Train wreck

FLORIDA STOCK CAR RACING KARNAC's FLORIDA STOCK CAR RACING
21

That is great racing.

But the street platforms of the various current Cup participants vary significantly compared to those cars.

IF that changed, it could happen.

But I don’t see it coming. Nor do I see a spec chassis on the horizon as it is the custom --historically and currently-- across all of stock car racing–to build one’s own chassis.

Either would cut costs, but I believe a serious reduction in horsepower (that is way overkill for the current tire anyway) would cut more.

All that said, NASCAR, er, I mean IMSA, took a perfectly good NASCAR-ish easy to work on “Daytona Prototype” sports car:

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1440&bih=789&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=0jRBXP7IC4385gKBubjYAw&q=imsa+corvette+daytona+prototype&oq=imsa+corvette+daytona+prototype&gs_l=img.3...7827.9671..10682...0.0..0.93.662.9…0…1…gws-wiz-img…0i8i7i30.l5FGB3ZJKWA#imgrc=g0qbjcFG1M0MTM:

And replaced it with a largely European spec class car:

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1440&bih=789&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=KzVBXLOjG4aK5wLDpZyQBA&q=2018+daytona+rolex+race&oq=2018+daytona+rolex+race&gs_l=img.3...2238.4539..5131...0.0..0.109.348.4j1…0…1…gws-wiz-img…0i30j0i8i30.q6hYVaHW5bE#imgrc=uUyqdz8M7ZbAoM:

Some of the absolute fugliest cars of all time, imo.

So, gents, who knows. Anything is possible these days.

22

[QUOTE=jacko241;177948]I don’t think that is necessarily true. You should take a look at Australian V8 Supercars. They are heavily based on production cars, will go 190mph, and put on great shows. Take a look at this video and tell me that isn’t racing!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAFRS5r2g8E[/QUOTE]

I love SuperCars! But I don’t think they would translate well on to the 1.5 mile ovals that nascar loves so much. Which is a whole different part of the problem!

And it wasn’t that long ago that Nascar teams didn’t build their own chassis. Banjo Matthews built most everyone’s chassis through the 70’s and early 80’s.

But you’re so dead on right, anything can happen out of the nascar offices right now.

23

Nascar has to make changes and in the next five years they will have no choice.The American car companies are not so slowly phasing their car lines out in favor of their light truck and utility lines.Toyota has downsized the Camry into the new Supra body and with Mustangs and Camaros the new norm in Nascar,in a few more years it will have no choice but to become another Australian Supercar type series.A point I brought up here several years ago.And no I don’t think that translates well on 1.5 mile ovals either.With Nascar aquiring ARCA,the Xfinity series will cease to exist a few years from now.Arca will take it’s place.The K&N series will take a step up.Nascar better start watching Lucas Oil Late Model series.Their " Dirt Million" at Mansfield Ohio last summer paid 203, k to win with another already scheduled for summer 2019.They have two or three more events where the winner’s cut is 100k or more.Not exactly a normal Saturday night at ( fill in the blank) speedway.

24

04–The dirt payout is a big deal. Dirt racers AND fans are hardcore, for sure.

BUT, I see it being less sustainable that the current clown show on a weekly basis, and I don’t see the manufacturers or mainstream sponsors (read: money) getting behind it.

In other news:

“Banjo Matthews built most everyone’s chassis through the 70’s and early 80’s.” Luke81

Well, except for Hutcherson, Petty, Yunick, I think Childress, and more that I cannot remember.

25

but that is in NASCAR’s current form as you know it

I think other manufacturer’s would jump in if it became more like the Australian V8 Supercar series.But once again that model would rely on more road course races.I think Honda has been a very interested spectator for quite a while for one.If the dirt car world ( World of Outlaw sprints included)can continue to come up with six figure winner purses coupled with the ability to continue to get corporate sponsorship on the level they have Nascar damn sure can’t afford to ignore their business model.Nascar has far far more overhead.

26

“Nascar has far far more overhead [than dirt tracks].”–04

Bingo, this man’s a winner. One free pint of STP

And once it strangles their margin a little more, they will be forced to go to smaller facilities.

Hey, it’s cool with me if they run a few events on dirt. They used to. It’s cool with Tony too.

Just keep him in the tower (booth?) and away from the pace car.

27

Since I cannot come up with a reason why cars like the Aussie Series would not work on ovals, maybe someone can tell me.

28

Here is the reason you cannot come up with it: You ain’t trying hard enough! :cool008:
Just kidding, Joe.

To your point, I think that if we took those V8 Supercar series cars per se and put them on a boat, brought them over, and turned them loose on Charlotte’s roval or a road course, I believe instantly they would do well. Likewise on Bristol and probably Martinsville.

After that, it gets…complicated.

To answer your question, here are two (2) reasons–

First:
Let’s take Talledeger. Those are unibody cars with a cage in them. As is, can they take the stupid/horrendous wrecks that occur there and the driver, um, live?
If not, they need a bunch more tubing. And even if the guy lives, can you clip them or–as would be my guess–the uni-egg gets easily bent and then needs to be tossed?

If the second is true–and even if it is not–typically a purpose-built chassis is cheaper in the end for stock car racing. I could be wrong in this case, but I kind of doubt it.

And if it ain’t cheaper, it ain’t better, imo.

Second:
Let’s ignore the fact that our current cars are not as close to each other in silhouette as the Aussiemobiles, and again assume we are talking about them per se.

On 1.5 mile tracks (and up), Teams have received serious fines for minor body mods in between the complex templates of “the claw” before they digitized the whole deal.

That is because, of course, that that is all it takes to have an advantage and run off. Hence, the cars look damn near identical in testing at Daytona in primer without their sponsor headlight (and tailpipe :dry:) stickers.

The V8 Supercars have relatively minor appearing differences that would be relatively major if the Cup Teams were running them on the existing tracks, and the 2018-often-boring show would get far, far worse. In order to have close competition that would need to be…“fixed”.

Of course, if we have tube chassis and identical bodies, that leaves us with…The Car of Today.

Now, I am not totally against the idea. I would be down with the stock type cars with different bodies and maybe even stock unibody based cars if they were not prohibitively expensive.

BUT, what that would take for a good show would be a bunch of short tracks, and at least chicanes if not infield road courses everywhere else.

Do we see NASCAR doing that…?

You see, the real problem is their (crappy) “coliseums of speed” and NASCAR’s refusal to “fix” them. For years, they have been trying to band-aid the problem with the cars (with at best limited success), and are heading further than ever down that road in 2019.

Yer up!

29

[QUOTE=OldSchool+;177953]04–The dirt payout is a big deal. Dirt racers AND fans are hardcore, for sure.

“Banjo Matthews built most everyone’s chassis through the 70’s and early 80’s.” Luke81

Well, except for Hutcherson, Petty, Yunick, I think Childress, and more that I cannot remember.[/QUOTE]

According to the Wiki (citing an article from Circle Track) he built 72% of the winning cars from 1974 to 1985.
I’d say that’s a pretty good stat! :slight_smile:

30

Correct me if I’m wrong here, but I don’t think the V8 supercars are showroom cars turned into race cars at all. They’re fully purpose built race cars with a sort of showroom appearing body draped over them (essentially the same thing as a current cup car) just using a LOT more technology. And they basically use a spec chassis to start with. I’d be surprised if building a v8 supercar wasn’t a lot more expensive than building a cup car.

31

“[Banjo Matthews] built 72% of the winning cars from 1974 to 1985. I’d say that’s a pretty good stat.”--Luke

Indeed it is. However, another way to put that is that if we call Banjo’s cars a “spec” chassis, 28% “other” cars also won races.

However, to your point, seems like I heard along the way that our current chassis are NASCAR serialized and any modifications will result in a beheading. Perhaps this is a moot point and we are already there. I know that sketchy rear truck arms are a non-starter.

Even if they are all identical, there are the endless setup variables that allow one car to get away. Therefore, a spec chassis may not reduce costs per se, since we need 34 aerospace engineers to work on said setup. Even Chad Knaus, who I always considered to be a tech-type guy, recently said it was now all beyond him and in the hands of the engineers. Would you propose that a IROC-like setup be mandated each week…?

Am not necessarily saying that would be a bad idea, but it gets closer to a $5-per-ride go cart track.

Re: Unibody V8 Supercars:

https://www.motorsport.com/v8supercars/news/nissan-tekno-complete-chassis-rebuilds-895986/895986/

They look both pretty stout and unibody based. However, note that the article indicates that they “missed a race” and that there is a picture of a guy in the hospital. I guess Cup guys get hurt from time to time…

Ultimately, do they look cheaper or “better”, and would they–per se–produce better competition?

32

I really don’t know if i think the iroc style setup rules would be good or not. I’m totally not sure. I think each time having the ability to tune the car to their liking is an important part of motorsports so i’d never want to take that part away. But engineers do cost a lot!

Most other major series (like Supercars, indycars, etc…) don’t operate with the huge fleets of cars like NASCAR, many of these series are run with 1 or two cars for the year.
Again it goes back to the cost of running an entire manufacturing facility along with a race team. I’ve read articles claiming anywhere from 10-20 cars get built in a season, yikes!

33

You may be right about that, Luke. I honestly don’t know. They do LOOK a lot more like street counterparts than current NASCAR stock cars. I think where I am trying to go with my thoughts it that back in the day they put on a pretty good show before the days of 10 engineers per team, shaker rigs, pull down rigs, shock dynos, and you know all the rest. They pulled hand built hot rods in on open trailers, and still went 195 mph at Daytona and Tally.

34

Most other major series (like Supercars, indycars, etc…) don’t operate with the huge fleets of cars like NASCAR, many of these series are run with 1 or two cars for the year.
Again it goes back to the cost of running an entire manufacturing facility along with a race team. I’ve read articles claiming anywhere from 10-20 cars get built in a season, yikes![/QUOTE]

Bingo, Luke! That is another point I was trying to make. The number of cars these teams are fleecing sponsors for to build is obscene, and unnecessary.

35

Joe, help me out, here.

I am say, Nathan’s hot dogs.

Joe Gibbs comes to me and says “I need ‘X’ amount of dollars for the year”.

Nathans says–“Show me the marketing and TV coverage and ratings, the number of fans in the stands, show me the Return On Investment”.

Joe sez “Never mind that, I need 20 cars this year, up two from last year”.

Nathan’s says “Security to the office of the president, please”.

In other words, I really do not see how the number of cars that a team needs–or wants–is correlated to the sponsorship dollars they receive.

What am I missing?

36

LOL, I like your analogy. OS, for criminy sakes, if Joe Gibbs only need 5 cars, doesn’t that mean he needs less hotdogs sold by Nathans?

37

Negative.

It is all exactly where it should be. Nathan’s should not and does not care about the number of Gibbs cars. What they care about is time in front of the camera and how it compares to “regular” commercial time and it’s costs.

And, say, Richard Petty has less cars, and let’s say he wants less money. If you are Nathans, you have to look at your budget. If you have a fat budget, you want that sponsorship on Gibb’s car–NOT Petty’s, even if you can save a buck, because you figure it will sell more doggies and bring you back MORE MONEY. If you are Bob’s Discount Tires out of Charlotte, you might get on Petty’s quarter panel for one race. And if you are Bob, you can’t get by Joe Gibbs receptionist.

All precisely as it should be.

And… how about the number of engineers? The square footage of the garage space? The number of haulers? The chrome wheels on the hauler?

Speaking of Gibbs and spending as little as he feels he has to on all elements of his operation (while simultaneously gathering all the sponsorship bux he can), note that Championship contendah Matt Kenseth, arguably a better driver than Daniel Suarez, got kicked to the curb. Presumably because he was earning (costing) a group of millions of dollars and on the other hand, Suarez brought a fat sponsor–Arris–with him.

Is that “fair”? IMO, yes.

38

Back to my deal, like a lot of folks, at one time I thought maybe I could wheel a stock car.

But I did not figure out how to make a lot of money. Nor get a sponsor with a lot of money. Nor did I sacrifice a great deal of the rest of my life in time or things like the folks I know that are behind the wheel.

I am rolling tires around.

Is that fair? Damn straight it is.

Again, in my own (semi-sane) world–and for me– I find that a lot of this stuff could fall under… coveting.

[SIZE=“4”]“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor [including his race car(s)].”[/SIZE]? Exodus 20:17

If a guy inherits money to race–I am happy for him.

If he earns it legally–I am happy for him.

If he earns it illegally–I still do not begrudge him for it.

If he got the ride through skill or hard work–I am especially happy for him.

And so…I am a man satisfied rolling them tires around.

39

I will have to agree to disagree with many of your observations. You missed my analogy of the number of cars. I am talking about the budget a team is asking for to race. The numbers they are asking are not necessary. They could race with much less. It is killing the sport. The cost is too high for almost ANY company to want to play anymore. If they do, it usually a partial deal. The only way to reduce the cost to play is to reduce the expenses to race. Simple math. You are trying to make it about fairness. That has nothing to do with the simple economics of the current situation. NASCAR knows what is going on cannot last. Look at all the crazy changes they are making. I predict trouble for IMSA in the not too distant future, too. They are banking totally on manufacturer involvement. They ran all the small teams like us, and even better ones, off. And trust me, at some point, the OEMS will leave.

40

Aight, I will get off the “fairness” thing and look at sponsorship dollars only.

[I][B]Joe, I get your point, and I agree with it–and you.

[/B][/I]It is the solution that differs.

How does a sanctioning body limit the amount of money a team is asking for–or gets-- in sponsorship? Instead of an arbitrary and unenforceable cap, I maintain that they limit the effectiveness of spending a lot of money through rules. Effectively negating the crucial effects of said money for those teams that can command and have less.

Specifically engine rules, for starters.

If Tommy Baldwin could consistently run in the top ten he–and others–would better fill out the field.

This could be accomplished in a number of ways. In addition/instead of restrictive motor rules, short tracks are a great equalizer.

After a lifetime around this I realize that big money always wins. The only trick is to figure out how to mostly negate the big money so the other guys have a chance.

But NASCAR itself is guilty of creating the problems that are now cutting their own throat. Killing their own golden goose, as it were.

We will see if they can turn the bus around before it goes off the cliff.

Of course, you are entitled to your opinion and I highly value it.