back then in the late 60's early 70's:
Generals Motors was then, as now, the largest auto maker in America. They played no sigificant role (through direct factory involvement or otherwise) in NASCAR after 1962, when Chevrolet and Pontiac were forces to be reckoned with. NASCAR recognized the need to get GM back into the fold (along with its legion of fans) and this seemed much more likely if Chrysler and Ford were discouraged from continuing with their exotic research and development.( parity) After all, everyday that Chrysler and Ford continued their exotic efforts, the longer it would take GM to catch up if they ever did decide to get back into NASCAR. This was a bit of a balancing act, as NASCAR wanted a competitive GM, but not one with a too-powerful factory presence, as was the case with Ford and Chrysler. NASCAR forced the aero cars out, and GM returned soon after. Soon after the Chrysler and Ford factories had all but abandoned NASCAR.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
First sentence: "...led to escalating levels of wretched excess in automotive aerodynamic design."

Yeah, this is going to be unbiased. I'll keep going though.
Click to expand...

I have been down that rabbit hole before with bogus and or outdated material.
 
A question for the board. What quantifiable and specific damage is being done to Nascar and its partners due to the recent surge of success by Toyota? Read the question carefully please.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
I must be missing your point. What's wrong with the current situation? Why penalize any manufacturer if its competitors can't keep up?

STICK AND BALL ALERT
You don't see other sports handicapping champions just because they're dominant.
Click to expand...
Unlike the stick-and-ball leagues, Nascar has manufacturer-specific specifications. If they have it wrong - such as one marque having more aero potential than another - then an adjustment is needed, IMO.
 
StandOnIt said:
I don't know why I bother pretty much figured out the answer before I posted it. But for the rest
gettin crazy meant:
Safety:
NASCAR experienced growing concerns about safety throughout the decade of the '60s, due to the increased speeds. The miles-per-hour had grown faster than the safety technology, exposing drivers to increasingly greater risks. Several well known drivers lost their lives on the tracks in the '60s, and several more notables retired, apparently at least in part due to safety concerns. Deaths and serious injuries on the tracks were not good PR for the sport, and ironically, those were the kinds of happenings that often received the widest press coverage. The aero cars were bumping against the 200 mph barrier, and a reduction in engine size (such as that mandated for the aero cars in the '71 season) was one logical way to slow the cars. Incidently, the now infamous restrictor plate was first introduced in the heyday of the aero cars, as another speed control measure. Along with safety, a reduction in speed would also reduce wear and tear on equipment, which would lessen expenses for the teams.

The word Parity is used here. Expenses also:
And speaking of expenses, as the racing equipment became more exotic, so did the cost of fielding a team in NASCAR. This, especially during the Aero War years, had a tendency to reduce the number of teams that had a reasonable chance to win on any given Sunday. By effectively eliminating the most exotic of the factory equipment, NASCAR moved toward greater parity between competitors. The greater the parity, the greater the number of ticket buying spectators that would also be interested in buying sponsors' products.
What FL alluded to about GM's lack of involvment in Nascar racing back then in the late 60's early 70's:
Generals Motors was then, as now, the largest auto maker in America. They played no sigificant role (through direct factory involvement or otherwise) in NASCAR after 1962, when Chevrolet and Pontiac were forces to be reckoned with. NASCAR recognized the need to get GM back into the fold (along with its legion of fans) and this seemed much more likely if Chrysler and Ford were discouraged from continuing with their exotic research and development.( parity) After all, everyday that Chrysler and Ford continued their exotic efforts, the longer it would take GM to catch up if they ever did decide to get back into NASCAR. This was a bit of a balancing act, as NASCAR wanted a competitive GM, but not one with a too-powerful factory presence, as was the case with Ford and Chrysler. NASCAR forced the aero cars out, and GM returned soon after. Soon after the Chrysler and Ford factories had all but abandoned NASCAR.
Click to expand...
What does safety have to do with parity? It's a reason for NASCAR to set minimum standards, but not a reason to keep one manufacturer from outrunning the others. As long as those standards are met, how is safety hampered by manufacturer dominance?

GM no longer sells the most cars in the US, and (as I noted earlier), fans can no longer buy what's on the track anyway. I still don't get how this piece of history is relevant today. Will reigning in any of the current manufacturers inspire Dodge to return, or any other brand to jump in? Do you think failing to do so will cause Ford or Chevy to leave?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom