The Rolex and Jeff Gordon

LewTheShoe said:
I agree, it is a beautiful race car. But I'm not fond of the double standard that says this purpose-built race car is cool, while a Nascar Cup purpose-built car is scorned for not being like an OEM production car.

IMO, a Taylor Cadillac and a Hendrick Chevrolet are both the same basic thing... Both are hand-built single purpose race cars defined by a set of rules. Both are beautiful in their functionality. Both are very cool.
Click to expand...
What Chex said. The prototype isn't a purpose-built wolf in production car clothing, and ill-fitting clothing at that. It's not pretending to be anything other than a purpose-built race car. The Taylor Caddy doesn't have a fake production model name anywhere on it.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
What Chex said. The prototype isn't a purpose-built wolf in production car clothing, and ill-fitting clothing at that. It's not pretending to be anything other than a purpose-built race car. The Taylor Caddy doesn't have a fake production model name anywhere on it.
Click to expand...

This is true but something I never really thought of before; what if NASCAR adopted model-less cars that were just "Fords", "Chevys", and "Toyotas"? Similar to say a Cadillac prototype, there would be no model designation to mirror a roadcar, and the body styling would merely be a generic mix of the manufacturers styling cues without copying any specific model directly. It would end the tradition of a "stock car", but at the same time it would extinguish the complaining of how the cars aren't really Fusions, SS's, and Camrys. One could argue that the tradition of the cars being "stock" has been over for 25 years anyway and thus we just need to cut the cord and stop lying to ourselves. Maybe running F1 style car names every year like the "Ford FP2017" or the "Toyota MECS001" could be a good thing.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Didn't Dodge do this one year?

My fanhood isn't rooted in a manufacturer, so it doesn't make any difference to me.
Click to expand...

They never announced it that way and it was still the "Dodge Intrepid", but I actually thought of that as I was typing my post. In 2004, the year before the Charger came in, the "Intrepid" changed dramatically, despite the roadcar you could buy not changing at all.

This is the 2003 that looked like the roadcar.

1zwd8a1.jpg


And then the 2004 "Intrepid" that looked more like the Stratus if anything.

jsj9za.jpg
 
Charlie Spencer said:
What Chex said. The prototype isn't a purpose-built wolf in production car clothing, and ill-fitting clothing at that. It's not pretending to be anything other than a purpose-built race car. The Taylor Caddy doesn't have a fake production model name anywhere on it.
Click to expand...
So would you say the Nascar racer should look more like street ready sedan, or less like that? Should it improve the fit of its production clothing, or rip all its clothes off and take the shape of a pure prototype?

There are many major professional racing series around the world that use pure purpose-built racing cars but mandate a basic silhouette of street cars. Nascar. Australian V8 Supercars. The German DTM. World Rally Championship. These are all designed and hand built as pure racing cars. Why would they be better if dressed up to look exactly like something they ain't?

IMO it is ridiculous to ask for Nascar racers to look just like an OEM production car unless you're also insisting on OEM chassis and OEM drivelines (not gonna happen).
 
LewTheShoe said:
So would you say the Nascar racer should look more like street ready sedan, or less like that? Should it improve the fit of its production clothing, or rip all its clothes off and take the shape of a pure prototype?
Click to expand...
If the manufacturers are applying labels with model names like Camry, Fusion, and whatever the heck Chevy winds up running, then the race car should look like what the label says it is. To me, that includes a minimum standard of having the same body contours as the supposed showroom equivalent. Otherwise, what the heck makes the car a 'Camry' or 'Fusion' or 'SS'? Absolutamente nada. That's why nobody's really concerned about what will replace the SS; a difference that makes no difference is no difference.
LewTheShoe said:
There are many major professional racing series around the world that use pure purpose-built racing cars but mandate a basic silhouette of street cars. Nascar. Australian V8 Supercars. The German DTM. World Rally Championship. These are all designed and hand built as pure racing cars. Why would they be better if dressed up to look exactly like something they ain't?

IMO it is ridiculous to ask for Nascar racers to look just like an OEM production car unless you're also insisting on OEM chassis and OEM drivelines (not gonna happen).
Click to expand...
How are we using the word 'better'? I don't claim they'd be any better or worse, only that I'd find it more pleasing and less hypocritical. Why label something up as what it isn't? Just like NASCAR fans, fans of those other series know those vehicles aren't what they claim to be, and non-fans aren't going to be influenced by a win anyway. As cheesey asked earlier, why bother hanging a model name on them when everyone in the target audience knows it's just a sticker?

But I'll tackle 'better' anyway. Racing would be better off overall if the race cars were shaped like their production counterparts. Why? It would make it easier for fans to visually differentiate between the different models Aerodynamic differences between the cars would cause greater performance differences between brands. This would lead fans to once again care what make and model their favorite drivers were sitting in. Engineers for trailing brands would have to work to catch up, improving the aerodynamic performance of street cars.

If you want to drag the power train into the equation, more's the better. There are plenty of series based on that approach too.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
If the manufacturers are applying labels with model names like Camry, Fusion, and whatever the heck Chevy winds up running, then the race car should look like what the label says it is. To me, that includes a minimum standard of having the same body contours as the supposed showroom equivalent. Otherwise, what the heck makes the car a 'Camry' or 'Fusion' or 'SS'? Absolutamente nada. That's why nobody's really concerned about what will replace the SS; a difference that makes no difference is no difference.

How are we using the word 'better'? I don't claim they'd be any better or worse, only that I'd find it more pleasing and less hypocritical. Why label something up as what it isn't? Just like NASCAR fans, fans of those other series know those vehicles aren't what they claim to be, and non-fans aren't going to be influenced by a win anyway. As cheesey asked earlier, why bother hanging a model name on them when everyone in the target audience knows it's just a sticker?

But I'll tackle 'better' anyway. Racing would be better off overall if the race cars were shaped like their production counterparts. Why? It would make it easier for fans to visually differentiate between the different models Aerodynamic differences between the cars would cause greater performance differences between brands. This would lead fans to once again care what make and model their favorite drivers were sitting in. Engineers for trailing brands would have to work to catch up, improving the aerodynamic performance of street cars.

If you want to drag the power train into the equation, more's the better. There are plenty of series based on that approach too.
Click to expand...

People for years have been saying "make the cars stock again", but let's look at this realistically and realize how we got to tube-chassis, purpose-build racecars to begin with.

First of all, safety. You cannot beat a purpose-built car for safety. You can add a cage to streetcar, but at 200 mph when you could be heading straight into a Dale Earnhardt style collision head-on with a barrier these things need to be safe. So you add a cage. And you need to have some type of engine subframe bracing to ensure that the engine doesn't rip out of the things, since roadcar subframes are merely bolt-in affairs. And you need to have a roof hatch at least at the super speedways. Don't forget you need a fuel cell and a structure around it. NASCAR uses fire suppression systems, now find a place to house and rout all of that too. Need to seriously beef up the footwell to protect from more Kyle Busch style leg and ankle injuries occurring.

Now let's talk about performance. A stock Fusion for instance is not made for hours straight of track duty. The brakes are tiny and insufficient and will fade within just a few laps, boiling the brake fluid. It needs to have bigger calipers and rotors. The cooling system is made for the freeway, not the speedway, so keeping temperatures in check for three to four hours of wide-open throttle will require a larger, dual-core radiator with more surface area and fluid capacity and we'll need a heavy-duty waterpump and a bigger fan, too. And stainless steel braided coolant lines for durability. The oil pan in a normal roadcar usually only holds about 5 quarts, which means with such little capacity the oil will overheat and breakdown extremely quickly. We'll need to house a 16 quart dry sump in the cabin and rout all that oil plumbing to the engine. Furthermore, those factory shocks will never survive the rigors of 600 miles at Charlotte. Banking puts tremendous loud on a suspension that a roadcar would never see, so we'll need better damping. Gotta match those damping rates to new springs, too. And we'll need camber plates for even tire wear and thicker swaybars as well. Good thing we beefed up our subframes to support those swaybars or they'd rip right out of the car!


This is just the tip of the iceberg, but my point is that it would take SO much work for a real Ford Fusion (or Chevy SS, or Camry) to become usable for racing in these conditions that you outweigh the ease of just building a car from scratch to suit your needs. And then there's the issue of parity because manufacturers. Yes, I know, a bunch of you are going to say, "Well if the Fords can't keep up with the Chevys then tell Ford to make a better car!". But that isn't feasible. The SS is course the fastest car on the street of the three, but is Toyota going to stop everything and make a rear wheel drive V8 sports sedan (i.e. a sales segment that they clearly don't care to be in because most people who buy cars don't actually want that) just to be able to beat Chevy at Homestead? Do you realize what a MASSIVE undertaking that would be, to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop and produce a whole new bespoke car to sell on their dealer lots just to run in NASCAR? That would be the end of NASCAR, immediately.
 
I agree with all your points. I'm fine with cars built specifically for a closed track environment. Just quit slapping on decals and calling the result a Taurus or an Intrepid or a Grand Prix. Quit requiring the manufacturers to pretend these cars have anything to do with production cars. People who aren't race fans don't know or care what won on Sunday, and race fans know better.

LewTheShoe asked, "Why would they be better if dressed up to look exactly like something they ain't?" I'll ask, "How do NASCAR or the manufacturers benefit by continuing to pretend these cars are something they haven't been in decades?"
 
I don't mind the decals. I'd rather have a common template for aero reasons than to have manufacturers leave. Production car templates don't work at high speeds. If you want production based racing check out some of the IMSA series.

I remember the 1990's when teams/manufacturers were constantly whining about an aerodynamic disadvantage. The noses of the cars were constantly changing to the point they no longer looked like the production version - it forced NASCAR into a common template.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
"How do NASCAR or the manufacturers benefit by continuing to pretend these cars are something they haven't been in decades?"
Click to expand...

That's up to the sales departments to decide. If market research shows that being able to mentally link the Camry to NASCAR has helped Toyota sell more Camrys, then you can bet things won't change anytime soon. Personally, I'd like to see that evidence because although that was true in the 60s I'm not sure I believe it in 2017.

I think it has to do with the perceived amount of technology in a series. Let's take F1 for example. Clearly Honda thinks it's a good marketing tool for them to be linked with McLaren even though the cars are called an alphabet soup name like "McLaren-Honda MP4-31" instead of "Honda Accord". Simply being powered by Honda is enough. But it's probably because people associate F1 with tons of cutting-edge tech, so therefor an F1 engine supplier must be a strong engineering company whose products you can trust. NASCAR doesn't have that though. Most people see NASCAR as "redneck" and "LOL stickers for headlights!". So since you can't make an engineering connection at least get name recognition beaten into the heads of the audience by promoting "Camry" as much as possible until everybody in the stands is driving to the track in one.
 
Zerkfitting said:
Production car templates don't work at high speeds. If you want production based racing check out some of the IMSA series.
Click to expand...

I was gonna touch on this earlier but didn't want to be TOO long winded, but yes, exactly. Production cars everybody, don't just produce zero downforce, but they actually create tons of lift. Even when there is a functional spoiler on a performance streetcar, it's not actually producing downforce, it's creating what is called "negative lift" because you're just reducing some of the lift that is already there without eliminating it. It takes a LOT to create downforce, which is why even the production based IMSA cars have huge aero.

Running a "stock" car in NASCAR would be so slow you would not want to watch it. Cornering speeds with aero lift and narrow tires (would they even be allowed slicks?) would tank, the braking would be more pathetic than it is now, and it would be like watching the Toyota Celebrity All-Star race every weekend.

You don't want to watch the Toyota Celebrity All-Star race every weekend.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
I agree with all your points. I'm fine with cars built specifically for a closed track environment. Just quit slapping on decals and calling the result a Taurus or an Intrepid or a Grand Prix. Quit requiring the manufacturers to pretend these cars have anything to do with production cars. People who aren't race fans don't know or care what won on Sunday, and race fans know better.

LewTheShoe asked, "Why would they be better if dressed up to look exactly like something they ain't?" I'll ask, "How do NASCAR or the manufacturers benefit by continuing to pretend these cars are something they haven't been in decades?"
Click to expand...
Charlie, with respect, I disagree with every point you're making. I don't believe the manufacturers are pretending the cars are actual Camrys. I don't believe Carl Edwards is saying his Subway Camry is actually an edible product either, LOL. I'd be fine with just calling it a Toyota, but saying Camry is "no harm, no foul" IMO.

However, forcing the teams to faithfully use production bodies on purpose built racing chassis would be far more hypocritical. And a whole host of practical problems as discussed by 'puffs and Zerk.
 
cheesepuffs said:
I was gonna touch on this earlier but didn't want to be TOO long winded, but yes, exactly. Production cars everybody, don't just produce zero downforce, but they actually create tons of lift. Even when there is a functional spoiler on a performance streetcar, it's not actually producing downforce, it's creating what is called "negative lift" because you're just reducing some of the lift that is already there without eliminating it. It takes a LOT to create downforce, which is why even the production based IMSA cars have huge aero.

Running a "stock" car in NASCAR would be so slow you would not want to watch it. Cornering speeds with aero lift and narrow tires (would they even be allowed slicks?) would tank, the braking would be more pathetic than it is now, and it would be like watching the Toyota Celebrity All-Star race every weekend.

You don't want to watch the Toyota Celebrity All-Star race every weekend.
Click to expand...
Anti-lift cannot be distinguished from downforce. They are one and the same.

In fact, modern production vehicles produce downforce sufficient to overcome lift at high speeds.
 
cheesepuffs said:
People for years have been saying "make the cars stock again", but let's look at this realistically and realize how we got to tube-chassis, purpose-build racecars to begin with.

First of all, safety. You cannot beat a purpose-built car for safety. You can add a cage to streetcar, but at 200 mph when you could be heading straight into a Dale Earnhardt style collision head-on with a barrier these things need to be safe. So you add a cage. And you need to have some type of engine subframe bracing to ensure that the engine doesn't rip out of the things, since roadcar subframes are merely bolt-in affairs. And you need to have a roof hatch at least at the super speedways. Don't forget you need a fuel cell and a structure around it. NASCAR uses fire suppression systems, now find a place to house and rout all of that too. Need to seriously beef up the footwell to protect from more Kyle Busch style leg and ankle injuries occurring.

Now let's talk about performance. A stock Fusion for instance is not made for hours straight of track duty. The brakes are tiny and insufficient and will fade within just a few laps, boiling the brake fluid. It needs to have bigger calipers and rotors. The cooling system is made for the freeway, not the speedway, so keeping temperatures in check for three to four hours of wide-open throttle will require a larger, dual-core radiator with more surface area and fluid capacity and we'll need a heavy-duty waterpump and a bigger fan, too. And stainless steel braided coolant lines for durability. The oil pan in a normal roadcar usually only holds about 5 quarts, which means with such little capacity the oil will overheat and breakdown extremely quickly. We'll need to house a 16 quart dry sump in the cabin and rout all that oil plumbing to the engine. Furthermore, those factory shocks will never survive the rigors of 600 miles at Charlotte. Banking puts tremendous loud on a suspension that a roadcar would never see, so we'll need better damping. Gotta match those damping rates to new springs, too. And we'll need camber plates for even tire wear and thicker swaybars as well. Good thing we beefed up our subframes to support those swaybars or they'd rip right out of the car!


This is just the tip of the iceberg, but my point is that it would take SO much work for a real Ford Fusion (or Chevy SS, or Camry) to become usable for racing in these conditions that you outweigh the ease of just building a car from scratch to suit your needs. And then there's the issue of parity because manufacturers. Yes, I know, a bunch of you are going to say, "Well if the Fords can't keep up with the Chevys then tell Ford to make a better car!". But that isn't feasible. The SS is course the fastest car on the street of the three, but is Toyota going to stop everything and make a rear wheel drive V8 sports sedan (i.e. a sales segment that they clearly don't care to be in because most people who buy cars don't actually want that) just to be able to beat Chevy at Homestead? Do you realize what a MASSIVE undertaking that would be, to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop and produce a whole new bespoke car to sell on their dealer lots just to run in NASCAR? That would be the end of NASCAR, immediately.
Click to expand...
Good post. Agree with all of this.

I would add that current production vehicles which are essentially "frameless" can't be made stiff enough to handle the kinds of chassis loads imposed. Torsional rigidity is essential.
 
To get your fill of modified stock car racing, watch the Continental Tire Challenge series. Heres a taste

 
LewTheShoe said:
... I don't believe the manufacturers are pretending the cars are actual Camrys. ...
Click to expand...
Okay, we've boiled this down to the core of our disagreement. Call it marketing, call it pretending, but those things are on the track are not Camrys, Fusions, or SSs, and I don't see the point in calling them what they're not when everyone involved knows otherwise.

It certainly won't stop me from watching, and it's not on my list of Top 10 Things I'd Change When I Take Over. It just annoys the rear end grease out of me.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Okay, we've boiled this down to the core of our disagreement. Call it marketing, call it pretending, but those things are on the track are not Camrys, Fusions, or SSs, and I don't see the point in calling them what they're not when everyone involved knows otherwise.

It certainly won't stop me from watching, and it's not on my list of Top 10 Things I'd Change When I Take Over. It just annoys the rear end grease out of me.
Click to expand...


Skip to 1:40
 
ChexOrWrex said:
To get your fill of modified stock car racing, watch the Continental Tire Challenge series. Heres a taste

Click to expand...

Conti looked pretty bleak for a while. I'm glad there's a resurgence beginning now.

A lot of similar machines can be found in Pirelli World Challenge (GTS/TC/TCA/TCB).
 
Does anybody have something showing the breakdown of what portions of the race each driver will be doing or does that even exist? Would love to be able to catch Gordon on track but I know I'm not going to be there for the entire race.
 
AdoubleU24 said:
Does anybody have something showing the breakdown of what portions of the race each driver will be doing or does that even exist? Would love to be able to catch Gordon on track but I know I'm not going to be there for the entire race.
Click to expand...
That's up to the teams, and I suspect some of them haven't firmed up their schedules yet. I don't know if IMSA requires them to turn in a schedule, or if IMSA or the teams release them publicly.

Either way, teams don't have to stick with their original schedules. They're often changed on the fly even during the shorter races. They can be affected by driver health, track and weather conditions, what drivers are getting in or out of the closest competing cars, etc. If you somehow get a schedule, I'd only count on the starting and closing drivers, and maybe whoever is scheduled for the 0-dark-30 segments.
 
^ Yes. The strategy is "free" and usually pretty fluid ... changes with mechanical problems, accident damage. Sometimes certain drivers do double stints.
 
Yep, there's a lot of flexibility built in but usually they do try to start the race with Ricky and close with Jordan. I would speculate that they'll try to have him run during the day time hours more than anything else since he's the least experienced of the bunch and it's really easy to bin one of these things with cold tires on a cold track. McMurray did that a few years back.
 
R Clarence said:
Is the roof the only difference in those with 'n without?
Click to expand...
The open-****pit cars are the spec Pro-Am class cars. Closed are the brand-new Pro class. The open-****pit have been around forever (2009, I think), don't have nearly the level of aero and power as the Pro cars, and are being phased out this year. A lot of the time the GTLM cars are actually faster than them on the straights.
 
R Clarence said:
Is the roof the only difference in those with 'n without?
Click to expand...
Negative. There are four classes that compete on the same track at the same time. Two classes are driven by professional drivers, the other two split duties between pros and amateurs.

The red and white roofed car is one of several designs in the top tier 'Prototype' series. Those are driven by pros, and it's the level Gordon is running in this year. The black and white one in the second row is also in that class, as is the yellow car in the fourth row.

The pink and white car roofless car is in a spec series. It's a pro-am series that's going away next year. See also the red and black car in the third row

The last two classes have a lot in common with their showroom equivalents. One class ('GT Le Mans') is driven by pros (the yellow 'Vette), the other by pro-ams ('GT Daytona', red and white car on the outside). The GTLM pro-driven cars are more advanced than the pro-am GTD ones.

Generally, the two pro classes are the fastest, followed by the two pro-am classes.
 
Last edited:
I'm really on the fence about going to this this weekend. What kind of access to you get with the infield pass? Is that for the infield seating, or does that give you fanzone access, etc? And can you come and go between the grandstands/infield during the race?
 
AdoubleU24 said:
I'm really on the fence about going to this this weekend. What kind of access to you get with the infield pass? Is that for the infield seating, or does that give you fanzone access, etc? And can you come and go between the grandstands/infield during the race?
Click to expand...
If you use your Uber app, the drivers in the GTD class will shuttle you between the grandstands and the infield :D
 
AdoubleU24 said:
I'm really on the fence about going to this this weekend. What kind of access to you get with the infield pass? Is that for the infield seating, or does that give you fanzone access, etc? And can you come and go between the grandstands/infield during the race?
Click to expand...

Wow what is stopping you? You are even a Gordon fan, how many times do you think he is going to race again. And if he has unfinished business you know he is going out there to kill it!
 
AdoubleU24 said:
I'm really on the fence about going to this this weekend. What kind of access to you get with the infield pass? Is that for the infield seating, or does that give you fanzone access, etc? And can you come and go between the grandstands/infield during the race?
Click to expand...
What I've been doing for years is registering for the 5K on the track the morning of the race for something like $25 or $30. You get a 2-day infield/grandstand wristband included which is a huge steal. I think it normally goes for $60 if you buy from the ticket office and even 2-day grandstand only is something like $40. As long as you have the combined infield/grandstand wristband you can access the FanZone, the carnival by Lake Lloyd, and the Midway. They have trams running all day and all night so you can flow freely between the infield and the stadium.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom