Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/16/2009 10:23:36 AM EST

Link

NASCAR teams spent much of the past decade spending money. On more employees, on private planes, on sprawling headquarters and on making more of their own engines and parts.

Then sponsors and car companies turned out the lights on the long-running party, leaving a nasty hangover for a sport born of moonshine runners. That hangover has left teams grappling with concerns any business owner can appreciate: reducing travel expenses, steering inventory, shedding labor, controlling benefits costs and finding more outside vendors at lower prices.

Two years of intense consolidation among teams allowed for large-scale labor cuts. Teams have now turned their attention in recent months to (literally) nuts-and-bolts costs.

“We don’t think this is a blip on the radar,” says Marshall Carlson, general manager at Hendrick Motorsports. “This is a reset of the business. We’re preparing for much less growth in revenue in the years ahead.”

If that’s the case at Hendrick, the most successful and valuable team in NASCAR, it’s the case for everyone in the sport. The reasons for the financial meltdown in stock-car racing are obvious enough: Sponsors are cutting back, auto manufacturers are reeling and everyday fans are unable or reluctant to spend in the face of a tepid job market.

What began with mass layoffs for many teams last year has mutated to every aspect of the business.

“They’re looking at everything,” says Jason Lewis, senior audit manager at Greer & Walker, a Charlotte accounting firm with several NASCAR teams on its client roster. “They’re doubling up on hotel rooms, they’re looking at building leases. The reality is setting in.”

Last September, when the financial crisis kicked into overdrive, Hendrick Motorsports launched a comprehensive cost-cutting analysis. The company already had tracking systems and streamlined budgets in place. But in the wake of the economic crisis, it moved to take a more rigorous approach.

Instead of tracking inventory only for parts used in race cars — an item that accounts for 25% of the spending at the 500-employee operation — Hendrick began monitoring the life cycle of parts. That, in turn, ushered in a much more accurate and precise method of knowing when to spend and when not to.

Teams across the sport are gearing up for similar breakthroughs while also taking a harder look at every budget item.

Race teams must move drivers and crew members across the country every weekend for races, shuttling back and forth on privately owned or leased planes while booking scores of hotel rooms, renting cars and paying for meals. As recently as two or three years ago, even lower-tier teams thought nothing of sending multiple flights back and forth from Charlotte to far-flung tracks.

(Less) frequent fliers
Now teams are taking a more cooperative approach. At Stewart-Haas Racing, launched this year by driver Tony Stewart, the early crew leaves on Thursday for the race site, parking the team plane until Sunday. For the weekend crew that comes in on Sunday morning just before the race, Stewart-Haas often buys spots on other NASCAR team planes looking to fill seats left empty by the recent consolidation of crews and teams.

Then, after the race, the Stewart-Haas plane can make the return trip at full capacity, saving the fuel costs of extra trips while avoiding low-capacity flights.

Other teams are making similar adjustments to cut travel budgets.

At Hendrick, rental cars are now filled with three or four crew members. And the team negotiates hotel room rates with much greater attention. That focus, combined with declining bookings by fans who can no longer afford to attend races, has given teams a decided advantage in such room-rate deals.

Hendrick negotiates three months in advance with hotels and then takes a second look 30 days out for additional savings. It also sends as few people as possible and has them stay fewer nights. Hendrick has booked 500 fewer room nights this year than it did up to this point in 2008. Carlson, the general manager, attributes 30% of that cut to NASCAR’s test-track ban, with the rest stemming from tightened internal standards.

Looking ahead, Stewart-Haas anticipates a 5% savings on room rates for 2010, based on early negotiations, says Greg Park, the team’s chief financial officer.

Executives at Michael Waltrip Racing, operator of three Sprint Cup cars, offer a typical example of how the business of racing mirrors the rest of the economy. Last year, the organization slashed its work force by 15%. Now, with 230 employees on hand, additional job cuts are unlikely. Instead, says CFO Larry Johns, the search for savings has become as relentless as the need for speed.

The company has cut salaries to bring them in line with industry averages and increased employee contributions for health insurance. They’re also constantly assessing what duties each job entails, adding responsibilities and shifting resources and positions to sales efforts whenever possible. That’s a direct response to increased demands from sponsors to demonstrate a return on their investment.

Salaries next target?
Some experts say one obvious area offering a potential cost-cutting bonanza — driver salaries — has yet to be addressed. Big-money salaries moved beyond top stars such as Jeff Gordon and into the lower ranks of Sprint Cup teams as the sport exploded in the 1990s
Link Posted: 10/16/2009 10:47:36 AM EST
maybe they can go to real cars again with real motors offered in those cars.
Link Posted: 10/16/2009 3:33:03 PM EST
Originally Posted By E-Mag:
maybe they can go to real cars again with real motors offered in those cars.


+1. Put the "stock" back in "stock car"....
Link Posted: 10/16/2009 3:34:58 PM EST
as long as they went to "stock body" cars, itd be fine. the COT project was a waste except for the safety aspect. its actually cost teams MORE money.
Link Posted: 10/16/2009 3:35:00 PM EST
I dont disagree with that, but part of racing is developing technology.
Link Posted: 10/16/2009 3:39:00 PM EST
Originally Posted By jmt1271:
I dont disagree with that, but part of racing is developing technology.



...and if you want to USE that technology in s "stock car race", it better have been put in 500 or 1000 cars that the people can buy....

You know, like disc brakes, spoilers, hemi engines, etc were...
Link Posted: 10/16/2009 3:41:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By jmt1271:
I dont disagree with that, but part of racing is developing technology.

How much does it cost to drive in circles?


/ducks
Link Posted: 10/16/2009 3:44:16 PM EST
Originally Posted By jmt1271:
I dont disagree with that, but part of racing is developing technology.


What technology would that be??? Pushrod engines? Carbs??

Oh wait, you said racing. Okay, yeah, a good bit of technology is developed in F1, ALMS, etc that does wind up in street cars.
Link Posted: 10/16/2009 3:44:53 PM EST
ONLY ONE RULE: your team has $100,000 and 48 hours. That's it. Go to a local car lot, find something, get supplies, and modify your car for safety. Then go race 500 laps. First person to do it wins.

There - I just made NASCAR awesome.
Link Posted: 10/16/2009 3:47:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/16/2009 3:49:05 PM EST by LARRYG]
Originally Posted By Cypher15:
as long as they went to "stock body" cars, itd be fine. the COT project was a waste except for the safety aspect. its actually cost teams MORE money.


The COT sure as hell LOOKS more like the street car it's supposed to represent. The previous product bore no resemblance at all to the street cars. The only way to know a faux Chevy from a faux Ford was what was written on the front air dam.

I watched NASCAR (aka PROW) back when a Galaxie 500 was actually a Galaxie 500, an Impala was that, a Charger was really a Charger, etc.

I might get interested if they went to using production tubs with mods allowed.

What you see in PROW is not representative at all of the performance of actual street cars.
Link Posted: 10/16/2009 3:49:40 PM EST

Originally Posted By Rick-OShay:
Originally Posted By jmt1271:
I dont disagree with that, but part of racing is developing technology.



...and if you want to USE that technology in s "stock car race", it better have been put in 500 or 1000 cars that the people can buy....

You know, like disc brakes, spoilers, hemi engines, etc were...

i dont think nascar develops much technology.

Last time I heard F1 cars and shit like that is where the "leading" engine / safety technology is.
Link Posted: 10/16/2009 3:49:53 PM EST
Originally Posted By N1Rampage:
ONLY ONE RULE: your team has $100,000 and 48 hours. That's it. Go to a local car lot, find something, get supplies, and modify your car for safety. Then go race 500 laps. First person to do it wins.

There - I just made NASCAR awesome.


I'd watch that.... But NASCAR as it is today??? Nope.
Link Posted: 10/16/2009 3:55:03 PM EST
Originally Posted By N1Rampage:
ONLY ONE RULE: your team has $100,000 and 48 hours. That's it. Go to a local car lot, find something, get supplies, and modify your car for safety. Then go race 500 laps. First person to do it wins.

There - I just made NASCAR awesome.


Hopefully on a track like Bristol. Something long Daytona, Talledega, or Michigan would be wicked boring if the cars weren't fast.

I do like your idea, though.
Link Posted: 10/16/2009 4:00:14 PM EST
Anybody notice how the COT does not track in a straight line?...they look like my parents weiner dog running..the back legs are not in line with the front legs....I think seeing the COT dog track down the straightaway is stupid.

Link Posted: 10/16/2009 4:12:45 PM EST
Originally Posted By scootr29:
Anybody notice how the COT does not track in a straight line?...they look like my parents weiner dog running..the back legs are not in line with the front legs....I think seeing the COT dog track down the straightaway is stupid.



I call it crabbing and it looks ridiculous. It makes it even easier to track around the high banking.
Link Posted: 10/16/2009 4:15:33 PM EST
I predicted that NASCAR would eat itself A LONG time ago.
Link Posted: 10/16/2009 4:19:54 PM EST

Originally Posted By scootr29:
Anybody notice how the COT does not track in a straight line?...they look like my parents weiner dog running..the back legs are not in line with the front legs....I think seeing the COT dog track down the straightaway is stupid.


optical illusion? the cars push like a mother fucker and get loose way too easily. the COT FAILED completely at what it was supposed to.


in terms of engine tech. a 60's era small block can not do what these engines are doing. theyd explode real quick.
Link Posted: 10/16/2009 4:21:16 PM EST
Originally Posted By Pepsi:
Originally Posted By N1Rampage:
ONLY ONE RULE: your team has $100,000 and 48 hours. That's it. Go to a local car lot, find something, get supplies, and modify your car for safety. Then go race 500 laps. First person to do it wins.

There - I just made NASCAR awesome.


Hopefully on a track like Bristol. Something long Daytona, Talledega, or Michigan would be wicked boring if the cars weren't fast.

I do like your idea, though.


Thank you. I followed the model set by rally racing in Britain. Get a stock car, fit it for safety, and go race and have fun!
Link Posted: 10/16/2009 4:23:12 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/16/2009 4:24:32 PM EST by turbo_infidel]
NASCAR should be racing to become relevent.

it's the only way to survive.

Link Posted: 10/16/2009 4:30:24 PM EST
NASCAR hasn't been real racing since they stopped using the factory chrome bumpers back in the 80s. Once they started fabbing everything, the sport began dying to me.
Link Posted: 10/16/2009 4:38:41 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/16/2009 4:56:56 PM EST
I just don't get the "good 'ol days" reference. Racing, ALL racing evolves. I've been following NASCAR along with other forms of racing for 40 years, and drag-raced competitively for 30 years.

Remember NASCAR in the "good 'ol days"? It was COMMON for the leader to be 2-4 laps ahead of the second-place car, and it was always Petty, Pearson or Allison. Is watching the leader finish 2+ laps ahead really exciting?

As far as the cars, the evolution and technology has led to speeds unheard of in the "good 'ol days". Back in the day, the cars were stripped for weight, ran 426ci, 427ci and 429ci engines. Today, Cup cars' minimum weight is 3450lbs, with a 355ci engine cap, and they're running WELL over 200mph on even intermediate (1 1/2 mile) tracks. Given the technology, how fast do you think they'd be running with 400+ ci engines? Would YOU want to go 240mph in a 1965 Ford Galaxie with a lap-belt, T-shirt, roll BAR (not cage) and an open-face helmet?

OK, want to go back to the oldy-cars? Then lets run those Offy's at Indy, steel-bodied funny cars and front-engine dragsters in Drag Racing and Lolas in F1.

At least NASCAR is trying to control costs as best they can. They eliminated all testing in '09, removed all the million-dollar "tinkering" with the COT (although I'm not a fan, I understand it) and many other things. When an F1 STEERING WHEEL cost's more than a race-ready Cup Car, something's wrong.

If NASCAR sucks so bad, how come it's the Number 2 spectator sport in the U.S., and pulls bigger TV ratings than IndyCar, Drag Racing and F1 combined? The average winning margin for the winner of the Chase for the Cup is less than 30 points, and has been decided more than once by less than 20.....that's a separation of less than 4 POSITIONS over an entire season (36 races). Nah, that's not exciting.

Bristol, Tenn. puts 170 THOUSAND asses in the seats for EVERY race, and it's a 1/2 mile oval. People will their Bristol season tickets to their friends and relatives when they die. F1 pulled out of the U.S. because they couldn't sell enough tickets to pay the bills.

I watch it all because I love motorsports, but to slam NASCAR is ridiculous. If you're tuning in to see huge crashes that injure and kill people, then don't bother watching, please.

Personally, I'd much rather watch 43 highly technical race cars being driven by drivers with 50lb balls at 200mph than a bunch of overpaid thugs slapping each other on the ass and chasing a little rubber ball.
Link Posted: 10/16/2009 4:57:55 PM EST
Originally Posted By Mojo_Jojo:
Originally Posted By N1Rampage:
ONLY ONE RULE: your team has $100,000 and 48 hours. That's it. Go to a local car lot, find something, get supplies, and modify your car for safety. Then go race 500 laps. First person to do it wins.

There - I just made NASCAR awesome.


I'd watch that.... But NASCAR as it is today??? Nope.


And the winner would not be an American car *snicker*
Link Posted: 10/16/2009 4:59:55 PM EST
Originally Posted By N1Rampage:
ONLY ONE RULE: your team has $100,000 and 48 hours. That's it. Go to a local car lot, find something, get supplies, and modify your car for safety. Then go race 500 laps. First person to do it wins.

There - I just made NASCAR awesome.


I like your thinking.

Link Posted: 10/16/2009 5:02:46 PM EST
Let me know when they have the first all-Pakistani pit crew to save labor costs.
Link Posted: 10/16/2009 5:08:50 PM EST
Apparently an awful lot of Americans don't realize what has happened. The dems have vaporized trillions of dollars in evil wealth: mainly from what the NYT would call the 'investment class'. This money is gone and it was the backbone of America. The result of decades of capitalist wealth building and investment.....GONE. Keep watching and shaking your head. It can't happen here.

America will never be the same again. Or at least not if the radical left is allowed to control our country for much longer.
Link Posted: 10/16/2009 5:08:54 PM EST

Originally Posted By Lightning_P38:
Originally Posted By Cypher15:

Originally Posted By scootr29:
Anybody notice how the COT does not track in a straight line?...they look like my parents weiner dog running..the back legs are not in line with the front legs....I think seeing the COT dog track down the straightaway is stupid.


optical illusion? the cars push like a mother fucker and get loose way too easily. the COT FAILED completely at what it was supposed to.


in terms of engine tech. a 60's era small block can not do what these engines are doing. theyd explode real quick.


The engines in those cars are 60's era small blocks, what they race today is no more than the perfection of what was a typical engine fifty years ago. As far as I know none of the brands represented in NASCAR actually sells a pushrod V8 in production cars anymore, and in the case of Toyota, I don't think they ever offered a pushrod V8. Make no mistake that billions of dollars have been spent in the effort to make todays NASCAR engines what they are, and they are one helluva example of what a carbed pushrod small block V8 can be, but that has exactly nothing to do with technology used in the making of production cars. The only place that the engines used in NASCAR have in this world are on NASCAR tracks.

I haven't been much of a NASCAR fan since I was a kid. Part of it is the cars, part of it is the drama and pageantry that goes along with the races. Mostly I just don't find circle/oval track racing to be terribly exciting.
go look at the engines' architecture, the only thng they share is 8 cylinders and pushrods. believe t or not the RO7 chevy (who sells pushrod motors) engine is based off the LS series engines. the engines are comparable to F1 engines in terms of power and longevity.

Link Posted: 10/16/2009 6:10:32 PM EST
Originally Posted By Cypher15:

Originally Posted By scootr29:
Anybody notice how the COT does not track in a straight line?...they look like my parents weiner dog running..the back legs are not in line with the front legs....I think seeing the COT dog track down the straightaway is stupid.


optical illusion? the cars push like a mother fucker and get loose way too easily. the COT FAILED completely at what it was supposed to.


in terms of engine tech. a 60's era small block can not do what these engines are doing. theyd explode real quick.



1. In the 60's they ran big blocks - picture a Superbird, Daytona, LS-6 Chevelle, or Mercury Cyclone on modern tires - do anything these fake cars are doing...

2. Please enlighten us - what wonderful tech is in use now? How are the naturally aspirated, carburated, OHV cam-in-block pushrod V-8s of today technology different from the ....naturaly aspirated, carburated, OHV cam-in-block pushrod V-8s of today?
Link Posted: 10/16/2009 6:16:40 PM EST

Originally Posted By Rick-OShay:
Originally Posted By Cypher15:

Originally Posted By scootr29:
Anybody notice how the COT does not track in a straight line?...they look like my parents weiner dog running..the back legs are not in line with the front legs....I think seeing the COT dog track down the straightaway is stupid.


optical illusion? the cars push like a mother fucker and get loose way too easily. the COT FAILED completely at what it was supposed to.


in terms of engine tech. a 60's era small block can not do what these engines are doing. theyd explode real quick.



1. In the 60's they ran big blocks - picture a Superbird, Daytona, LS-6 Chevelle, or Mercury Cyclone on modern tires - do anything these fake cars are doing...

2. Please enlighten us - what wonderful tech is in use now? How are the naturally aspirated, carburated, OHV cam-in-block pushrod V-8s of today technology different from the ....naturaly aspirated, carburated, OHV cam-in-block pushrod V-8s of today?

ever heard of metallurgy, casting technology, machining technology, computer aided head/cam/block design, or header design? intake harmonics? spring harmonics?

a big block car from the 60's on 60's tech would get destroyed.
Link Posted: 10/16/2009 6:19:10 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/16/2009 6:19:38 PM EST by Mojo_Jojo]
Originally Posted By RetLawman:

If NASCAR sucks so bad, how come it's the Number 2 spectator sport in the U.S., and pulls bigger TV ratings than IndyCar, Drag Racing and F1 combined?



McDonalds sells more hamburgers than anyone else, but lots of folks think you can get better hamburgers elsewhere. Just say'n...
Link Posted: 10/16/2009 6:19:49 PM EST
Originally Posted By Cypher15:

Originally Posted By Rick-OShay:
Originally Posted By Cypher15:

Originally Posted By scootr29:
Anybody notice how the COT does not track in a straight line?...they look like my parents weiner dog running..the back legs are not in line with the front legs....I think seeing the COT dog track down the straightaway is stupid.


optical illusion? the cars push like a mother fucker and get loose way too easily. the COT FAILED completely at what it was supposed to.


in terms of engine tech. a 60's era small block can not do what these engines are doing. theyd explode real quick.



1. In the 60's they ran big blocks - picture a Superbird, Daytona, LS-6 Chevelle, or Mercury Cyclone on modern tires - do anything these fake cars are doing...

2. Please enlighten us - what wonderful tech is in use now? How are the naturally aspirated, carburated, OHV cam-in-block pushrod V-8s of today technology different from the ....naturaly aspirated, carburated, OHV cam-in-block pushrod V-8s of today?

ever heard of metallurgy, casting technology, machining technology, computer aided head/cam/block design, or header design? intake harmonics? spring harmonics?

a big block car from the 60's on 60's tech would get destroyed.



The only thing the stuff you list does is make it slightly easier to build an engine. It doesn't change the laws of physics, or what a pushrod engine can do. A modern Cup engine cranks out less than700 horses - a race tuned hemi at least 800 - and no restrictor plate. You fail.
Link Posted: 10/16/2009 6:23:01 PM EST
I'll believe it when they stop blowing up 1/4 million dollar engines doing burn outs at the end of a race. God I hate the burn outs.

Link Posted: 10/16/2009 6:25:35 PM EST
Originally Posted By Cypher15:

Originally Posted By scootr29:
Anybody notice how the COT does not track in a straight line?...they look like my parents weiner dog running..the back legs are not in line with the front legs....I think seeing the COT dog track down the straightaway is stupid.


optical illusion? the cars push like a mother fucker and get loose way too easily. the COT FAILED completely at what it was supposed to.


in terms of engine tech. a 60's era small block can not do what these engines are doing. theyd explode real quick.


no optical illlusion. The teams figured out that if they crab walk the cars down the striaght aways they're getting more down force and air across the rear wing. Apparently NASCAR is going to address it for 2010.
Link Posted: 10/16/2009 6:28:25 PM EST
Originally Posted By Rick-OShay:

2. Please enlighten us - what wonderful tech is in use now? How are the naturally aspirated, carburated, OHV cam-in-block pushrod V-8s of today technology different from the ....naturaly aspirated, carburated, OHV cam-in-block pushrod V-8s of today?


Oh I don't know, maybe technology that nets 9000 +RPMs and 800+ HP

Do you honestly believe a valve spring existed in the 60's that would take 9000 RPM?

Do you think a crankshaft existed that could be used for 500+ miles at 9000 RPM's with 800 horsepower?

What about the heads, do you think any heads from the 60's would flow what the heads of today flow?
Link Posted: 10/16/2009 6:30:45 PM EST
Originally Posted By Rick-OShay:
Originally Posted By E-Mag:
maybe they can go to real cars again with real motors offered in those cars.


+1. Put the "stock" back in "stock car"....


The 'Car of Tomorrow' concept by dipsh!t Brain France is why I left Na$car. That and 'competition cautions' and all the other BS.

It became a bad joke.
Link Posted: 10/16/2009 6:30:46 PM EST
Now this is technology:

Link
Link Posted: 10/16/2009 6:35:34 PM EST
Originally Posted By SamColt:
Originally Posted By Cypher15:

Originally Posted By scootr29:
Anybody notice how the COT does not track in a straight line?...they look like my parents weiner dog running..the back legs are not in line with the front legs....I think seeing the COT dog track down the straightaway is stupid.


optical illusion? the cars push like a mother fucker and get loose way too easily. the COT FAILED completely at what it was supposed to.


in terms of engine tech. a 60's era small block can not do what these engines are doing. theyd explode real quick.


no optical illlusion. The teams figured out that if they crab walk the cars down the striaght aways they're getting more down force and air across the rear wing. Apparently NASCAR is going to address it for 2010.


Just what they need, more rules to fuck it up even more than they already have. Not as fun to watch as it used to be. Just like the Red Bull Air Races, so many dumbass rules a guy can hardly fly the course anymore without getting a penalty.

Link Posted: 10/16/2009 6:57:01 PM EST

Originally Posted By Cypher15:

go look at the engines' architecture, the only thng they share is 8 cylinders and pushrods. believe t or not the RO7 chevy (who sells pushrod motors) engine is based off the LS series engines. the engines are comparable to F1 engines in terms of power and longevity.


This is the funniest thing I've read all day.

Call me when NASCAR engines use air for valve springs and make 800HP from 148 cubic inches.

m
Link Posted: 10/17/2009 4:55:54 AM EST
Originally Posted By Cypher15:

Originally Posted By Lightning_P38:
Originally Posted By Cypher15:

Originally Posted By scootr29:
Anybody notice how the COT does not track in a straight line?...they look like my parents weiner dog running..the back legs are not in line with the front legs....I think seeing the COT dog track down the straightaway is stupid.


optical illusion? the cars push like a mother fucker and get loose way too easily. the COT FAILED completely at what it was supposed to.


in terms of engine tech. a 60's era small block can not do what these engines are doing. theyd explode real quick.


The engines in those cars are 60's era small blocks, what they race today is no more than the perfection of what was a typical engine fifty years ago. As far as I know none of the brands represented in NASCAR actually sells a pushrod V8 in production cars anymore, and in the case of Toyota, I don't think they ever offered a pushrod V8. Make no mistake that billions of dollars have been spent in the effort to make todays NASCAR engines what they are, and they are one helluva example of what a carbed pushrod small block V8 can be, but that has exactly nothing to do with technology used in the making of production cars. The only place that the engines used in NASCAR have in this world are on NASCAR tracks.

I haven't been much of a NASCAR fan since I was a kid. Part of it is the cars, part of it is the drama and pageantry that goes along with the races. Mostly I just don't find circle/oval track racing to be terribly exciting.
go look at the engines' architecture, the only thng they share is 8 cylinders and pushrods. believe t or not the RO7 chevy (who sells pushrod motors) engine is based off the LS series engines. the engines are comparable to F1 engines in terms of power and longevity.



But they take twice the displacement and twice the weight to do it.
Link Posted: 10/17/2009 5:01:42 AM EST
Originally Posted By RetLawman:
If NASCAR sucks so bad, how come it's the Number 2 spectator sport in the U.S., and pulls bigger TV ratings than IndyCar, Drag Racing and F1 combined? The average winning margin for the winner of the Chase for the Cup is less than 30 points, and has been decided more than once by less than 20.....that's a separation of less than 4 POSITIONS over an entire season (36 races). Nah, that's not exciting.
.


Pro 'rasslin puts a lot of fannies in the seats as well. It's called marketing. NASCAR does do that well. It does not mean they have a superior product. Hell, it's nothing more than pro 'rasslin on wheels.

And no, it's not exciting. It's boring as hell actually.

As for the bullshit "Chase", if it's the playoffs, why are all those other cars out there?

And it's usually the same 4 or 5 guys winning championships and races out of what, 42 or some odd faux cars.



Link Posted: 10/17/2009 5:10:11 AM EST
Originally Posted By LARRYG:
Originally Posted By jmt1271:
I dont disagree with that, but part of racing is developing technology.


What technology would that be??? Pushrod engines? Carbs??

Oh wait, you said racing. Okay, yeah, a good bit of technology is developed in F1, ALMS, etc that does wind up in street cars.


I couldn't have said it better.

The day when NASCAR equates with technology development.....





Bill
Link Posted: 10/17/2009 5:22:30 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/17/2009 5:23:03 AM EST by RobZ71LM7]
Lots of ignorance in here with respect to pushrod engines. Nobody here ever heard of the LS1, LS6, LS2, LS3, LS7, etc. Sorry but arguably the "best" production V8's made today are GM's pushrod LSX series. I need only point to the Z06 or new ZR1.

That said I stopped watching NASCAR years ago with the advent of "The Chase".

What would be cool today would be a new SCCA Trans Am series where they start with a body in white and use pony cars-no tube frames! Or a CanAm series like in the '70's. But you know what nobody would probably watch it.
Link Posted: 10/17/2009 5:30:52 AM EST
Originally Posted By Rick-OShay:
Originally Posted By Cypher15:

Originally Posted By Rick-OShay:
Originally Posted By Cypher15:

Originally Posted By scootr29:
Anybody notice how the COT does not track in a straight line?...they look like my parents weiner dog running..the back legs are not in line with the front legs....I think seeing the COT dog track down the straightaway is stupid.


optical illusion? the cars push like a mother fucker and get loose way too easily. the COT FAILED completely at what it was supposed to.


in terms of engine tech. a 60's era small block can not do what these engines are doing. theyd explode real quick.



1. In the 60's they ran big blocks - picture a Superbird, Daytona, LS-6 Chevelle, or Mercury Cyclone on modern tires - do anything these fake cars are doing...

2. Please enlighten us - what wonderful tech is in use now? How are the naturally aspirated, carburated, OHV cam-in-block pushrod V-8s of today technology different from the ....naturaly aspirated, carburated, OHV cam-in-block pushrod V-8s of today?

ever heard of metallurgy, casting technology, machining technology, computer aided head/cam/block design, or header design? intake harmonics? spring harmonics?

a big block car from the 60's on 60's tech would get destroyed.



The only thing the stuff you list does is make it slightly easier to build an engine. It doesn't change the laws of physics, or what a pushrod engine can do. A modern Cup engine cranks out less than700 horses - a race tuned hemi at least 800 - and no restrictor plate. You fail.


WRONG !!!! a Modern cup engine is about 850 hp and 9,000+ rpm. pretty good for a 358 ci engine on a carb with pushrods they have not been at 700 since the late 80's .

That said I was gonna leave this alone but . I like real 60-70's cup cars for appearance and the show as well as the drivers the COT completely lost me as a fan. they have been trying for 45 years to take innovation out of the sport. They opened a Hall of fame and did not even include the greatest crew chief on the ballot. Nascar needs an overhaul again. That said they will survive, they survived the 70's gas shortage when they wanted to end racing. the manufacturers have pulled out at least twice before . I only watch the start and the last 20-30 laps anyway
Link Posted: 10/17/2009 6:47:00 AM EST
Originally Posted By CessnaDriver:
Originally Posted By SamColt:
Originally Posted By Cypher15:

Originally Posted By scootr29:
Anybody notice how the COT does not track in a straight line?...they look like my parents weiner dog running..the back legs are not in line with the front legs....I think seeing the COT dog track down the straightaway is stupid.


optical illusion? the cars push like a mother fucker and get loose way too easily. the COT FAILED completely at what it was supposed to.


in terms of engine tech. a 60's era small block can not do what these engines are doing. theyd explode real quick.


no optical illlusion. The teams figured out that if they crab walk the cars down the striaght aways they're getting more down force and air across the rear wing. Apparently NASCAR is going to address it for 2010.


Just what they need, more rules to fuck it up even more than they already have. Not as fun to watch as it used to be. Just like the Red Bull Air Races, so many dumbass rules a guy can hardly fly the course anymore without getting a penalty.



I actually agree with you. I think the more rules they make it makes it tougher to get an advantage if that makes sense. If they were less restrictive one team might find this advantage and one team might find another and they could be much more creative. The way it is now the teams are trying to find a needle in the ocean which will give them the edge they need. Safety precautions - great all this other bull shit is getting out of hand.
Link Posted: 10/17/2009 9:05:22 AM EST
The cars being raced 20 years ago were every bit as fast as the things going around the tracks today. NASCAR mandated small blocks and restrictor plates because the cars were too fast. NASCAR isn't about developing technology or innovation. It's about keeping the field bunched up so the goobers in the stands can cheer for their favorite driver and said driver having a chance to win.

1987 - Bill Elliott set the NASCAR speed record with an average speed of 210.364 mph. He broke his own record at Talladega with an average speed of 212.809 mph; the previous record he set in 1986 was 209.383 mph[3]. In both races, he used a Ford Thunderbird which contained an engine built by his brother Ernie. However, at Talladega, Bobby Allison was spun and went airborne into the catch fence, tearing a large section away and injuring several fans. After this incident, NASCAR mandated the use of restrictor plates at Daytona and Talladega. As a result, Elliott's speed records will likely never be broken.
Link Posted: 10/17/2009 9:19:12 AM EST
Everybody races the same go-cart.

Nascar has turned into nothing more than WWF.

This is the first year since I was a kid in the 60's that I have not seen a Nascar race, and do not plan on seeing another.

Link Posted: 10/17/2009 9:30:29 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/17/2009 9:31:45 AM EST by storminnorman]
Whatever happened to TRACK/TRAK(?) racing series?I remember hearing about 5-10 years ago???All cars were supposed to be identical,fuel injected ect...Kind of like IROC cars,but a full time series.Just curious.
Link Posted: 10/17/2009 9:45:50 AM EST
It doesn't matter whether the cars are powered with pushrod engines or gerbils running a wheel. Folks just don't have the $$$ it takes to go to these races anymore( REALITY,can be a REAL BITCH!). Plus all those sponsors which are plastered all over these cars(NASCAR/IRL/NHRA.it doesn't matter)are looking at their books.and simply no longer justify spending $$$,when they are laying off workers.


Plus,"Win on Sunday....Sell on Monday" doesn't play like it used to,either.
Link Posted: 10/17/2009 10:17:11 AM EST
From where I stand - NASCAR has very very slow to wake up and recognize the fantasy of their unrealistic drunken spending spree. Why they are so slow is beyond me - probably because they felt that they were somehow above economic reality. Now the harsh reality that every other industry has been living with for years comes crashing down upon them.

The hookers and blow good times are over, boys.
Link Posted: 10/17/2009 1:10:58 PM EST
Originally Posted By krpind:
Originally Posted By Rick-OShay:

2. Please enlighten us - what wonderful tech is in use now? How are the naturally aspirated, carburated, OHV cam-in-block pushrod V-8s of today technology different from the ....naturaly aspirated, carburated, OHV cam-in-block pushrod V-8s of today?


Oh I don't know, maybe technology that nets 9000 +RPMs and 800+ HP


A trick that is only necessary due to the arbitrary displacement and restrictor plate rules....

Do you honestly believe a valve spring existed in the 60's that would take 9000 RPM?



Yes. Look at the Offy and the Novi....

Do you think a crankshaft existed that could be used for 500+ miles at 9000 RPM's with 800 horsepower?



This may come as a shock, but they had forgings and nodular iron back then....

What about the heads, do you think any heads from the 60's would flow what the heads of today flow?



The heads in the '60's were supposed to be stock, thus limiting their flow - although Junior Johnson and others were known to cheat with processes that eventually came to be known as "extrude honing" - again, flow benches existed back then...

Link Posted: 10/17/2009 1:16:07 PM EST
Originally Posted By RobZ71LM7:
Lots of ignorance in here with respect to pushrod engines. Nobody here ever heard of the LS1, LS6, LS2, LS3, LS7, etc. Sorry but arguably the "best" production V8's made today are GM's pushrod LSX series. I need only point to the Z06 or new ZR1.


Funny how people that throw the "ignorance" word around then almost always turn around and display it. The WWII inline engines? WHere power and reliability were a matter of life and death? They were all overhead CAM engines. Why do you suppose that was?

The pushrod engine only exists today for THREE reasons....

1. Use existing tooling to finish machine the castings.
2. Its cheaper to build and work on - good for a grocery getter...
3. They have lots of low-end torque - which means you can run a transmission with fewer gears, and you can run a higher gear rear end - which helps reduce the cost of the car and increase its EPA rating.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top