Whatever Happened to "Stock" Cars?

A

abooja

Guest
Aside from the bizarre omission of Dale Earnhardt's name, I found this essay very amusing. :)

http://motorsportsnews.net/col20020828.html

Whatever Happened to "Stock" Cars?
by columnist Mick Charles
(08/28/2002)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back in the '40s and early '50s, the aspiring stock car driver would wheel his street car into the infield of the race track, tape up the headlights and taillights, "maybe" adjust the camber settings and air pressure in the tires, and go racin'!!

The car you saw competing on Saturday night could be purchased on Monday just about exactly as you saw it racing. There were even braggin' rights ... "I drive the same kind of car that Ned Jarrett drives (chest puffing out in pride).

Nowadays, the only "stock" piece on a stock car is the roof panel, which in the case of NASCAR, is mandated by the organization. And it isn't even "stock" like the Monte Carlo in your driveway, as it has the roof flaps installed.

If you want to buy exactly what you just saw racing at the track or on television last weekend, you'd better be prepared to shell out some serious cash to get it. HOW MUCH is that doggie..er..engine in the window??

And..... after you get it, does that race car even remotely resemble the Monte Carlo or Taurus or Grand Prix or Intrepid already in your driveway?

Not a chance... (well, they DO both have four wheels and tires....)

....unless you like fake headlights and tail-lights....

If I was a bettin' man (and I'm not), I'd reckon that if you have a red Chevrolet stock car, and one neighbor has a red Ford stock car, and the other one has a red Intrepid stock car, you could switch those wonderful headlight/taillight decals on the three vehicles, switch the vehicles in the driveway, and not be able to tell much difference.

Oh, by the way, which set of wheels/tires put the power to the road in a modern stock car? The rear, you say? How about your Taurus/Monte Carlo/Grand Prix/Intrepid?? What's that? The FRONT?? Pard, ain't no rear drive Tauruses I know of.... how 'bout you?

You want to know why NASCAR is beginning to lose popularity??

Well, I mean besides the excessively high ticket prices and nauseating politics and rule changes and uneven enforcement of the rules.....

Speaking of rules, have YOU ever seen one of those mystical rule books that are quoted.....

NASCAR: We fined your stinkin' backside according to Section 4, Subsection A, Paragraph 4... ad nauseum??
Driver: "I protest! I want a second opinion!!"

NASCAR: "OK, You're ugly, too!!"

Sorry, now where was I?? Oh yes, you want to know (one reason) why NASCAR is beginning to lose popularity??

How 'bout this?? Can YOU relate what's parked in your garage to what the Winston Cup stars are driving each week?

When I was a kid, I used to watch auto racing for the crashes (now, don't look so pious, YOU did, too). But that was before I grew up and realized there were real men (and women) in those cars who were risking injury or death to compete.

Safety is a primary concern..... especially given the deaths of Adam Petty, Kenny Irwin, Jr. and the others over the last few years.

But, even with safety as a concern, can't they make the stock cars look and seem just a bit more like what we can buy at the auto showroom?

Here's a radical concept..... make 'em race REALLY stock cars. A Taurus is front-wheel-drive? Make 'em race it like that on the track. An Intrepid has four doors? So should the race car.... V6 engine (V6?? sounds familiar.. BGN?...oh never mind)? Weenie little 205-70/16 tires?? Let 'em run-whut-they-brung.......

With all the dollars and knowledge and ingenuity tied up in NASCAR stock car racing, I reckon they'd have them front-wheel-drivers safely screamin' around Daytona in no time.......

AND THEY'D LOOK JUST LIKE "YOUR" CAR.

Race on Sunday..... sell on Monday.... what a concept!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Copyright 2002 MotorSportsNews.Net(work)
 
I think the cars look better now, but if they had rules setup so no one could have an advantage I wouldnt mind seeing the old type of cars race.The only thing I didn't like about the older type cars was it seems mosre people had a bigger advantage at the time but I think thats because they didn't have much rules setup.
 
Why should there be rules to keep anyone from gaining an advantage AND how does having such rules help the sport?

I mean, somebody has to fill me in on this one. I'm an almost old man that has never quite understood why anybody should be penalized for building a better mousetrap.
 
Building the better mousetrap is one of the things that has help drive the cost up and move the cars further away from being stock.

We used to be able to go to a junkyard, buy an old car, strip it down, put in a roll cage and junkyard motor and go racing. Would run the car till the motor blew, then back to the junkyard for another motor. Ran competive too. Nowdays if you try that, you'll find yourself in the back of the field by yourself.

Racers cheat, when enough cheat they get the rule changes and the mousetrap evolution continues.

I do think the "S" in NASCAR should be changed to "F", for fabricated. Same as the so called Late Model Stocks at our local tracks "Late Model Fabricated"
 
Originally posted by #84 NVRA
Building the better mousetrap is one of the things that has help drive the cost up and move the cars further away from being stock.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should rephrase the question....

How does forced parity help the sport of auto racing?

I guess your answer is that it keeps cost down, but I don't see how that helps the sport other than it allows for more folks to participate.
 
I don't think making all the cars equal is good for the sport. Just look at Daytona and Talladega, you watch a big pack and wait for something to happen. I've been to many races at Daytona, in the 60's and 70's, when you had cars strung out all over the track with racing going on everywhere. But then again they were mostly stock cars. Now days you need to stick with the short tracks if you want to see good racing.
Somewhere out there is a kid that would love to give racing a try, but can't afford to build a fabricated car and will never have a chance. Think what the world would have been like if Dale Earnhardt had to of spent 10 grand for his first racer. Boy would we have ever missed seeing such a talent.
 
Take a stock off the show room car, run it flat out for 500 miles and it will be toast way before 100 miles.

Windsor
 
I'm torn......yeah I wish we could see some truely stock cars race, but at the same time, I love the competitiveness that rules bring. There surely is a compromise somewhere.:) Yeah, it would be nice if some kid from Podunk, Idaho could break into Winston Cup on a shoe string......but it really was never that way in the first place. A kid in Podunk getting into racing back in the 60's had to come up with the same relative capitol as they do now. Just with the tough competition for sponsors it is harder......Dale Earnhardt didn't have money and he had to almost sell his soul to get into a good car. Same today......that kid has to do it too. But I agree about the stuff NASCAR is trying to do......parity is hurting the sport.
 
Originally posted by Windsor377
Take a stock off the show room car, run it flat out for 500 miles and it will be toast way before 100 miles.  

Windsor
Click to expand...

Windsor, are you saying they just don't build them like they used to?:)

I can believe that.:D
 
Don't blame the entire evolution on NASCAR. Windsor is correct, if the teams tried to run anything stock, or many cases even resembling stock, it would be some of the worst racing you have ever witnessed.

The teams have played a large role in this evolution as well. Why do you think NASCAR had to begin to using body templates way back in 1967?

As to the parity issue. It may have created its own monster, but past experience has more than aptly demonstrated that if one driver or manufactureer dominates for any period of time, fan interest and attendence drops dramatically.

"run what ya brung" in its purest form hasn't exixted in so long either on the drag strips or the ovals that it deserves no mention. Neither Chrsler nor Ford nor Chevy for that matter have been allowed to freely bring whatever they could come up with to hte track since the '50's when NASCAR outlawed bothe fuel injection adn supercharging. Either one of which were available on American made street cars at the time.
 
I see no problem with fuel injection and turbo CHARGED......not super charged since it's not readily available to the general automobile buyer.

Maybe, if TRAC, comes about things will change in NASCAR too. But, from what I been hearing lately that is a big maybe.:)
 
Fule Injection adn Superchargers were available on productin cars in the '50's.

Today fuel injection is standard.

Go buy yourself a Ford F-150 SVT Lightning. Under the hood you will find a 5.4L engine with a "roots" style supercharger sitting on it, straight from the factory. Available to the general public in both 2000 and 2001.
 
Not only would it be some of the worst racing, the cars would be no where near as safe as they are now, with all those roll bars underneath. Plus if they were just stock cars, anybody could enter their vehical and race, and you'd have hundred's of people trying to enter their brand new Monte Carlo or Grand Prix or Taurus or Intrepid they just purchased.

I don't think most fans really mind the fact that they are not as much of stock cars as they once were, i think it's the fact that they are still called stock cars. The term 'stock cars' has grown to mean cars that resemble cars rather than consisting of the original, or stock, parts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom