What are these "Cookie Cutters" of which you speak?

LewTheShoe said:
Fortunately, there are Monster Girls at Nascar events for those who don't care to pay close attention to the racers at work.
Click to expand...

I can enjoy the drivers skills while also seeing the relationship of the "cookie cutters".
And I suppose essays can be written about the differences between them.
If we have to demand exact precise terms we can go after folks for the semantics too.

But the similarities between them are also undeniable, and the applied term "cookie cutter" is still fitting imo.
Nascars imvestment in those tracks is the only thing that saves them from a rightous need to reconfigure.
 
Greg said:
I can enjoy the drivers skills while also seeing the relationship of the "cookie cutters".
And I suppose essays can be written about the differences between them.
If we have to demand exact precise terms we can go after folks for the semantics too.

But the similarities between them are also undeniable, and the applied term "cookie cutter" is still fitting imo.
Nascars imvestment in those tracks is the only thing that saves them from a rightous need to reconfigure.
Click to expand...

If being called a hater because you don't agree with someone on something is acceptable then I think it is OK to used the term "Cookie Cutter" for tracks that look the same from the comfort of the big screen.
 
Even though the cookies are far from the worst race, that award solely belongs to Indy, they still produce a pretty lousy race on tv. So far the only cookie cutters I've been to are Texas, vegas and Kansas City. Vegas was actually fun, almost on the same level as going to the Daytona 500 as far as side show entertainment and the fact everyone in town is there for the race, and Kansas City is just awful, slower speeds, one driver checks out for 99% of the race, and my driver(jr) never has any luck.

Kentucky and Chicago had no reason to ever exist, and Texas, KC, and charlotte should be limited to one race per year.
 
One reason I look forward to the road courses and Pocono.
 
aunty dive said:
Disagree.
Click to expand...
Are your posts serious? Yes road courses and shorts tracks are more driver skill.

To the poster praising 1.5 mile tracks and low downforce. The only good racing we saw on those were the first several races, which were also on highly abrasive worn out asphalt tracks, which btw always produce better racing. I don't think the low downforce deal made that much difference once all the teams figured it out. The 1.5 mile tracks were done when Indy car was huge and you could run both cars on the tracks. No one would better another one if they were building new today
 
aunty dive said:
In this case, yes, that was a serious post. Not all of them are.

The same skill sets are in use at every venue on the Cup schedule. None of them require more skill than the others.
Click to expand...
Disagree.

The Brobs are more dependant on car than driver. We see different people in the top 10 at the short tracks and road courses all the time because there, while car still matters, driver skill can overcome mechanical and aerodynamic disadvantage to a degree. See Matt DiBenedetto at Bristol this past year. Or some of the runs the criminally underrated John Andretti had at Martinsville and Bristol throughout his career.

It took Jimmie Johnson years to get a road course win. And some great drivers never win at Martinsville. There's a reason a win at that track is so cherished by drivers.

Best car usually wins at the Brobdingnagians. I mean, legitimately bad drivers have won races at The Brobs.
 
Mechanical and aerodynamic excellence is a requirement everywhere.

To what "degree" can a driver overcome a disadvantage in either of those areas in this era ... at any track? What lesser lights have recorded wins at any of the short tracks and road courses being discussed here?

Matt DiBenedetto and John Andretti are highly skilled racecar drivers. If you think their cars weren't right on the days referenced, I've got news for you.
 
Last edited:
AndyMarquisLive said:
Disagree.

The Brobs are more dependant on car than driver. We see different people in the top 10 at the short tracks and road courses all the time because there, while car still matters, driver skill can overcome mechanical and aerodynamic disadvantage to a degree. See Matt DiBenedetto at Bristol this past year. Or some of the runs the criminally underrated John Andretti had at Martinsville and Bristol throughout his career.

It took Jimmie Johnson years to get a road course win. And some great drivers never win at Martinsville. There's a reason a win at that track is so cherished by drivers.

Best car usually wins at the Brobdingnagians. I mean, legitimately bad drivers have won races at The Brobs.
Click to expand...

The drivers even refer to the cutters being more car and the road courses and short tracks as being more driver.
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
Disagree.

The Brobs are more dependant on car than driver. We see different people in the top 10 at the short tracks and road courses all the time because there, while car still matters, driver skill can overcome mechanical and aerodynamic disadvantage to a degree. See Matt DiBenedetto at Bristol this past year. Or some of the runs the criminally underrated John Andretti had at Martinsville and Bristol throughout his career.

It took Jimmie Johnson years to get a road course win. And some great drivers never win at Martinsville. There's a reason a win at that track is so cherished by drivers.

Best car usually wins at the Brobdingnagians. I mean, legitimately bad drivers have won races at The Brobs.
Click to expand...
Agree
 
Honestly though, we always forget to mention what a POS this Gen 6 car is. The racing was better even in the early COT era.

This car has expanded the disparity between the big budget teams and the low budget teams considerably. It's even more aerodynamic and includes all the worst things about the COT. But it's prettier.

My interest took a nosedive when this car came on the scene. It's made racing at the short tracks slightly worse, it's made racing at The Brobs worse and it's even made racing at the road courses slightly worse.
 
hidesert cowboy said:
Are your posts serious? Yes road courses and shorts tracks are more driver skill.

To the poster praising 1.5 mile tracks and low downforce. The only good racing we saw on those were the first several races, which were also on highly abrasive worn out asphalt tracks, which btw always produce better racing. I don't think the low downforce deal made that much difference once all the teams figured it out. The 1.5 mile tracks were done when Indy car was huge and you could run both cars on the tracks. No one would better another one if they were building new today
Click to expand...

Nailed it. I got slammed when I watched a race and said it was exactly the same as 2015. There were a couple more lead changes and a little bit more passing but not enough for me to say the racing was great.
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
Honestly though, we always forget to mention what a POS this Gen 6 car is. The racing was better even in the early COT era.

This car has expanded the disparity between the big budget teams and the low budget teams considerably. It's even more aerodynamic and includes all the worst things about the COT. But it's prettier.

My interest took a nosedive when this car came on the scene. It's made racing at the short tracks slightly worse, it's made racing at The Brobs worse and it's even made racing at the road courses slightly worse.
Click to expand...
A cinder block flying through the air at 80 mph is affected by aerodynamics.

If Cup cars ever become less dependent upon highly refined aero, it will be because race speeds have been drastically reduced ... and a lesser degree of dependency will still exist. Physics.
 
aunty dive said:
A cinder block flying through the air at 80 mph is affected by aerodynamics.

If Cup cars ever become less dependent upon highly refined aero, it will be because race speeds have been drastically reduced ... and a lesser degree of dependency will still exist. Physics.
Click to expand...
The COT wasn't aero heavy though. At first. In fact, it was pretty common for drivers to run the same car at Martinsville and Kansas. That can't be done with the new car.

But it was ugly and the drivers hated it so it got changed.

Good rule of thumb, if the drivers hate something, it's usually a good thing for fans nine times out of 10.
 
aunty dive said:
I thought most competitors refer to Pocono as being more like a road course.
Click to expand...
AndyMarquisLive said:
It's different. I wouldn't call it a road course though. But it does require a lot more driver skill than Kansas because it's impossible to get the car setup to turn well in every corner.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is different.

Road course cars are set up to best negotiate the turn leading onto the longest straight. The ability to best negotiate the other turns is compromised by that. Pocono.
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
Pocono is a Brobdingnagian Monstrosity. But at least it's different from the others.
Click to expand...
Personal opinions such as the above would be less ridiculous if they were phrased as opinions rather than being foisted off as facts. The members here are not stupid, and generally don't like being addressed as if they were, IMO.
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
The COT wasn't aero heavy though. At first. In fact, it was pretty common for drivers to run the same car at Martinsville and Kansas. That can't be done with the new car.

But it was ugly and the drivers hated it so it got changed.

Good rule of thumb, if the drivers hate something, it's usually a good thing for fans nine times out of 10.
Click to expand...
You're right, it wasn't. One of several engineering mandates incorporated into the design was downforce reduction.

I believe that the left / right weight bias change to 50 / 50 put those cars right on the edge of mechanical and aerodynamic instability. They were very twitchy.
 
LewTheShoe said:
Personal opinions such as the above would be less ridiculous if they were phrased as opinions rather than being foisted off as facts. The members here are not stupid, and generally don't like being addressed as if they were, IMO.
Click to expand...

What's not a fact? Pocono being very different from every other track? Only someone who is stupid would say Pocono isn't unique.

Short tracks... Southern National and Motor Mile are very similar. They're very different in a lot of ways but they ultimately look the same and produce the same style of racing. Same with Carteret and Langley. Or Hickory and Five Flags. Or Winchester and Salem. Or Ace and Greenville.

Sure, every track has character and is different. But Kansas, Chicago, Kentucky and Las Vegas all look similar and the on track racing is very similar to the naked eye. Charlotte, Texas and Atlanta all look similar and Atlanta stands out only because of its worn out, tire eating surface which is gonna change next year when Texas and Atlanta will look and feel identical to the fans. Texas is the worst track in NASCAR IMO, with Charlotte being a very close second. Indianapolis, Kentucky, Kansas and Chicago are right up there too.

California produces exactly the same style of racing as Michigan, California's surface is much older and wears tires down, but the racing simply became too entertaining and the drivers bitched about it so Goodyear and NASCAR had to fix it by taking rock tires down. :rolleyes:

Even Richmond can be considered a "cookie cutter" when you consider how similar Iowa is, and Memphis and Pikes Peak when NASCAR raced at those two tracks.

The racing is the same. The on track product is the same. The tracks all look the same. Some of the Brobs were even built or reconfigured to be similar to other Brobs.
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
The COT wasn't aero heavy though. At first. In fact, it was pretty common for drivers to run the same car at Martinsville and Kansas. That can't be done with the new car.

But it was ugly and the drivers hated it so it got changed.

Good rule of thumb, if the drivers hate something, it's usually a good thing for fans nine times out of 10.
Click to expand...
I remember early on the 48 team actually used a car they ran at martinsville as a Daytona back up and they ended up needing to use the car. Bristol has become a track where you see different cars at the front. Almost like Daytona.
 
aunty dive said:
You're right, it wasn't. One of several engineering mandates incorporated into the design was downforce reduction.
Click to expand...

Was the racing really that bad during the COT era? 2007 and 2008 was kind of bland at times, but that COT was also introduced around the same time Bruton Smith ****** up Bristol and Las Vegas. The races in 2005 and 2006 were pretty bland too. The races in 2009 and 2010 were pretty excellent. Even 2011 and 2012 produced some great racing. Much better than what we have now.

But the drivers didn't like the cars because they weren't aerodynamic enough and the fans didn't like the cars because the drivers didn't like the cars.
 
hidesert cowboy said:
I remember early on the 48 team actually used a car they ran at martinsville as a Daytona back up and they ended up needing to use the car. Bristol has become a track where you see different cars at the front. Almost like Daytona.
Click to expand...

During the COT era, a lot of different guys were running up front. Juan Pablo Montoya was a consistent threat to win races for a few years, as was AJ Allmendinger. Brian Vickers was a consistent top-five driver for a few years before his health problems (and yeah, I know he got the Loudon win in a Gen-6 car). Jamie McMurray won quite a few races, as did Kasey Kahne and Mark Martin. Jeff Burton became a front runner. The same drivers, sans Kevin Harvick who was driving for a team that hasn't won a single race since his departure, were dominating, but there was much more parity IMO.
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
But the drivers didn't like the cars because they weren't aerodynamic enough and the fans didn't like the cars because the drivers didn't like the cars.
Click to expand...
Ha ha ha.

Most or all of the best drivers, the elite ones, have been pushing for less downforce for a long time. Who is asking for more? Who was asking for 3500 pounds of downforce on the COT?
 
LewTheShoe said:
Ha ha ha.

Most or all of the best drivers, the elite ones, have been pushing for less downforce for a long time. Who is asking for more? Who was asking for 3500 pounds of downforce on the COT?
Click to expand...

The racing was also terrible as **** in 2013, 2014 and 2015 when those calls started happening. Drivers don't like it when they're on a racetrack and they can't pass at all.

Very rarely do the drivers and fans want the same thing.
 
In 2015, even Darrell ****** Waltrip was on Fox during the races bitching about the cars, the aeropackage and the racing. He kept noting that the horsepower reduction caused the cars all be equal in the turns, taking handling completely out of the picture.
 
^ Thank you, that's my point. Except for the part about the fans. I don't buy that.
 
LewTheShoe said:
^ Thank you, that's my point. Except for the part about the fans. I don't buy that.
Click to expand...

What? That the fans and drivers want different things?

If there was a race at California tomorrow and they had 57 lead changes, a photo finish, over 500 quality passes throughout the race, the fans would love it. If Kevin Harvick or Brad Keselowski got out afterwards and bitched about the tires, the track surface, everyone being too aggressive and this and that, the fans would suddenly think the race was terrible.

The races at California were amazing in 2013 and 2014. The drivers bitched about the tires afterwards and Goodyear and NASCAR decided to "fix" it. That's a prime example. The only reason the 2015 race was any good was because of a late race WWE caution.
 
I don't mind the mile and a half because I feel they produce the best style of racing for NASCAR. I won't deny I'd like to see some more variety in the tracks and even some new ones built as some tracks don't need two dates I believe. I know Gordon is working on one up in Canada similar to Richmond but things are going slow with it. I think a track like Bristol in NYC would be cool as well and they could use at least one more road course or maybe even a street circuit of sorts.
 
When I say style of racing I'm talking about how they showcase the cars. On those tracks these cars get tested at high speeds that are safer than superspeedways. They are the ideal tracks to race on in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom