What do you think of the NextGen Car?

What I'm saying is that HP and aero effects are interrelated. Gen 4 cars had a lot of horsepower, twisted sister bodies intended to produce a lot of downforce and side force with low drag, and operated in an era of emerging aerodynamics expertise in Nascar. That last point about aero sophistication is gone forever and can never happen again, although one can attempt to retrieve sorta kinda similar effects by mandating spec bodies and other components that cannot be altered.

Good skill-based racing requires substantial changes in speed that the driver must manage... braking into corners... searching for the razor's edge to maximize mid-corner speed... accelerating off the corner fighting for grip to get the throttle open a fraction earlier than the other guy. The way to achieve this is plenty of power for robust acceleration, and a scarcity of cornering capability due to aero downforce and side force. That's just my opinion, but it's not a completely uneducated opinion.

The fallacy of the NA18D philosophy is that it takes all that away, and offers a leader with a drag penalty pursued by others who can stay close (no drag penalty on them) but they can't pass because they suffer a downforce penalty from dirty air. Everyone's droning around WFO (or very close to it). Straightaway speeds are low because low HP and high drag. But cornering speeds are high because of the high downforce... there is little to no need to lift. The illusion of close racing.

As @aunty dive often says, aero effects have always existed and always will, at least until we are racing on Mars. He's right, of course. But I believe aero effects can be mitigated to avoid creating an overwhelming advantage for either the leading car or the pursuing car. If total aerodynamic downforce is low, then the penalty of losing 15% of it due to dirty air will also be a low penalty. Also, if aero drag is low, the drag penalty of being the leader will be lower than if drag is high (and I believe the Next Gen car is very high drag).

I postulate that Next Gen is high drag by observing that fall 2021 test at Charlotte. With the familiar 550 HP, the new car circulated at or close to WFO and was way slower than the year before with the same power... something like 3 seconds slower IIRC. What could cause that, other than high drag? In desperation, Nascar had some teams test radically smaller spoilers for less drag, while other teams tested 670 HP to power through the drag. Finally, Nascar adopted both... smaller spoilers and more horsepower... and still were slower than he year before but by a lesser amount. I don't know why Next Gen was designed with so much more drag. Nascar has never addressed the topic.

So is a very drag-y Next Gen car with 670 HP really a more potent piece than last year's Gen 6 at 550 HP? No, I don't think it is. There is more off-throttle time, and this is absolutely crucial to the improved quality of racing. I think that comes from the lower downforce due to smaller spoiler, rather than from the extra ponies. I'd definitely like to see more power to get away from the momentum racing. More power. Or less drag. Or both.

Your second paragraph put into words what I was seeing, and the issue I have with the current generation of cars.

More straight away speed, slower corner speed with cars that don't want to turn. When a driver/car can find a way to make a bit of grip, that HP allows for completed passes.

Im going to save what you wrote here. This is great stuff.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 
The Charlotte test last fall revealed several huge problems, and time was short to get them fixed. Mainly, the car was dog slow due to having a tremendous amount of inherent aerodynamic drag; interior temperatures were dangerously high; and venting the interior heat just added to the drag problem. I recall feeling astonishment that Nascar got this far without realizing what a pickle they were in. They have wind tunnels. They have CFD algorithms. Are they really this inept?

It was too late to change the crust. So Nascar changed the sauce and changed the condiments and hoped for the best. More sauce: up from 550 to 670 HP. More condiments: smaller spoilers to shed some drag. It was a last-minute Hail Mary that got us where we are now.
I'm trying to imagine what the racing at intermediate tracks would've been like with the 550hp/8 inch spoilers NASCAR originally intended to use.
I agree that the racing has improved but it's difficult to determine if that's because of the new car or due to the increased hp/decreased downforce. I think the loss of side force definitely plays a part.
 
whole story, just sayin

1660319505408.png
 
So, the whole story is that we have not seen this many DNF's going back to 2017 with a car that was billed, and ballyhooed by many here, as much more durable.
Got it.
There are more reasons than the simplistic one you are claiming. Part of what you aren't remembering is that many, me included said there will be more rubbing and contact is BECAUSE the car can take more punishment and is easier repaired.

Reconfigured to a smaller restrictor plate type Atlanta had 23 DNF's compared to 3 DNF's the year before. The one's behind the wheel of the car are driving more aggressively. The 600 at Charlotte had 17 DNF's compared to 1 the year before. All anybody has to do to see the differences between the cars is to watch the racing especially the restarts. I think the Jr gerbil is going to S$$T his pants over the CONTACT!! he screams every race.
 
I can remember when 80,000 fans stood up and cheered when a wrecked race car was reconfigured in the pits, and then made it back on the track many laps down.

We do not see that anymore.... they get a flat tire and get towed to the garage.
 
84% of 2022 DNF’s are attributable to crashes and engine failure.

Don’t slug the wall at speed.

Still got aero issues 🤷🏻‍♂️
There isn’t a high speed race car on the planet that doesn’t have aero issues.
 
I can remember when 80,000 fans stood up and cheered when a wrecked race car was reconfigured in the pits, and then made it back on the track many laps down.

We do not see that anymore.... they get a flat tire and get towed to the garage.
takes a hell of a lot more than a flat tire to get towed to the garage lol.
 
There's too many factors going into DNF's to make them usable statistics.

2009ish-2014ish you'd get 1-3 start n park's per race til NASCAR abolished that practice (can't remember which year that was exactly).

Before the late 00s reliability was still a major concern with multiple DNF's per race from engine/parts issues.

And of course, the field size is 36-37 cars a race instead of 43.

With win/in and the Chase even before the DVP it was pointless (literally) to fix a damaged car to try to finish 34th instead of 36th 200 laps down. So cars that would've returned just pack up and go home.



Wayyyyyy too many variables for DNF's to be a stat that means anything. The sport has changed sooooo much in the last 20 years it's pointless to compare.
 
takes a hell of a lot more than a flat tire to get towed to the garage lol.
It doesn't take MUCH more when you only get 6 minutes to fix it, and the teams don't have fully stocked crash carts sitting a few steps away.
 
There's too many factors going into DNF's to make them usable statistics.

2009ish-2014ish you'd get 1-3 start n park's per race til NASCAR abolished that practice (can't remember which year that was exactly).

Before the late 00s reliability was still a major concern with multiple DNF's per race from engine/parts issues.

And of course, the field size is 36-37 cars a race instead of 43.

With win/in and the Chase even before the DVP it was pointless (literally) to fix a damaged car to try to finish 34th instead of 36th 200 laps down. So cars that would've returned just pack up and go home.



Wayyyyyy too many variables for DNF's to be a stat that means anything. The sport has changed sooooo much in the last 20 years it's pointless to compare.
I absolutely do not miss the start and park days
 
There's too many factors going into DNF's to make them usable statistics.

2009ish-2014ish you'd get 1-3 start n park's per race til NASCAR abolished that practice (can't remember which year that was exactly).

Before the late 00s reliability was still a major concern with multiple DNF's per race from engine/parts issues.

And of course, the field size is 36-37 cars a race instead of 43.

With win/in and the Chase even before the DVP it was pointless (literally) to fix a damaged car to try to finish 34th instead of 36th 200 laps down. So cars that would've returned just pack up and go home.



Wayyyyyy too many variables for DNF's to be a stat that means anything. The sport has changed sooooo much in the last 20 years it's pointless to compare.

I didn’t see what the big problem is with 43 car fields where 4-7 cars parked, it was much better than this lousy charter system. At least those start and park cars had to qualify on time 99% of the time and still had to qualify to get their checks without being guaranteed a check.
 
“lousy Charter system”. Current value ... $720 Million.

Wood Bros’ slice is 20 mill and still climbing. Nice reward for a lifetime of support and participation.

That’s fine that you care about business I care about a product on the racetrack. Go watch your USAC.
 
What happens on the track is a product of the business of professional auto racing.
 
I can remember when 80,000 fans stood up and cheered when a wrecked race car was reconfigured in the pits, and then made it back on the track many laps down.

We do not see that anymore.... they get a flat tire and get towed to the garage.
That has nothing to do with the new car. That's NASCAR's repair policy implemented three years ago. '19 and '21 had less than 100 DNFs so that ain't it.
 
There's too many factors going into DNF's to make them usable statistics.

2009ish-2014ish you'd get 1-3 start n park's per race til NASCAR abolished that practice (can't remember which year that was exactly).

Before the late 00s reliability was still a major concern with multiple DNF's per race from engine/parts issues.

And of course, the field size is 36-37 cars a race instead of 43.

With win/in and the Chase even before the DVP it was pointless (literally) to fix a damaged car to try to finish 34th instead of 36th 200 laps down. So cars that would've returned just pack up and go home.



Wayyyyyy too many variables for DNF's to be a stat that means anything. The sport has changed sooooo much in the last 20 years it's pointless to compare.
3 of the 4 points you make actually amplify the current rash of DNFs.
Anyway, if comparing just the last 5 years, it seems as though the new car has not proven to be more durable.
It may well be able to handle more abuse in the future, but currently there are multiple Achilles heels that need to be addressed.
 
The cars have been on the track for less than a full season.

Lower your expectations.
 
I love the car.

Some things such as the overall rigidity of the car needs to be looked at. Safety is paramount and I would like to see what could done to prevent accidents such as Kurt being out for almost a month now. Nitpicking, but outside of issues at short tracks, we have seen the quality of racing improve on intermediates and road courses. Also, the superspeedway package is pretty good as well.


Honestly, outside of that I don't have a lot of complaints. A bit more grunt from the engines on the short tracks and road courses would be nice, but beggers can't be choosers. Also, I think the engine shops appreciate having to only hit one specific number for all tracks.
 
I do every time I log on here.
Then don’t log on.

It seems to me that remarks made by the media and some drivers regarding increased durability of the new cars have to do with the composite bodywork and not the problematic teething issues associated with steering rack and transaxle components.
 
And it appears teams have figured out how to change tires with single lug hubs.

Imagine that.
 
Then don’t log on.
Tehehe. That's cuter than a Hallie Deegan video.
It seems to me that remarks made by the media and some drivers regarding increased durability of the new cars have to do with the composite bodywork and not the problematic teething issues associated with steering rack and transaxle components.
Ironic that I was thinking of the rear toe link and carbon fiber under body and you mentioned two separate issues.
 
Steering rack and transaxle dnf’s are a matter of record.

Toe links are designed to fail ... prevents control arm damage / failure.

I’m unaware of any problems with the undertray that result in a dnf. Please enlighten me.
 
Steering rack and transaxle dnf’s are a matter of record.

Toe links are designed to fail ... prevents control arm damage / failure.

I’m unaware of any problems with the undertray that result in a dnf. Please enlighten me.
Oh.
Ok.
 
It seems to me that remarks made by the media and some drivers regarding increased durability of the new cars
It seems to me those remarks are more to push a narrative that drives an agenda than it does with reality. Do not remember too many DNF's caused by flat tires.
 
Steering rack and transaxle dnf’s are a matter of record.

Toe links are designed to fail ... prevents control arm damage / failure.

I’m unaware of any problems with the undertray that result in a dnf. Please enlighten me.
Porcelain dog bone 🦴.
Part failure is part failure, regardless of whether or not it is designed to fail. Is it truly designed to fail or is it designed to last an entire race?
 
Back
Top Bottom