| Author |
Message |
tech27
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:57 am Post subject:
NASCAR Question |
|
|
As a fan of motorsports, I occasionally watch NASCAR, although I much prefer
F1. I often make the analogy that F1 is to Nascar as chess is to checkers.
(-;
While the F1 cars seem to be deftly piloted around the course, NAS-cars look
like the are being driven by wild teenagers just trying to constantly keep
the pedal to the metal without spinning out. Witness the number of Nascar
spins and accidents, probably more in a couple of races than in an entire F1
season.
What really puzzles me is why do they have to constantly be changing
suspension/tire setups during a race? Can they not dial it in after practice
and qualifying? Cars that are "running well" do this once or twice during a
race, while those that aren't seem to come in several times to add or take
out some air, wedges, etc.
Am I missing something or is this just the American pee-nuckle of
engineering?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
fbloogyudsr
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 12, 2004 4:38 am Post subject:
Re: NASCAR Question |
|
|
"tech27" <tech27@mail.anonymizer.com> wrote
| Quote: | What really puzzles me is why do they have to constantly be changing
suspension/tire setups during a race? Can they not dial it in after
practice and qualifying? Cars that are "running well" do this once or
twice during a race, while those that aren't seem to come in several times
to add or take out some air, wedges, etc.
Am I missing something or is this just the American pee-nuckle of
engineering?
|
Several things come to mind: weather (diff between qualifying and race
day),
groove (qualifying runs are usually in the inside/fastest groove), airflow
in
traffic (no side-by-side or drafting in qualifying), track temp (gets warmer
during race due to many vs. one car), etc.
Floyd |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeff Strickland
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 12, 2004 4:46 am Post subject:
Re: NASCAR Question |
|
|
Track conditions constantly change, and since the cars are dialed in to make
left turns only, they are precisely set to go one way. They are adjusted to
be on the razor edge of peak control, and if any condition changes, the
razor edge shifts and they attempt to dial it back in during pit stops. They
can adjust spring rate by putting in or taking out spring rubbers, they
adjust alignment by altering the trackbar, and they adjust grip by changing
the air pressure. All of these things can be disrupted by crunching any of
the body panels, particularly the front corners. The need to change tire
pressure comes when the track tempurature changes, causing a change in the
grip of the tires. This is critical because the cars are set up to go in a
circle if the driver lets go of the steering wheel. When they race on a road
cource - by far the most interesting of the NASCAR events - they don't do as
much tweaking of the suspension because they can't maximize left turns at
the expense of the right turns.
F1 cars go both directions, they never go in circles. Indy and CART cars
will go in circles, but the crew does not tweak the suspension, but as I
recall, the driver gets a dial inside the car to adjust the suspension. They
can also adjust the brake bias, something that NASCAR drivers do not have
the ability to do. A properly set up F1, Indy, or CART car will go straight
for miles when the driver takes his hands off the wheel, a stock car will
instantly make a left. Actually, perhaps the CART and Indy cars may favor
left turns as well since they also go in circles, but they go in 2-mile +
circles, whereas many NASCAR tracks are well under 2 miles around, some are
less than 1 mile.
F1, and other open wheel cars, do not engage in the bump-and-run like NASCAR
drivers do because the exposed wheels are problematic when then rub against
another open wheel. Stock cars can go into a turn 3- or 4-abreast and rub
all over the place, open wheel cars can not do this. I guess stock car
drivers look like bumper car pilots because that is essentially what they
are.
"tech27" <tech27@mail.anonymizer.com> wrote in message
news:ngRkd.24547$NC6.1043@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
| Quote: | As a fan of motorsports, I occasionally watch NASCAR, although I much
prefer
F1. I often make the analogy that F1 is to Nascar as chess is to checkers.
(-;
While the F1 cars seem to be deftly piloted around the course, NAS-cars
look
like the are being driven by wild teenagers just trying to constantly keep
the pedal to the metal without spinning out. Witness the number of Nascar
spins and accidents, probably more in a couple of races than in an entire
F1
season.
What really puzzles me is why do they have to constantly be changing
suspension/tire setups during a race? Can they not dial it in after
practice
and qualifying? Cars that are "running well" do this once or twice during
a
race, while those that aren't seem to come in several times to add or take
out some air, wedges, etc.
Am I missing something or is this just the American pee-nuckle of
engineering?
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tech27
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 12, 2004 4:50 am Post subject:
Re: NASCAR Question |
|
|
"fbloogyudsr" <fbloogyudsr@nwlink.com> wrote in message
news:10p7u0hoov0ti6f@corp.supernews.com...
| Quote: | "tech27" <tech27@mail.anonymizer.com> wrote
Several things come to mind: weather (diff between qualifying and race
day),
groove (qualifying runs are usually in the inside/fastest groove), airflow
in
traffic (no side-by-side or drafting in qualifying), track temp (gets
warmer
during race due to many vs. one car), etc.
Floyd
|
Okay, I know that these factors come into play during just about any race,
but it seems to me that the Nascar crews are so far behind F1 in terms of
technology and refinement. I appreciate that the cars are radically
different, but for crying out loud, they're mostly just going round and
round on a highly banked track.
Another thing is how bad they are outside of their element. I don't know if
it's the cars or the drivers, but I do know that one relatively successful
team pulled their #1 driver for a road course event because they wanted some
point (kinda like constructors points I think). My fellow Canadian Ron
Fellows (excuse the pun), was recruited to pilot a car with only a few days
practice, and he drove it to second place. Most of the Nascar drivers say
they hate road courses, probably because the cars a pieces of shit and not
ment to do unusual things like turn, steer, and brake. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Drake
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 12, 2004 4:58 am Post subject:
Re: NASCAR Question |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 18:50:45 -0500, "tech27"
<tech27@mail.anonymizer.com> wrote:
<inre Nascar troll>
| Quote: |
Okay, I know that these factors come into play during just about any race,
but it seems to me that the Nascar crews are so far behind F1 in terms of
technology and refinement. I appreciate that the cars are radically
different, but for crying out loud, they're mostly just going round and
round on a highly banked track.
Another thing is how bad they are outside of their element. I don't know if
it's the cars or the drivers, but I do know that one relatively successful
team pulled their #1 driver for a road course event because they wanted some
point (kinda like constructors points I think). My fellow Canadian Ron
Fellows (excuse the pun), was recruited to pilot a car with only a few days
practice, and he drove it to second place. Most of the Nascar drivers say
they hate road courses, probably because the cars a pieces of shit and not
ment to do unusual things like turn, steer, and brake.
|
I'm no Nascar fan, but the fact is that those guys are driving right
on the very edge pretty much all of the time. "Drive fast, turn left"
sneering usually comes from those who don't know what car control is.
--
Dan Drake |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
C.B. Evans
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:09 am Post subject:
Re: NASCAR Question |
|
|
| Quote: |
Am I missing something or is this just the American pee-nuckle of
engineering?
I'd say that going 195+ in a 3500 pound car around Talladega superspeedway |
for 500 miles with 40 other 3500 pound cars is hardly "pee-nuckle"(it's
actually pinochle). And to say the engineering involved is not up to par
with F1 is ridiculous. You're comparing apples to oranges. Actually, if
you really think about it, NASCAR is a tougher obstacle for engineering than
F1. With NASCAR you are working from a stock platform with limitations on
aero changes, template variations, and most importantly, POWERTRAIN. NASCAR
has strict limitations on engines. ALL manufacturers must comply to the
same guidelines when it comes to engine size, modifications, etc. And,
these engines are normally aspirated, barebone V-8 small blocks. Nothing
else. F1's engine packages are radically different when it comes to
limitations on power, chassis, and aero. And F1's not a stock platform.
The 'ole apples to oranges thing again. NASCARs are not made for road
handling, they are made for sustained speed. Sustained speed while racing
with 40 other guys, not darting into corners and trying not to scratch the
paint on your 3 million dollar car.
"I love any sort racing, no matter how silly it is". Mario Andretti
Just my $.02
C. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fbloogyudsr
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 12, 2004 10:01 am Post subject:
Re: NASCAR Question |
|
|
"C.B. Evans" <evanschris@ZZZZcomcast.net> wrote
| Quote: | Am I missing something or is this just the American pee-nuckle of
engineering?
I'd say that going 195+ in a 3500 pound car around Talladega
superspeedway for 500 miles with 40 other 3500 pound cars is hardly
"pee-nuckle"(it's actually pinochle).
|
Actually, "pinnacle", as in peak.
| Quote: | And to say the engineering involved is not up to par with F1 is
ridiculous. You're comparing apples to oranges. Actually, if you really
think about it, NASCAR is a tougher obstacle for engineering than F1. With
NASCAR you are working from a stock platform with limitations on aero
changes, template variations, and most importantly, POWERTRAIN. NASCAR
has strict limitations on engines. ALL manufacturers must comply to the
same guidelines when it comes to engine size, modifications, etc. And,
these engines are normally aspirated, barebone V-8 small blocks. Nothing
else. F1's engine packages are radically different when it comes to
limitations on power, chassis, and aero. And F1's not a stock platform.
|
You seem to be under a cloud of misunderstanding; certainly your view
of NASCAR cars as "stock" is a complete crock. They are purpose-built
chassis with shells on them. The FWD cars (Taurus, Monte Carlo, Intrepid)
that they resemble on the outside have no similarity other than dimensions.
They are all RWD front-mid-engine steel-tube chassis. Not too similar.
Floyd |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mjc
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 12, 2004 12:45 pm Post subject:
Re: NASCAR Question |
|
|
Personally, I do not care anything for Nascar. It has been "dummied down"
IMHO. BUT.... FI is now a joke also. Who ever makes it to the first turn
usually wins. Most F1 races are now just "follow the leader" lap parades !
PS: Son of man who shut down the SHADOW racing team !
-----------------------------
"fbloogyudsr" <fbloogyudsr@nwlink.com> wrote in message
news:10p8gtfr64eqb4a@corp.supernews.com...
| Quote: | "C.B. Evans" <evanschris@ZZZZcomcast.net> wrote
Am I missing something or is this just the American pee-nuckle of
engineering?
I'd say that going 195+ in a 3500 pound car around Talladega
superspeedway for 500 miles with 40 other 3500 pound cars is hardly
"pee-nuckle"(it's actually pinochle).
Actually, "pinnacle", as in peak.
And to say the engineering involved is not up to par with F1 is
ridiculous. You're comparing apples to oranges. Actually, if you really
think about it, NASCAR is a tougher obstacle for engineering than F1.
With NASCAR you are working from a stock platform with limitations on
aero changes, template variations, and most importantly, POWERTRAIN.
NASCAR has strict limitations on engines. ALL manufacturers must comply
to the same guidelines when it comes to engine size, modifications, etc.
And, these engines are normally aspirated, barebone V-8 small blocks.
Nothing else. F1's engine packages are radically different when it comes
to limitations on power, chassis, and aero. And F1's not a stock
platform.
You seem to be under a cloud of misunderstanding; certainly your view
of NASCAR cars as "stock" is a complete crock. They are purpose-built
chassis with shells on them. The FWD cars (Taurus, Monte Carlo, Intrepid)
that they resemble on the outside have no similarity other than
dimensions.
They are all RWD front-mid-engine steel-tube chassis. Not too similar.
Floyd |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spare-me-spam
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:52 pm Post subject:
Re: NASCAR Question |
|
|
Wrong-O on 2 out of 3 there.
Nextel Cup cars most assuredly DO have a brake bias adjustment
accessible to the driver, and Champ car chassis are so different for
road vs. oval courses that they are essentially different cars. As is
the case with any well set up Cup team in NASCAR.
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:10p7ufcnm86bs09@corp.supernews.com...
|| F1 cars go both directions, they never go in circles. Indy and CART
cars
| will go in circles, but the crew does not tweak the suspension, but as
I
| recall, the driver gets a dial inside the car to adjust the
suspension. They
| can also adjust the brake bias, something that NASCAR drivers do not
have
| the ability to do. A properly set up F1, Indy, or CART car will go
straight
| for miles when the driver takes his hands off the wheel, a stock car
will
| instantly make a left. Actually, perhaps the CART and Indy cars may
favor
| left turns as well since they also go in circles, but they go in
2-mile +
| circles, whereas many NASCAR tracks are well under 2 miles around,
some are
| less than 1 mile.
|
| F1, and other open wheel cars, do not engage in the bump-and-run like
NASCAR
| drivers do because the exposed wheels are problematic when then rub
against
| another open wheel. Stock cars can go into a turn 3- or 4-abreast and
rub
| all over the place, open wheel cars can not do this. I guess stock car
| drivers look like bumper car pilots because that is essentially what
they
| are.
|
|
|
|
| "tech27" <tech27@mail.anonymizer.com> wrote in message
| news:ngRkd.24547$NC6.1043@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
| > As a fan of motorsports, I occasionally watch NASCAR, although I
much
| prefer
| > F1. I often make the analogy that F1 is to Nascar as chess is to
checkers.
| > (-;
| >
| > While the F1 cars seem to be deftly piloted around the course,
NAS-cars
| look
| > like the are being driven by wild teenagers just trying to
constantly keep
| > the pedal to the metal without spinning out. Witness the number of
Nascar
| > spins and accidents, probably more in a couple of races than in an
entire
| F1
| > season.
| >
| > What really puzzles me is why do they have to constantly be changing
| > suspension/tire setups during a race? Can they not dial it in after
| practice
| > and qualifying? Cars that are "running well" do this once or twice
during
| a
| > race, while those that aren't seem to come in several times to add
or take
| > out some air, wedges, etc.
| >
| > Am I missing something or is this just the American pee-nuckle of
| > engineering?
| >
| >
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fbloogyudsr
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:53 pm Post subject:
Re: NASCAR Question |
|
|
"mjc" <candc@cal.net> wrote
| Quote: | Personally, I do not care anything for Nascar. It has been "dummied down"
IMHO. BUT.... FI is now a joke also. Who ever makes it to the first
turn usually wins. Most F1 races are now just "follow the leader" lap
parades !
|
Yeah, I have tried to get into F1, but it's laughably non-competitive. The
best
driver in the world (M Schumacher) and the company spending the most
(Ferrari) means everyone's racing for 2nd place. At least NASCAR races
are usually interesting until the last caution... of course you never know
when that's going to be. ;-)
Floyd |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tech27
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:11 pm Post subject:
Re: NASCAR Question |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:10p7ufcnm86bs09@corp.supernews.com...
I guess stock car
| Quote: | drivers look like bumper car pilots because that is essentially what they
are.
|
That's a perfect analogy!!!! On point an with a condescending air. I love
it.! (-; |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tech27
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:19 pm Post subject:
Re: NASCAR Question |
|
|
"Dan Drake" <ddrake@comcast.notthis.net> wrote in message
news:ksu7p0dd4iqc6fo05jlolfkf8nmu94u0d5@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 18:50:45 -0500, "tech27"
tech27@mail.anonymizer.com> wrote:
inre Nascar troll
I'm no Nascar fan, but the fact is that those guys are driving right
on the very edge pretty much all of the time. "Drive fast, turn left"
sneering usually comes from those who don't know what car control is.
--
Dan Drake
|
If you read my post you'd realize that I'm not a Nascar troll, and in fact
watch many races when I have the time.
What still puzzles me is that given the many rules Nascar has, why can it
not be made safer to consistently drive at this "edge" for all the cars.
It's not as if someone has a car that is 200 pound lighter and 50% more hp
than another car. But perhaps that is intentional. Make the cars extremely
safe while giving the fans the carnage they crave. All the pitting and
adjustments, etc. also make it interesting I suppose.
As for sneering, my ongoing experience with performance driving at a local
school with my M5 and M3 only underscored how truly difficult it is to drive
aggressively, a fact I never lose sight of. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tech27
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:22 pm Post subject:
Re: NASCAR Question |
|
|
"C.B. Evans" <evanschris@ZZZZcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:hKadnX_pBOTKqgncRVn-pQ@comcast.com...
| Quote: |
I'd say that going 195+ in a 3500 pound car around Talladega
superspeedway for 500 miles with 40 other 3500 pound cars is hardly
"pee-nuckle"(it's actually pinochle).
|
It was intentional.
And to say the engineering involved is not up to par
| Quote: | with F1 is ridiculous. You're comparing apples to oranges.
|
Checkers to chess?
Actually, if
| Quote: | you really think about it, NASCAR is a tougher obstacle for engineering
than F1. With NASCAR you are working from a stock platform with
limitations on aero changes, template variations, and most importantly,
POWERTRAIN. NASCAR has strict limitations on engines. ALL manufacturers
must comply to the same guidelines when it comes to engine size,
modifications, etc. And, these engines are normally aspirated, barebone
V-8 small blocks. Nothing else. F1's engine packages are radically
different when it comes to limitations on power, chassis, and aero. And
F1's not a stock platform. The 'ole apples to oranges thing again. NASCARs
are not made for road handling, they are made for sustained speed.
Sustained speed while racing with 40 other guys, not darting into corners
and trying not to scratch the paint on your 3 million dollar car.
"I love any sort racing, no matter how silly it is". Mario Andretti
Just my $.02
C.
|
Good points.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Somebody
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:25 pm Post subject:
Re: NASCAR Question |
|
|
"tech27" <tech27@mail.anonymizer.com> wrote in message
news:DWSkd.24556$NC6.19342@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
| Quote: |
Okay, I know that these factors come into play during just about any race,
but it seems to me that the Nascar crews are so far behind F1 in terms of
technology and refinement. I appreciate that the cars are radically
|
I submit this: They're ahead in technology, not refinement. NASCAR guys
have refined essentially primitive designs to an incredibly high level. F1
throws cubic dollars at it and engineers a breakthrough new device or
approach, or an exotic alloy, etc. NASCAR guys have to continually push the
edge of a very tightly contstrained envelope.
| Quote: | Another thing is how bad they are outside of their element. I don't know
if
it's the cars or the drivers, but I do know that one relatively successful
team pulled their #1 driver for a road course event because they wanted
some
point (kinda like constructors points I think). My fellow Canadian Ron
Fellows (excuse the pun), was recruited to pilot a car with only a few
days
practice, and he drove it to second place. Most of the Nascar drivers say
they hate road courses, probably because the cars a pieces of shit and not
ment to do unusual things like turn, steer, and brake.
|
Keep in mind many of these guys *never* raced ovals coming up. From
mini-sprints to outlaws, to arca, whatever, all ovals. They don't have
artful downshifting technique and aren't used to weight transfers and the
sort of radical line adjustments that happen in a road course. It's like
taking a dragster guy and putting him on an oval -- it's just not his
element.
Given practice, they can learn, because they're good drivers. Witness MM,
RW, JG, etc, or even DEJr. Given open wheel experience, they can do well
right away, witness TS, RG, etc. Ringers BS and RF have lots and lots of
road course experience, and they're good drivers. So they get in and do
well in a short time.
But the reverse is true when they try oval racing... for the same reasons.
A different set of skills.
-Russ. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Somebody
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:27 pm Post subject:
Re: NASCAR Question |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:10p7ufcnm86bs09@corp.supernews.com...
| Quote: | recall, the driver gets a dial inside the car to adjust the suspension.
They
can also adjust the brake bias, something that NASCAR drivers do not have
the ability to do. A properly set up F1, Indy, or CART car will go
straight |
That's incorrect, the drivers can indeed adjust the brake bias in a Cup car.
Only useful at short tracks and road courses.
-Russ. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in