What happened?

C

CalTenn

Team Owner
Joined
Apr 28, 2016
Messages
255
Points
223
I had some time and thought I would find an old race to watch, after about 15 minutes of searching I decided on the second Pocono race from 1985. It was a great choice, Parsons, Petty, Waltrip, Earnhardt Sr, Yarbrough, Elliott, in my opinion this was the best era in Nascar racing. I loved the way the cars looked and those guys could flat out drive race cars that weren't reliant on the the cars for down force, the front end of those cars were 6 inches off the ground. There were about 8 cars at the start of that race fighting for the lead, 2 & 3 wide through the tunnel, great racing. No wonder ratings were through the roof!
 
Those older races are fun to watch, especially if you don't really know the outcome. I have been thinking about picking an older season to watch and just finding each race on youtube. Just seeing what the tracks looked like back then are really interesting too. Bristol looks totally different. There were no SAFER barriers anywhere and some tracks didn't even have walls just guard rails.
 
Yea Bristol looked like 3/4 mile track without stands all around. The asphalt looked smooth and cars ran top and bottom. I would like to see these drivers in those cars, I think it would be interesting.
 
That was something what the 9 team did in 85, I remember hearing a crew chief saying he had never seen a car that dominant at Daytona! I think he won his twin by 37 seconds.
 
LouieLouie said:
Those older races are fun to watch, especially if you don't really know the outcome. I have been thinking about picking an older season to watch and just finding each race on youtube. Just seeing what the tracks looked like back then are really interesting too. Bristol looks totally different. There were no SAFER barriers anywhere and some tracks didn't even have walls just guard rails.
Click to expand...
http://www.driveraverages.com/nascar_varied/nascar-youtube.php/
 
Nascar racing in the 1980's was a good era for sure. "What happened" is a simple question, but with a complex answer I suspect. I'd love to understand more about the underlying reasons for the evolution of the cars and rules back in that era.

I guess you'd be accurate to say the 1980's had big horsepower, big drag, and not a lot of downforce. These were purpose-built race chassis fitted with production body panels.

Nascar's aerodynamics era began with the new cars and rules introduced in 1992, what is now called Gen 4. There were no production car parts on these cars, chassis or body. Wind tunnels were used extensively in search of less drag and more downforce. I've heard that Detroit was the driving force behind the change, wanting their products on the big stage to be more sophisticated racing vehicles. I've heard safety was also a big factor, because the cars were developing a propensity to fly. I wish I knew more about it.

I think the racing in 2016 is dramatically better than what we have had for many years, and signs are that Nascar intends to push that positive development even further. But once you learn about something as crucial as aerodynamics, you can never un-learn it. Nascar really learned about aero in the early 1990's... and that changed everything.
 
check this out these were my favorite cars the notchbacks, these cars look fun to drive. They look like you can really sling them around. CAL why don't you link to that pocono race. fast forward to just before the 20 minute mark the CC is actually the front tire changer. check it out as they introduce the pit crew, pretty interesting.
 
kymartin6 said:
Same here Skoal......... I hate to wear on folks about how great it was then........
Click to expand...

Normally when you talk about liking Nascar better in the 80's up to the mid 90's you get blasted by people who get out a slide rule and a sun dial and earnestly tell you how wrong you are. I know what I like and I liked the racing, TV coverage, tracks, broadcasters, rules (lack of rules), creativity and latitude given to crew chiefs, different engine and chassis builders, single car teams and none of the drama we have today.
 
Skoalbandit33 said:
Normally when you talk about liking Nascar better in the 80's up to the mid 90's you get blasted by people who get out a slide rule and a sun dial and earnestly tell you how wrong you are. I know what I like and I liked the racing, TV coverage, tracks, broadcasters, rules (lack of rules), creativity and latitude given to crew chiefs, different engine and chassis builders, single car teams and none of the drama we have today.
Click to expand...
I don't know, Skoal... Most folks here at R-F would recognize that you have stated a personal preference, and we are all entitled to have them, although the question of nostalgia and selective memory may be raised.

The real disagreement typically begins when someone extends what you said to the the next (illogical) level... "If Nascar had kept things just as they were in 1985, the sport would be stronger and better today than it currently is." That time machine argument is what really gets the debate going.
 
I spend a lot of time watching Youtube races from the mid 80's to mid 90's myself. I love those late 80's, early 90's Talladega and Daytona (including the 400) races. Also the I'm by no means old, 33, but I love that generation of NASCAR too. The cars, the drivers, championship format, "short track season", the broadcasters, the lack of pomp and circumstance, how each race was its own major event and most importantly, when it was the greatest spectator sport in the country. Going to a race back then was something of a mythical experience. The paying customer truly mattered more than the guy sitting in his living room back then.

Pocono is my home track. The track has done an amazing job over the last 4-5 years updating the track and ensuring increased safety. It truly has become a first rate facility with an old school feel. There were some people 16-17 years ago that thought Pocono would not be around today. The NYC track seemed like a sure bet which meant Pocono was doomed.....
 
Last edited:
Skoalbandit33 said:
Normally when you talk about liking Nascar better in the 80's up to the mid 90's you get blasted by people who get out a slide rule and a sun dial and earnestly tell you how wrong you are. I know what I like and I liked the racing, TV coverage, tracks, broadcasters, rules (lack of rules), creativity and latitude given to crew chiefs, different engine and chassis builders, single car teams and none of the drama we have today.
Click to expand...

You're right it was the total package.

The quality of the broadcast has gone way down over the years. In the early-mid 90s the coverage was better and there was more experience in the booth. There was less focus on the big names and more on the entire field. There were far less commercials as well (or none if you had C-band ;)).

I miss those days and I'm happy I got to see the end of that era. I'm of the opinion that the racing was good until 2000-2001. It's a subject people don't like to talk about but the death of Dale Earnhardt was the end of that era. For all the improvements in safety we sacrificed things that made the sport exciting. A safer template for the cars took away freedom from the teams and increased the price of entry for independents. His death changed so many things...I could go on all day.

Combine this with the big push to make NASCAR more appealing to a mass audience. It was packaged and dumbed down to draw in people that had little or any interest in it. Southern fans watched as more and more weekends were sent out west and many of them lost their home track. There was a time when for every fan NASCAR gained outside of the south it probably pissed off 2 back home. Long time fans can forgive all that but what they won't forgive is NASCAR always acting ashamed of where it came from.

It's everything...everything changed. The money ruined it.
 
LewTheShoe said:
I don't know, Skoal... Most folks here at R-F would recognize that you have stated a personal preference, and we are all entitled to have them, although the question of nostalgia and selective memory may be raised.

The real disagreement typically begins when someone extends what you said to the the next (illogical) level... "If Nascar had kept things just as they were in 1985, the sport would be stronger and better today than it currently is." That time machine argument is what really gets the debate going.
Click to expand...

My personal preference for Nascar is that time period and for the NHL it is from the mid 60's to the late 70's and it is the same for MLB. I have always enjoyed football through all its rule changes.
 
Another thing that made the 80s better for me was you could tell the different makes of car. Different makes would have advantages for a while but it would always swing back the other way. I believe the sprint cup cars should have to look like a Camaro, Mustang, Camry, fans really used to identify with a certain make. When all the cars started looking more similar this seemed to fade. The win on Sunday sell on Monday doesn't have the same effect as it used to. I remember seeing fights because a Ford fan and Chevy fan couldn't see eye to eye, fans seemed to be more passionate.
 
CalTenn said:
Another thing that made the 80s better for me was you could tell the different makes of car. Different makes would have advantages for a while but it would always swing back the other way. I believe the sprint cup cars should have to look like a Camaro, Mustang, Camry, fans really used to identify with a certain make. When all the cars started looking more similar this seemed to fade. The win on Sunday sell on Monday doesn't have the same effect as it used to. I remember seeing fights because a Ford fan and Chevy fan couldn't see eye to eye, fans seemed to be more passionate.
Click to expand...

When General Motors wanted to get on a competitive footing with Ford at super speedways they had to actually manufacture Monte Carlo and Grand Prix Aero Coupes to sell to the public as you had to race something that resembled what you actually made. Now they have spec racers with decals for exhaust ports.

AF14_r0874_01.jpg
 
Skoalbandit33 said:
When General Motors wanted to get on a competitive footing with Ford at super speedways they had to actually manufacture Monte Carlo and Grand Prix Aero Coupes to sell to the public as you had to race something that resembled what you actually made. Now they have spec racers with decals for exhaust ports.

View attachment 19509
Click to expand...
This is kind of what Chevy is doing with the SS today though. They only sell a handful of them every year, but enough to classify as a production car so they can run it in NASCAR. Only difference is that in this case GM didn't build an all new car, but instead knocked the cobwebs off of the 2008-09 Pontiac G8 and rebadged it as a Chevrolet.
 
I think at one time a manufacturer had sell 500 cars in order to use it to race.
 
NC HillBilly said:
Combine this with the big push to make NASCAR more appealing to a mass audience. It was packaged and dumbed down to draw in people that had little or any interest in it. Southern fans watched as more and more weekends were sent out west and many of them lost their home track. There was a time when for every fan NASCAR gained outside of the south it probably pissed off 2 back home. Long time fans can forgive all that but what they won't forgive is NASCAR always acting ashamed of where it came from.

It's everything...everything changed. The money ruined it.
Click to expand...
Regionalism ... ya' gotta' love it.

Over the course of the last 30 or so years, the very same thing has occurred in professional football, baseball, basketball and hockey. Had NASCAR remained "true to its roots", you wouldn't be watching it in HD every weekend.
 
CalTenn said:
Another thing that made the 80s better for me was you could tell the different makes of car. Different makes would have advantages for a while but it would always swing back the other way. I believe the sprint cup cars should have to look like a Camaro, Mustang, Camry, fans really used to identify with a certain make. When all the cars started looking more similar this seemed to fade. The win on Sunday sell on Monday doesn't have the same effect as it used to. I remember seeing fights because a Ford fan and Chevy fan couldn't see eye to eye, fans seemed to be more passionate.
Click to expand...
I think the Gen-6 cars look more like the street cars than some previous generations, certainly more so than the COT and the anteater Gen-4 cars. The Xfinity cars are another matter though. I'm not sure what the hell those are supposed to be. The only one that looks remotely close to its street counterpart is the Camaro, and it looks more like the last-gen Camaro than the current one. The Mustang looks nothing like the street version, and last I checked they don't make Camry coupes at the moment.
 
aunty dive said:
Regionalism ... ya' gotta' love it.

Over the course of the last 30 or so years, the very same thing has occurred in professional football, baseball, basketball and hockey. Had NASCAR remained "true to its roots", you wouldn't be watching it in HD every weekend.
Click to expand...

Why does everything have to be an "ism" these days? I'd probably be watching it in HD as well considering everything on my local station comes in HD.

It came out of the region I grew up in and the days of running into a driver at a local diner are gone. That's all I'm saying.

NASCAR is ashamed of its roots and I take more issue with that then it going national. Although, going national is a big reason why the quality of the racing went down because they removed the older technical tracks from the tour and added a bunch of new ones that were pretty much just copy-cats of each other. Okay I lied, I also take issue with NC only having one track on the schedule now considering it was the worst of the tracks that we used to have on it.

NC deserves more than two point races a year at Charlotte. Losing both Rockingham dates was a big blow.
 
NC HillBilly said:
Why does everything have to be an "ism" these days? I'd probably be watching it in HD as well considering everything on my local station comes in HD.

It came out of the region I grew up in and the days of running into a driver at a local diner are gone. That's all I'm saying.

NASCAR is ashamed of its roots and I take more issue with that then it going national. Although, going national is a big reason why the quality of the racing went down because they removed the older technical tracks from the tour and added a bunch of new ones that were pretty much just copy-cats of each other. Okay I lied, I also take issue with NC only having one track on the schedule now considering it was the worst of the tracks that we used to have on it.

NC deserves more than two point races a year at Charlotte. Losing both Rockingham dates was a big blow.
Click to expand...
It is probably good that NASCAR expanded though. I went back 25 years and looked at the 1991 schedule. Of the 29 races that year, all but 7 were east of the Mississippi and south of the Mason-Dixon. If anyone living in someplace like Kansas wanted to attend a race, their options would have been very limited.
 
ToyYoda said:
It is probably good that NASCAR expanded though. I went back 25 years and looked at the 1991 schedule. Of the 29 races that year, all but 7 were east of the Mississippi and south of the Mason-Dixon. If anyone living in someplace like Kansas wanted to attend a race, their options would have been very limited.
Click to expand...

I don't take issue with them expanding. I take issue with them expanding by building the same race track over and over again. Had they built road courses, short tracks, or super speedways it would have been different.

Most fans complain about begin sick of the "cookie cutter" tracks. Well, those are the tracks the south gave up dates for. If they were any other type of configuration most people wouldn't complain so much about them. But at the time NASCAR wanted to be able to pack in as many people as possible so those were the tracks that got built. Now they're tearing out grandstands because people don't come to them.
 
ToyYoda said:
It is probably good that NASCAR expanded though. I went back 25 years and looked at the 1991 schedule. Of the 29 races that year, all but 7 were east of the Mississippi and south of the Mason-Dixon. If anyone living in someplace like Kansas wanted to attend a race, their options would have been very limited.
Click to expand...

People use, and did so happily it seemed, travel great distances to attend races 15- 20 years ago. My biggest issue with NASCAR is they sold their soul to TV. What NASCAR hard prior to 2001 was the truly the "Greatest Spectator Sport" in America. There is nothing that came close to attending a major auto race anywhere in the world. For this country, at that time, NASCAR had become the event to be at by the mid to late 80's. Part of the allure was getting to different tracks. This was a time when the Busch series were at another track and there were no trucks. So for many weekends/tracks it was all about Sunday!

The buzz at a NASCAR race in the 90's was something truly incredible. It doesn't come close to that no. The passion and fanaticism of the Elliott, Earnhardt, Gordon, Wallace, Irvan, Labonti('s), Martin's, Petty('s) etc created a whole different element of energy at the track in those days. Like I said, I'm not old but I've been to close to a 100 Cup races dating back to 1988.
 
NC HillBilly said:
I don't take issue with them expanding. I take issue with them expanding by building the same race track over and over again. Had they built road courses, short tracks, or super speedways it would have been different.

Most fans complain about begin sick of the "cookie cutter" tracks. Well, those are the tracks the south gave up dates for. If they were any other type of configuration most people wouldn't complain so much about them. But at the time NASCAR wanted to be able to pack in as many people as possible so those were the tracks that got built. Now they're tearing out grandstands because people don't come to them.
Click to expand...

I loved how the schedule was setup back in the day. They almost always ran two or three short tracks in row which usually made for some interesting twists for a few weeks. They actually called the spring run as "short track" season.

How about Talladega in July? HAHA....that heat tested driver, crew, official and fan. In truth, there use to be a lot of empty seats at the July Daytona and Talladega races for a reason back then...
 
NC HillBilly said:
Why does everything have to be an "ism" these days? I'd probably be watching it in HD as well considering everything on my local station comes in HD.

It came out of the region I grew up in and the days of running into a driver at a local diner are gone. That's all I'm saying.
Click to expand...
No idea.

National sports are broadcast on television. Coverage of regional events is spotty. That's what I'm saying. And millionaire athletes can often be found at private jet terminals.
 
KodiakRusty89 said:
I loved how the schedule was setup back in the day. They almost always ran two or three short tracks in row which usually made for some interesting twists for a few weeks. They actually called the spring run as "short track" season.
Click to expand...
Bristol April 3, 2015
Martinsville April 17, 2016
Richmond April 24, 2016

What do you think of the races so far this year?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom