Note to Mike Joy

Is it possible to delete a blog from the "I read these blogs" list?

Hello Guest

• Login
• Register…
• Start blog

• Who, Where, When
• What is interesting here?
• Duels

• Polls
• Avatars
• Interests

• Cities and Countries
• Random blog
• Users search

• Search
• Games
• Tests
• CarGuru

• Сообщества
• Talxy Chat
• Horoscope
• Online

CarGuru > Nascar > Note to Mike Joy 23 March 2005 01:50:36

Recent blog posts:

95 mirage
I have a 95 mirage and this is the second time the injector in number 3 cylinder has gone bad. Anything…

1988 Ford F-150 Truck
I would like to remove the pollution control system from my 1988 F-150, 4.9L I6 300 4x4. Can anyone…

my 99 M chrysler has started to…
my 99 M chrysler has started to cool and then starts to give off heat in the ac vents and then cool…

dodge 2000 intrepid
bought this car right off the show room floor in Bartow fl to this date I have not had any work done on…

starting issue, 2002 dodge…
My 2002 Dodge Caravan wouldn't crank. I tested some things, replaced the battery. After installing the…

;-)
;-)

stereo pin
I put a new battery in my girl friends 94 900 and it wants a code for the radio. There is nothing in the…

Coolant temp on Saturn Sky
I just purchased a 2007 Saturn Sky Redline. As I was driving yesterday I happen to have the info set on…

Saturn Sky Red Line
I just purchased a 2007 Saturn Sky Redline. I noticed will driving yesterday that when I turned on the…

Que pour la place trange
Que pour la place trange

They have birthday today:

Esther

all >>

Forums:

topic feeds

• CarGuru all topics, blogs and comments

• Driving

• Formula-1

• Indycar

• Nascar

• Other sport

• Technology

• 4 x 4

• Volkswagen

• Mercedes

• Acura

• Alfa-romeo

• Audi

• BMW

• Chrysler

• Dodge

• Ford

• General Motors

• Jeep Willys

• Honda

• Hyundai

• Mazda

• Nissan

• Peugeot

• Pontiac

• Porsche

• Saab

• Saturn

• Toyota

• Volvo

• Buy / Sell

• Open discussion

• Anonymous

Discuss:

(No longer meta) Daytona's 24…
Kurt Busch was supposed to (as of some months ago) be one of the Penske team drivers, but apparently…

test speeds
I see from Jayski that Greg Biffle reached 218mph going into the turns at Texas speedway (the original…

Daytona 500 entry list
I see from Jayski that no less than 54 cars are entered for the Daytona 500. This is almost like the…

<Meta> - Daytona's 24…
If anyone intends to post commentary on the 24 hour race at Daytona, please do not put "Rolex"…

Recent forum topics:

Brake Lights won't work
brake lights on 1996 Grand Am won't work. Fuse and lights are fine. Suggestions?

honda civic 87 model problem
i would like some information on why my honda civic wont start at times after its hot when running it…

mazda premacy glowplug lights…
i have a mazda premacy 2litre diesel . have a problem at the moment ,glowplug light flashing with loss…

I have a 96 chrysler new york…
I have a 96 chrysler new york lhs but no owners manuel and on the message center there is a light that i…

Recent forum comments:

RE: Ask How To Replace Headlight…
how do I release the locking ring on the headlamp bulb in a 99 dodge ram 2500?

RE: Re: Transmission shudder when…
who are you speaking to

RE: Re: Transmission shudder when…
I can feel something like a kick when I first hit the gas pedal when I take off.

RE: stuck hatchback
on the rear gate that is

RE: stuck hatchback
just my latch is stuck and the door wont close on my 2000 sub outback limited

RE: 1999 Chrysler T&C - Speed…
I am reading all of this and am amazed at how bad I am getting ripped off by my Chrysler dealership....4…

RE: How to duplicate Navtech CD’s
where can i buy nav cd's for a 2003 s class mercedes also the latest version for a 2005 sl?

RE: Heating problem in 1988 Honda…
well thats no always true!!! my husband replaced the thermostat/thermometer..... and the water…

RE: Mitsubishi Diamante ECU faults…
how did you read the codes

RE: 98 Dodge Grand Caravan Problems
I had the same problem with the instrument panel, after about a months worth of greif, and dollars…

Модератор:

Administrator


Note to Mike Joy
Bill Mulrooney 16 March 2005 05:28:01
	Don't know if Mike still reviews this NG, but if he does? Do we really need a 1 plus hour of pre race nonsense? If we do, can you at least have FOX advise a countdown to green. Also, when will FOX realize that Myers adds nothing to the broadcasts? Used to be a regular here, but this is my 1st visit in many a year. Bill
		Add comment


Chuck Steak 17 March 2005 00:08:38 [ permanent link ]
	In article <q18f31heq891hgnptfkpgtfas89or00n7r@4ax.com>, Steve Scott <sscott1@twcny.rr.com> wrote: I'll agree with that. An hour pre-race is pretty excessive. Just>gives my DVR a harder workout. Anyone ever consider finding out what time the race actually starts? Why do you "have" to watch the pre-race show? My guess is that there are a lot of fans that would prefer watching that show, to a Brady Bunch rerun... Dan ---------------------------------------------- I got a new toolbox for my wife. Best trade I ever made.
		Add comment


Bill Mulrooney 17 March 2005 00:31:36 [ permanent link ]
	OK, your entitled to your opinion. Wonder how many of us agree with you, or me? Myers seems to come from left field at times, does not seem to be properly prepared, etc. And going to the "Hollywood Hotel" during racing action does little to promote the event or any drivers taking part. Not that it means anything, went to my 1st stock car race in 1948, my 1st Grand National (before Winston Cup) in 1964 and went to about 100 total GN/WC events before I quit in 1996. Do not have a favorite driver, but miss the good old days when a race was a race, not the follow the leader stuff we see now at most tracks. Bill "LABlogger" <lablogger@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1110956212.146174.12640@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> Maybe you like Myers, maybe you don't. But to the "new" fan (I've been> a Rusty fan since the mid-80's in case you're wondering), Myers is> great. He relates to the every-man. He is the guy who can get someone> who is not a NASCAR fan to not change the channel. And whether you> respect that or not, it is good for NASCAR and good for you. Those> people who don't change the channel see your driver's sponsor. They> buy his product. And your driver's sponsor profits and continues to> sponsor your driver.> NASCAR isn't a regional sport anymore, no matter how much some of us> would like it to be. And Myers plays to the other 3/4 of the country.> He is good at what he does, good for FOX, and in the long run good for> NASCAR and your driver, whoever that may be.> --> http://www.lasportsblog.com>
		Add comment


Crusader 17 March 2005 02:26:03 [ permanent link ]
	"Chuck Steak" <Chuck_Steak@nospam.com> wrote in message news:iO6dnT9k_MiyD6XfRVn-oQ@rcn.net...> In article <q18f31heq891hgnptfkpgtfas89or00n7r@4ax.com>,> Steve Scott <sscott1@twcny.rr.com> wrote:> >I'll agree with that. An hour pre-race is pretty excessive. Just> >gives my DVR a harder workout.> Anyone ever consider finding out what time the race> actually starts?> Why do you "have" to watch the pre-race show?> My guess is that there are a lot of fans that would> prefer watching that show,> to a Brady Bunch rerun...> Dan> ----------------------------------------------> I got a new toolbox for my wife.> Best trade I ever made.> I enjoy pre-race features, but if they go to 1 & 1/2 hours i won't enjoy it. Of course i prefer watching race-related shows, vs a Brady Bunch rerun or whatever FX is showing, but I don't want to be held hostage thinking that i'm missing something important when it turns out they just reiterate every bit of info that Jayski has passed on during the week. I can appreciate that Chris Myers is the face/voice for the Newbies, even they need to feel welcome to stockcarracin, & i accept that. CRU
		Add comment


Steve Scott 17 March 2005 04:08:52 [ permanent link ]
	Oh, you mean the days when the leader finished laps ahead of the pack? On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:31:36 CST, "Bill Mulrooney" <mulrooneyb@charter.net> wrote: Not that it means anything, went to my 1st stock car race in 1948, my 1st >Grand National (before Winston Cup) in 1964 and went to about 100 total >GN/WC events before I quit in 1996. Do not have a favorite driver, but miss >the good old days when a race was a race, not the follow the leader stuff we >see now at most tracks. -- "I'm trying to make insects fly", said Tom flippantly.
		Add comment


John McCoy 17 March 2005 04:47:36 [ permanent link ]
	Chuck_Steak@nospam.com (Chuck Steak) wrote in news:iO6dnT9k_MiyD6XfRVn- oQ@rcn.net: Anyone ever consider finding out what time the race> actually starts?> Why do you "have" to watch the pre-race show? I'm not sure that's readily available info. It used to be they said a race started at 1pm on Sunday, and you could figure that with the anthem & all they'd actually get moving about 10 minutes after that. But now, they say races start at such and such a time, and you don't know if that's really when they figure to start, or if that's going to include marching bands and awards to "the CocaCola most generous VJGC donor" and a speech from the governor and a sermon and who knows what other hoopla (which may or may not get on the TV). What would be nice would be if the TVs treated NASCAR like a ball sport (which is what Helton et al keep saying they want). When the NFL is on, they announce a time for the pregame show _and_ the time for the kickoff. John
		Add comment


DollarBill 17 March 2005 06:49:34 [ permanent link ]
	"Jason" <dolphans1@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:63ch3199ru6hbnf75jc07gpbagkk3p0vq3@4ax.com...> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:28:01 CST, "Bill Mulrooney"> <mulrooneyb@charter.net> wrote:> Don't know if Mike still reviews this NG, but if he does?>> Do we really need a 1 plus hour of pre race nonsense? If we do, can you at>>least have FOX advise a countdown to green.>> Also, when will FOX realize that Myers adds nothing to the broadcasts?>> Used to be a regular here, but this is my 1st visit in many a year.>> Bill> Yeah I agree the one hour pre show is old. Wish we could get back to> starting the race at the start time. Same 1 hour of BS week end and> week out. It's just more time to squeeze money out of sponsors. That's the bottom-line. Broadcasting is not about conveying information, it's about billing.
		Add comment


Chuck Steak 17 March 2005 21:04:02 [ permanent link ]
	In article <Xns961BC7B5CA431pogosupernews@216.168.3.30>, John McCoy <igopogo@ix.netcom.com> wrote: Chuck_Steak@nospam.com (Chuck Steak) wrote in news:iO6dnT9k_MiyD6XfRVn->oQ@rcn.net: Anyone ever consider finding out what time the race>> actually starts?>> Why do you "have" to watch the pre-race show? I'm not sure that's readily available info. I found the information in about 20 seconds.. And I KNOW you know how! Dan ---------------------------------------------- I got a new toolbox for my wife. Best trade I ever made.
		Add comment


Martin X. Moleski 18 March 2005 03:15:06 [ permanent link ]
	On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:08:19 CST, "Michael McGaha" <michael@ronindev.com> wrote: 1: Why are the ovals ran counter-clockwise and the road courses ran >clockwise? OK, you got me, chief. Why? Marty
		Add comment


John McCoy 18 March 2005 04:03:23 [ permanent link ]
	"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <moleski@canisius.edu> wrote in news:nrcj31h9tmc21u2iqgs1es41ugdgqecqlh@4ax.com: I have learned almost everything I know about racing from the> commentators on TV. I'm not sure if you're praising him or condemning him John
		Add comment


Steve Scott 18 March 2005 04:04:54 [ permanent link ]
	Oval track racing started in the US. Road course racing started in S America. Since it's south of the equator the cars just naturally run the other way around. On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:15:06 CST, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <moleski@canisius.edu> wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:08:19 CST, "Michael McGaha" <michael@ronindev.com> wrote:> 1: Why are the ovals ran counter-clockwise and the road courses ran >>clockwise?> OK, you got me, chief. Why?> Marty -- "I'm trying to make insects fly", said Tom flippantly.
		Add comment


Alex Holden 18 March 2005 04:20:33 [ permanent link ]
	On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:08:19 CST, in article <Icn_d.23627$YD4.2853@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, "Michael McGaha" <michael@ronindev.com> wrote in rec.autos.sport.nascar.moderated: Seriously. I've learned a lot from the pre-race stuff, and I have some >suggestions on what to cover for people (like my wife) that are new to the >sport and need to know things that most fans wouldn't even think about >asking... (Along with a few I've always wondered about)... I've got an idea on a few of these, but I'd like to know if I'm right... 1: Why are the ovals ran counter-clockwise and the road courses ran >clockwise? Which way do you drive round a roundabout? In the UK we drive clockwise round roundabouts because we drive on the left. On the Continent and in the US, people drive on the right, so they go counter-clockwise. The majority of our small, local short tracks are raced in a clockwise direction, but Rockingham, Northants, the only full-size oval in the UK is driven counter-clockwise, as that's the international standard. Road courses on the other hand can be run in either direction, most road courses are run in a clockwise direction, but there are some which are run counter-clockwise. Interlagos in Brazil is one example of a famous Formula 1 road course which is run counter-clockwise. 2: Why can you work on your car under a yellow flag but not under a red >flag? A yellow flag is part of the race. The race is still taking place. If you make a mistake, you get penalised, just as you do under green flag conditions. If you stay in the pits too long because of repairs and the like, you can go down a number of laps. On a red flag, the field is stopped, and so no positions can be gained or lost. Those who work on the car have an unfair advantage on those who don't. The only ones who can work on a red are those who are loading up to go home. 3: Why can you pass on the outside on a restart but not the inside? The inside is where the lapped cars are. I think this is probably down to when there was manual scoring. Seeing a car pass on the inside of another car on the start/finish line may have caused some confusion with working out the positions, so that's probably why it's banned. 4: Why don't they ever run in the rain since they developed special tires >for it and most other series run in the rain? Most other series don't run on ovals. Race in the wet on a road course, and your braking points and turn in points, along with your line through the corner are completely different. The key to racing in the wet is to keep as much grip as possible. While wet and dry setups in open wheeled racing can be completely different, you can dial in more downforce in the wet by having a sharper rear wing angle, road racing setups are a mixture of compromises, so racing in the wet is a compromise. On an oval, drivers try and sustain a higher speed through each corner, and the grip is predetermined by the setup, a lot of that setup is the pre-loading of the suspension - the wedge and trackbar. You don't set a car up to turn in just one direction when road racing. I don't think that just changing the tires would mean that oval racing in the wet would be safe. 5: What keeps people from getting hurt by flying lugnuts? I've seen them >spark at night races when the car spins the tires leaving after a pit >stop... you KNOW those things gotta be flying like bullets. That's one I want to know too! 6: What's the little keel running down the length of the top of the car for? >just for aerodynamics? I think so. Aerodynamics are strange things. Cheers, -- Alex Holden I don't speak for anybody but myself.
		Add comment


John McCoy 18 March 2005 04:21:35 [ permanent link ]
	"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <moleski@canisius.edu> wrote in news:8p3k31p7lfpdvsdov3abrnf1ph97rp51b9@4ax.com: On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:08:19 CST, "Michael McGaha"> <michael@ronindev.com> wrote: > 1: Why are the ovals ran counter-clockwise and the road courses ran >>clockwise?> OK, you got me, chief. Why? Because horse races are run counter-clockwise. John
		Add comment


Martin X. Moleski 18 March 2005 05:07:06 [ permanent link ]
	On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:03:23 CST, John McCoy <igopogo@ix.netcom.com> wrote: I have learned almost everything I know about racing from the>> commentators on TV. I'm not sure if you're praising him or condemning him I was trying to thank them. But I understand how it might be a backhanded compliment. :o) Marty
		Add comment


LABlogger 18 March 2005 06:33:33 [ permanent link ]
	Bill Mulrooney wrote:> OK, your entitled to your opinion.> Wonder how many of us agree with you, or me?> Myers seems to come from left field at times, does not seem to be properly> prepared, etc. And going to the "Hollywood Hotel" during racing action does> little to promote the event or any drivers taking part.> When is Myers unprepared? He may not have the background knowledge of a lifelong fan, but I think he is very prepared week in and week out. Not that it means anything, went to my 1st stock car race in 1948, my Grand National (before Winston Cup) in 1964 and went to about 100 total> GN/WC events before I quit in 1996. Do not have a favorite driver, but miss> the good old days when a race was a race, not the follow the leader stuff we> see now at most tracks.> Bill I'd rather watch races where Pearson or Petty don't finish 3 laps ahead of the second place car. -- http://www.lasportsblog.com
		Add comment


LABlogger 18 March 2005 09:38:19 [ permanent link ]
	Scott Stevenson wrote:> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:20:33 CST, Alex Holden> <newspost@alex-holden.co.uk> wrote:> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:08:19 CST, in article> ><Icn_d.23627$YD4.2853@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, "Michael McGaha"> ><michael@ronindev.com> wrote in rec.autos.sport.nascar.moderated:> 5: What keeps people from getting hurt by flying lugnuts? I've seen them> >>spark at night races when the car spins the tires leaving after a stop... you KNOW those things gotta be flying like bullets.> > That's one I want to know too!> I'd guess that when they come flying out, it's at a pretty low> angle, so the most they might do is to hit someone in the foot. The> tires aren't hot when the car exits the pits, so the tires aren't> particulary sticky, so I wouldn't guess that the lugnut would adhere> to the tire, and fly off at a higher angle (think about shooting a> pumpkin seed from between your fingers)> > In addition, I would guess that the majority of the lugnuts are out of the path of the tires. The rear lugs fall away from the rear wheels, and thus would be hit. Given the lenght of the wheel base, most of the front lugs would also fall out of the path of the rear wheels that would shoot them behind the car. Of the 20 lugs removed during a regular pitstop, I would be surprised if more than 5 were run over on the way out of the pits. Granted, this can create a hazard, but still is only 1/4 of the lugnuts removed. -- Help me pick my new driver for 2006! http://www.lasportsblog.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26 -- http://www.lasportsblog.com
		Add comment


Somebody 18 March 2005 16:34:04 [ permanent link ]
	"LABlogger" <lablogger@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1111124251.258657.294240@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...> Scott Stevenson wrote:> > On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:20:33 CST, Alex Holden> > <newspost@alex-holden.co.uk> wrote:> > On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:08:19 CST, in article> > ><Icn_d.23627$YD4.2853@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, "Michael McGaha"> > ><michael@ronindev.com> wrote in rec.autos.sport.nascar.moderated:> > 5: What keeps people from getting hurt by flying lugnuts? I've seen> them> > >>spark at night races when the car spins the tires leaving after a> pit> > >>stop... you KNOW those things gotta be flying like bullets.> > > That's one I want to know too!> > I'd guess that when they come flying out, it's at a pretty low> > angle, so the most they might do is to hit someone in the foot. The> > tires aren't hot when the car exits the pits, so the tires aren't> > particulary sticky, so I wouldn't guess that the lugnut would adhere> > to the tire, and fly off at a higher angle (think about shooting a> > pumpkin seed from between your fingers)> > > In addition, I would guess that the majority of the lugnuts are out of> the path of the tires. The rear lugs fall away from the rear wheels,> and thus would be hit. Given the lenght of the wheel base, most of the> front lugs would also fall out of the path of the rear wheels that> would shoot them behind the car. Of the 20 lugs removed during a> regular pitstop, I would be surprised if more than 5 were run over on> the way out of the pits. Granted, this can create a hazard, but still> is only 1/4 of the lugnuts removed. If it were 1/4, on a full field pit stop there are over 160 lug nuts getting run over. -Russ.
		Add comment


Steve Scott 18 March 2005 23:54:19 [ permanent link ]
	Become overwhelmed with extraneous BS? You mean it wasn't at some point? On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:45:02 CST, "Crusader" <cru32@comcast.net> wrote: It's too bad that Other NG has become overwhelmed with extraneous BS,>but i for 1 sure appreciate the many who are willing to share>their expertise like McCoy, CSteak, etc.. -- "I'm trying to make insects fly", said Tom flippantly.
		Add comment


WildWeasel 19 March 2005 00:10:10 [ permanent link ]
	"Crusader" wrote...> Dollar Bill et.al., i think it's pretty cool that u as an UCAP> professional & MJ would take the time to express your opinions &> share your expertise with us common ordinary race fans. ...> but i for 1 sure appreciate the many who are willing to share> their expertise like McCoy, CSteak, etc.. what he said, all the way from the experts cru mentioned to the merely opinionated (and u know who u r) and those in between (enough knowledge to break something).
		Add comment


Bill Mulrooney 19 March 2005 00:16:38 [ permanent link ]
	LA. If you have been watching races since the middle 80's, you should know what I was talking about. Don't you remember the days when there were 30, 40, and some time 50 lead changes, and none were pit stop related lead changes. The best era for those type of races were in the early-mid 80's. Agree sometimes there were only a hand full of guys or maybe 8-10 on the lead lap. If you listen closely, you will hear Myers get corrected by someone almost every race. But I fully understand that they are trying to gain a larger, and younger audience. I guess just watching most of the commercials will point to who they are trying to attrack. Definately not us older guys. Thankfully, very few if any of those "Pearson and Petty" winning by 3 laps races were televised. I do not have "spell check", so please disregard my spelling. Bill "LABlogger" <lablogger@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1111113155.886545.274930@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...> Bill Mulrooney wrote:>> OK, your entitled to your opinion.>> Wonder how many of us agree with you, or me?>> Myers seems to come from left field at times, does not seem to be> properly>> prepared, etc. And going to the "Hollywood Hotel" during racing> action does>> little to promote the event or any drivers taking part.>> When is Myers unprepared? He may not have the background knowledge of> a lifelong fan, but I think he is very prepared week in and week out.> Not that it means anything, went to my 1st stock car race in 1948, my> 1st>> Grand National (before Winston Cup) in 1964 and went to about 100> total>> GN/WC events before I quit in 1996. Do not have a favorite driver,> but miss>> the good old days when a race was a race, not the follow the leader> stuff we>> see now at most tracks.>> Bill> I'd rather watch races where Pearson or Petty don't finish 3 laps ahead> of the second place car.> --> http://www.lasportsblog.com>
		Add comment


LABlogger 19 March 2005 03:22:53 [ permanent link ]
	Bill Mulrooney wrote:> LA.> If you have been watching races since the middle 80's, you should know what> I was talking about.> Don't you remember the days when there were 30, 40, and some time 50 lead> changes, and none were pit stop related lead changes. The best era for those> type of races were in the early-mid 80's. Agree sometimes there were only a> hand full of guys or maybe 8-10 on the lead lap.> You bring up a good point - lots of good races in the 80's. But there were also races like Bill Elliot at Talledega (1985, I think) where he made up 2 laps on his own, no cautions, before going on to win. Had he not had problems early, this would lead me to believe that he would have had a two lap lead. Nonetheless, there were great races then, including the battles Dale and DW had. The aero package they had at the restrictor plate tracks in 2000 and Daytona in 2001 made for exciting, albeit very dangerous racing. It would be nice if they could find a happy medium now. http://www.lasportsblog.com> >
		Add comment


John McCoy 19 March 2005 05:10:40 [ permanent link ]
	"Bob Paxton" <redgreen43@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1111110901.189089.17020@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: Martin X. Moleski, SJ wrote:> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:08:19 CST, "Michael McGaha"> <michael@ronindev.com> wrote:>> 1: Why are the ovals ran counter-clockwise and the road courses ran>> >clockwise?>> OK, you got me, chief. Why?>> I believe it's a safety issue. The driver is seated on the left side> of the car. Running ovals counter-clockwise puts the right side of the> car toward the wall. Nope. Look at early pictures from Indy - driver sits on the right. In all seriousness, the answer to the question is oval track car races run CCW because oval track horse races run CCW, and most of the early races were run on horse tracks. As for why horse races run CCW, no-one seems to know. John
		Add comment


John McCoy 19 March 2005 05:16:10 [ permanent link ]
	"LABlogger" <lablogger@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1111124251.258657.294240@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: In addition, I would guess that the majority of the lugnuts are out of> the path of the tires. The rear lugs fall away from the rear wheels,> and thus would be hit. Given the lenght of the wheel base, most of the> front lugs would also fall out of the path of the rear wheels that> would shoot them behind the car. Of the 20 lugs removed during a> regular pitstop, I would be surprised if more than 5 were run over on> the way out of the pits. Granted, this can create a hazard, but still> is only 1/4 of the lugnuts removed. Actually, you can figure the 10 on the left fall toward the wall, and are totally out of the path of the car leaving. So it's really only the right side lugnuts that are a possible problem. I suspect too, that if they do get thrown back by the rear tire spinning, they come out at a very low angle as Scott said, and not moving all that fast. Even when spinning, the tire on a car leaving the pits isn't moving very fast relative to the ground. John
		Add comment


Mike Marlow 19 March 2005 07:15:04 [ permanent link ]
	"John McCoy" <igopogo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:Xns961DCC96ED9E4pogosupernews@216.168.3.30...> I suspect too, that if they do get thrown back by the rear tire> spinning, they come out at a very low angle as Scott said, and> not moving all that fast. Even when spinning, the tire on a> car leaving the pits isn't moving very fast relative to the> ground.> Ground speed wouldn't have much to do with the speed of the projectile. It's the speed of the spinning wheel that is going to determine projectile speed. -- -Mike- mike6963REMOVE@alltel.net
		Add comment


Cindy Murray 19 March 2005 19:26:09 [ permanent link ]
	John McCoy wrote:> "Bob Paxton" <redgreen43@hotmail.com> wrote in > news:1111110901.189089.17020@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:> Martin X. Moleski, SJ wrote:>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:08:19 CST, "Michael McGaha">> <michael@ronindev.com> wrote:>> 1: Why are the ovals ran counter-clockwise and the road courses ran>>>>clockwise?>>> OK, you got me, chief. Why?>>> I believe it's a safety issue. The driver is seated on the left side>>of the car. Running ovals counter-clockwise puts the right side of the>>car toward the wall.> Nope. Look at early pictures from Indy - driver sits on the right.> In all seriousness, the answer to the question is oval track car> races run CCW because oval track horse races run CCW, and most of> the early races were run on horse tracks.> As for why horse races run CCW, no-one seems to know.> John> I was always told that oval track car races run CCW because horse races run that direction. The reason the horse races run that direction goes back to the days of the American Revolution. According to the legend, European horse races ran clock-wise, and the fledgling colonies wanted to be different. Could be just an urban legend, but I think it has some merit.
		Add comment


John McCoy 20 March 2005 03:18:56 [ permanent link ]
	"Mike Marlow" <mike6963REMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in news:3a1hejF65f0coU1@individual.net: "John McCoy" <igopogo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message> news:Xns961DCC96ED9E4pogosupernews@216.168.3.30...>> I suspect too, that if they do get thrown back by the rear tire>> spinning, they come out at a very low angle as Scott said, and>> not moving all that fast. Even when spinning, the tire on a>> car leaving the pits isn't moving very fast relative to the>> ground.>> Ground speed wouldn't have much to do with the speed of the> projectile. It's the speed of the spinning wheel that is going to> determine projectile speed. No, the speed of the spinning wheel is irrelevant. What's important is how fast the surface of the tire is moving relative to the (stationary) lugnut. And the tire surface isn't moving very fast, maybe 5 mph or so. Because I think you're going to question this, let me ask you a question: on a car going 200 mph, how fast is the bottom of the tire moving. The answer is 0 mph - if it wasn't, it would be sliding, which is a bad thing (the top of the tire, by contrast, would be moving 400 mph, which is why when a tire comes apart it does some serious damage to the fender). You have to look at it relative to the axle - bottom of the tire is moving backward 200 mph, and the top forward at 200 mph; since the axle itself is moving 200 mph relative to the ground, you get the bottom of the tire at 0 and the top 400 by simple arithmetic. When a car leaves the pits & spins the tire, the bottom of the tire, the part that should be going 0 mph, is actually moving, and sliding across the asphalt, which is why you get smoke. But it's not moving very fast (even if the axle and the rest of the car have gotten up to 30 or 40 mph). John
		Add comment


Chuck Steak 20 March 2005 07:06:52 [ permanent link ]
	In article <Xns961EB8B3BE7D7pogosupernews@216.168.3.30>, John McCoy <igopogo@ix.netcom.com> wrote: on a car going 200 mph, how fast is the bottom of>the tire moving. The answer is 0 mph - if it wasn't, it would>be sliding, which is a bad thing (the top of the tire, by>contrast, would be moving 400 mph, which is why when a tire>comes apart it does some serious damage to the fender). You>have to look at it relative to the axle - bottom of the tire>is moving backward 200 mph, and the top forward at 200 mph;>since the axle itself is moving 200 mph relative to the ground,>you get the bottom of the tire at 0 and the top 400 by simple>arithmetic. John hmmmmmmm..... your statement makes for some 'deep' thought, John. But I think you are wrong.... If the car is moving at 200mph, the 'tire' is moving at 200mph. Because the 'tire' is a unit, attached to the car. You are using the term bottom incorrectly, in this case. You are looking at the area that the tire is in contact with the ground, and refering to that 'area' as the bottom of the tire. But you can't. Because the tire is capable of movement, independent of the car. The bottom in this case, is actually a point, on the tire. There can only be ONE bottom to the tire. And it can be on top. Lets paint a dot on the tire. At the point that is closest to the ground. That point is the bottom of the tire. Forever. We have defined it. Even when the tire moves. If you move it 90 degrees, the bottom is now either in front of, or behind the axle... If the car is moving, the dot is moving. It either moves along it's circumference, around it's center, or it moves in the direction of the car. But the 'bottom' cannot be motionless, if the car is moving. If the car is on it's side, and the wheels are spinning, the bottom of the tire is moving. If the car is sliding out of control with the brakes locked up, the bottom of the tire is moving..... Dan ---------------------------------------------- I got a new toolbox for my wife. Best trade I ever made.
		Add comment


Steve Scott 20 March 2005 10:45:23 [ permanent link ]
	I think you need to re-think this John. Every point on that tire is going the same speed. And the top isn't going 400mph relative to anything unless the vehicle to which the tire is attached is going 400mph. On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 17:18:56 CST, John McCoy <igopogo@ix.netcom.com> wrote: Because I think you're going to question this, let me ask you>a question: on a car going 200 mph, how fast is the bottom of>the tire moving. The answer is 0 mph - if it wasn't, it would>be sliding, which is a bad thing (the top of the tire, by>contrast, would be moving 400 mph, which is why when a tire>comes apart it does some serious damage to the fender). You>have to look at it relative to the axle - bottom of the tire>is moving backward 200 mph, and the top forward at 200 mph;>since the axle itself is moving 200 mph relative to the ground,>you get the bottom of the tire at 0 and the top 400 by simple>arithmetic. -- "I'm trying to make insects fly", said Tom flippantly.
		Add comment


Somebody 20 March 2005 16:27:58 [ permanent link ]
	"John McCoy" <igopogo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:Xns961EB8B3BE7D7pogosupernews@216.168.3.30...> "Mike Marlow" <mike6963REMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in> news:3a1hejF65f0coU1@individual.net:> "John McCoy" <igopogo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message> > news:Xns961DCC96ED9E4pogosupernews@216.168.3.30...> >> I suspect too, that if they do get thrown back by the rear tire> >> spinning, they come out at a very low angle as Scott said, and> >> not moving all that fast. Even when spinning, the tire on a> >> car leaving the pits isn't moving very fast relative to the> >> ground.> >> Ground speed wouldn't have much to do with the speed of the> > projectile. It's the speed of the spinning wheel that is going to> > determine projectile speed.> No, the speed of the spinning wheel is irrelevant. What's> important is how fast the surface of the tire is moving relative> to the (stationary) lugnut. And the tire surface isn't moving> very fast, maybe 5 mph or so.> Because I think you're going to question this, let me ask you> a question: on a car going 200 mph, how fast is the bottom of> the tire moving. The answer is 0 mph - if it wasn't, it would> be sliding, which is a bad thing (the top of the tire, by> contrast, would be moving 400 mph, which is why when a tire> comes apart it does some serious damage to the fender). You> have to look at it relative to the axle - bottom of the tire> is moving backward 200 mph, and the top forward at 200 mph;> since the axle itself is moving 200 mph relative to the ground,> you get the bottom of the tire at 0 and the top 400 by simple> arithmetic.> When a car leaves the pits & spins the tire, the bottom of the> tire, the part that should be going 0 mph, is actually moving,> and sliding across the asphalt, which is why you get smoke.> But it's not moving very fast (even if the axle and the rest> of the car have gotten up to 30 or 40 mph).> John I disagree John -- those guys are running maybe 5 or 6000 rpm in first, during the spin, which must equate to 25 or 30MPH or so. That's the speed the surface of the tire is moving. Want a demo? Do a drop-clutch start at 3000rpm in gravel in your street car. They're doing it at higher revs with more power. Now try it with the thottle mashed at 6000RPM. -Russ.
		Add comment


Bill Mulrooney 20 March 2005 19:18:20 [ permanent link ]
	"> No, the speed of the spinning wheel is irrelevant. What's> important is how fast the surface of the tire is moving relative> to the (stationary) lugnut. And the tire surface isn't moving> very fast, maybe 5 mph or so.> Because I think you're going to question this, let me ask you> a question: on a car going 200 mph, how fast is the bottom of> the tire moving. The answer is 0 mph - if it wasn't, it would> be sliding, which is a bad thing (the top of the tire, by> contrast, would be moving 400 mph, which is why when a tire> comes apart it does some serious damage to the fender). You> have to look at it relative to the axle - bottom of the tire> is moving backward 200 mph, and the top forward at 200 mph;> since the axle itself is moving 200 mph relative to the ground,> you get the bottom of the tire at 0 and the top 400 by simple> arithmetic.> When a car leaves the pits & spins the tire, the bottom of the> tire, the part that should be going 0 mph, is actually moving,> and sliding across the asphalt, which is why you get smoke.> But it's not moving very fast (even if the axle and the rest> of the car have gotten up to 30 or 40 mph).> John Wow, you cant be serious! Or is this tongue in cheek, so to speak? Try getting your street car on gravel, open your drivers door, lean out to see where you are backing up to, spin your tires in reverse. A little advise, wear safety glasses or goggles. The gravel will feel like you had been shot with a bb gun. You will get the same re-action going forward, only the gravel will be shooting at what ever is behind you. Bill>
		Add comment


Crusader 20 March 2005 19:30:22 [ permanent link ]
	Newman, is that u? Considering the thread subject, maybe MJ can ask Ryan to 'splain this? Seems like this discussion occurred about 5 years ago too. -- Crusader "Chuck Steak" <Chuck_Steak@nospam.com> wrote in message news:JqCdnQ6W7LwgdaHfRVn-pg@rcn.net...> In article <Xns961EB8B3BE7D7pogosupernews@216.168.3.30>,> John McCoy <igopogo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:> on a car going 200 mph, how fast is the bottom of> >the tire moving. The answer is 0 mph - if it wasn't, it would> >be sliding, which is a bad thing (the top of the tire, by> >contrast, would be moving 400 mph, which is why when a tire> >comes apart it does some serious damage to the fender). You> >have to look at it relative to the axle - bottom of the tire> >is moving backward 200 mph, and the top forward at 200 mph;> >since the axle itself is moving 200 mph relative to the ground,> >you get the bottom of the tire at 0 and the top 400 by simple> >arithmetic.> John> hmmmmmmm..... your statement makes for some 'deep' thought, John.> But I think you are wrong....> If the car is moving at 200mph, the 'tire' is moving at 200mph.> Because the 'tire' is a unit, attached to the car.> You are using the term bottom incorrectly, in this case.> You are looking at the area that the tire is in contact> with the ground, and refering to that 'area' as the bottom> of the tire.> But you can't. Because the tire is capable of movement,> independent of the car.> The bottom in this case, is actually a point, on the tire.> There can only be ONE bottom to the tire.> And it can be on top.> Lets paint a dot on the tire. At the point that is> closest to the ground. That point is the bottom of the tire.> Forever. We have defined it.> Even when the tire moves. If you move it 90 degrees, the bottom> is now either in front of, or behind the axle...> If the car is moving, the dot is moving.> It either moves along it's circumference, around it's center,> or it moves in the direction of the car.> But the 'bottom' cannot be motionless, if the car is moving.> If the car is on it's side, and the wheels are spinning,> the bottom of the tire is moving.> If the car is sliding out of control with the brakes locked up,> the bottom of the tire is moving.....> ----------------------------------------------> I got a new toolbox for my wife.> Best trade I ever made.>
		Add comment


Ed Armstrong 20 March 2005 19:53:57 [ permanent link ]
	Steve Scott <sscott1@twcny.rr.com> wrote in news:7r6q311r1pplbekkeuclmdhqaovl2e9b0m@4ax.com: I think you need to re-think this John. Every point on that tire is> going the same speed. And the top isn't going 400mph relative to> anything unless the vehicle to which the tire is attached is going> 400mph.> I agree with John on this, to illustrate it better , you need something with a larger contact patch or "bottom" than a tire....Lets take a track vehicle loke a cat bulldozer or a tank as an example.. as the vehicle is propelled ahead, the contact patch on the ground is stationary, but the part on the top is moving forward at twice the speed of the vehicle...why twice the speed...lets asume the top and bottom contact patch is 10 feet long and the vehicle is moving at 2 ft/sec that means that in 5 sec the vehicle will move ahead 10 ft...the length of the top and bottom contact patches, how far as the bottom contact patch moved with relationship to the ground...0 ft...how far has the top contact patch moved in relationship to the ground...20 ft...it moved the 10 ft the vehicle moved forward, and it moved the length of the contact patch...10 ft... Speed = distance X time Speed at Bottom = 0ft X 5 sec or 0 ft/sec Speed at Top = 20ft X 5 sec or 4ft/sec As stated earlier the vehicle was moving at 2ft/sec, so the bottom indeed isn't moving and the top is indeed going 2X the speed of the vehicle in relationship to the ground. I was taught this principle in mt Grade 10 Physics class 35 yrs ago, and it is still fact today Ed Armstrong (who now tutors his Daughter in Physics) Because I think you're going to question this, let me ask you>>a question: on a car going 200 mph, how fast is the bottom of>>the tire moving. The answer is 0 mph - if it wasn't, it would>>be sliding, which is a bad thing (the top of the tire, by>>contrast, would be moving 400 mph, which is why when a tire>>comes apart it does some serious damage to the fender). You>>have to look at it relative to the axle - bottom of the tire>>is moving backward 200 mph, and the top forward at 200 mph;>>since the axle itself is moving 200 mph relative to the ground,>>you get the bottom of the tire at 0 and the top 400 by simple>>arithmetic.>
		Add comment


Martin X. Moleski 20 March 2005 20:52:58 [ permanent link ]
	On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 09:53:57 CST, Ed Armstrong <eva@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote: I agree with John on this, to illustrate it better , you need something >with a larger contact patch or "bottom" than a tire....Lets take a track >vehicle loke a cat bulldozer or a tank as an example.. as the vehicle is >propelled ahead, the contact patch on the ground is stationary, but the >part on the top is moving forward at twice the speed of the vehicle... I think you guys are right. I imagine strapping a flashlight to the tire and watching it from the side in the dark. At bottom, the flashlight would stop for a moment. Then it would accellerate very rapidly up the backside of the tire to top speed as it came over the top, and decelerate back down to a full stop at the bottom. On average, the whole tire is moving forward at the same speed as the whole car, of course. But some parts are moving forward faster than others. Marty
		Add comment


WildWeasel 20 March 2005 21:34:57 [ permanent link ]
	"John McCoy" wrote ...> Because I think you're going to question this, let me ask you> a question: on a car going 200 mph, how fast is the bottom of> the tire moving. The answer is 0 mph - if it wasn't, it would> be sliding, which is a bad thing (the top of the tire, by> contrast, would be moving 400 mph, which is why when a tire> comes apart it does some serious damage to the fender). You> have to look at it relative to the axle - bottom of the tire> is moving backward 200 mph, and the top forward at 200 mph;> since the axle itself is moving 200 mph relative to the ground,> you get the bottom of the tire at 0 and the top 400 by simple> arithmetic.> When a car leaves the pits & spins the tire, the bottom of the> tire, the part that should be going 0 mph, is actually moving,> and sliding across the asphalt, which is why you get smoke.> But it's not moving very fast (even if the axle and the rest> of the car have gotten up to 30 or 40 mph).> I'm getting a headache ... A baseball pitching machine has 2 spinning tires. The exact point where the wheel touches the ball it is moving 0? (If it is fixed to a rotating axle, how does it stop?) So, at the point the ball slips between the 2 wheels it is moving 0 mph? (or 0 x 2?) However, it comes squirting out considerably faster. Why not a lug nut? If the car's axle is spinning 1000 RPM a 28" diameter tire connected to it is spinning 1:1 on the tire surface past a fixed point (the lug) at 7330 Surface Feet per Minute. 7333 feet per minute is 83 MPH. The car isn't going 83 MPH because the tire is spinning and not getting full traction( and they back off as the tire grabs), but as they pull out, why isn't the lug getting shot out at 83 MPH if the rear axle is spinning 1000 RPM and the tire is 28" diameter?
		Add comment


Mike Marlow 20 March 2005 23:13:28 [ permanent link ]
	"John McCoy" <igopogo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:Xns961EB8B3BE7D7pogosupernews@216.168.3.30...> > No, the speed of the spinning wheel is irrelevant. What's> important is how fast the surface of the tire is moving relative> to the (stationary) lugnut. And the tire surface isn't moving> very fast, maybe 5 mph or so. If this were true John, every tire that ran over every object would propel that object backwards, as long there were forward momentum of the vehicle. Because I think you're going to question this, let me ask you> a question: on a car going 200 mph, how fast is the bottom of> the tire moving. The answer is 0 mph - if it wasn't, it would> be sliding, which is a bad thing (the top of the tire, by> contrast, would be moving 400 mph, which is why when a tire> comes apart it does some serious damage to the fender). You> have to look at it relative to the axle - bottom of the tire> is moving backward 200 mph, and the top forward at 200 mph;> since the axle itself is moving 200 mph relative to the ground,> you get the bottom of the tire at 0 and the top 400 by simple> arithmetic. That's some creative view there John. You are neglecting rotaional speed which is the speed the tire realizes. What it develops in terms of vector speed for the vehicle is a function of traction and a lot of other factors. You are looking at the vector speed of the car and trying to apply some rotational factors to it, and some very creative math. In your example, the tire is rotating at 200mph around the axle. There is no 0mph and there is no 400mph. In a fixed relationship such as a tire rigidly mounted to an axle, there cannot be different speeds of the tire. You can't have one part of the tire realizing 0mph and another realizing 400mph. When a car leaves the pits & spins the tire, the bottom of the> tire, the part that should be going 0 mph, is actually moving,> and sliding across the asphalt, which is why you get smoke.> But it's not moving very fast (even if the axle and the rest> of the car have gotten up to 30 or 40 mph). No - the tire is rotating at some speed - say 30-40mph while the vehicle is only moving at a fraction of that. Anything that contacts the tire is going to be acted on by the tire - not the speed of the car. It's the tire that is acting upon the object. The speed of the car is nearly irrelevant. There is some component of that forward speed that is subtractive of the tire's rotational speed, but it's fairly negligible in the early stages of a burnout. -- -Mike- mike6963REMOVE@alltel.net
		Add comment


Chuck Steak 21 March 2005 01:02:20 [ permanent link ]
	In article <Xns961F5CCE4FD52evanbnetnbca@198.164.200.20>, Ed Armstrong <eva@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote: I agree with John on this, to illustrate it better , you need something >with a larger contact patch or "bottom" than a tire....Lets take a track >vehicle loke a cat bulldozer or a tank as an example.. You aren't illustrating it better, you are illustrating an orange when we are talking about apples. I'm sorry you guys are wrong. The bottom of the tire, is a point. And that point moves, if the vehicle is moving. If the vehicle is not moving, and the tires are spinning, the point still moves. Just around an axis. If the bottom of the tire is not moving, neither is the vehicle. The tank/bulldozer track is an etirely different concept/principle.. Not even close to a car. The track is actually the ground, and the drive sprockets are the 'tires'. The bottom point of the drive sprocket is continuously moving, if the machine is moving. The track is nothing more than a road that moves over the ground... It is NOT the drive force. Dan ---------------------------------------------- I got a new toolbox for my wife. Best trade I ever made.
		Add comment


Somebody 21 March 2005 02:56:38 [ permanent link ]
	"Chuck Steak" <Chuck_Steak@nospam.com> wrote in message news:7vmdnSQJE5cbeaDfRVn-iw@rcn.net...> In article <Xns961F5CCE4FD52evanbnetnbca@198.164.200.20>,> Ed Armstrong <eva@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:> Guys, the whole discussion of tire speed while rolling is not the point, we're talking about spinning tires here, laying down tracks of rubber as they peel out of the pit stall. Not rolling along at caution speed. While spinning, the tire is moving very quickly at the contact patch, and will spit out anything below it. Once it stops spinning and starts rolling, there's no problem -- nuts may spit out if they're at the edge of the tire, but not with any great force. But when they're peeling out, and the rears spin across any stray discarded front lug nuts, they will fire out with tremendous force. I would most definately not want to be behind a car if it's spinning wheels crossed over a lug nut -- those are seriously big lugs, and would really, really, hurt. -Russ.
		Add comment


Chuck Steak 21 March 2005 03:40:45 [ permanent link ]
	In article <4cn%d.94942$vO1.587314@nnrp1.uunet.ca>, "Somebody" <somebody@nospam.russdoucet.com> wrote: Guys, the whole discussion of tire speed while rolling is not the point, Actually it is the point... A "subset" of the original post, turned in to whether or not the bottom of the tire moves. We've moved on from the nut tossing! As for the lugnuts not really moving fast, I don't think anyone has ever dropped a piece of wood on a running table saw blade. The saw is not moving... the blade IS moving. And the object dropped on it is moving VERY fast toward the operator! way to go Carl! Dan ---------------------------------------------- I got a new toolbox for my wife. Best trade I ever made.
		Add comment


Mike Marlow 21 March 2005 05:31:59 [ permanent link ]
	"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <moleski@canisius.edu> wrote in message news:086s31ppp2gs5mn638qjc0n4joeav82ot5@4ax.com...> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 15:02:20 CST, Chuck_Steak@nospam.com (Chuck Steak) wrote:> The bottom of the tire, is a point.> >And that point moves, if the vehicle is moving.> >If the vehicle is not moving, and the tires are> >spinning, the point still moves.> >Just around an axis.> Sure. But the axis is in motion with respect to the earth.> The point has its own speed plus the speed of the axis> at the top of the tire and its own speed minus that> of the axis at the bottom of the tire. If the tires are> not spinning, that point is still for a moment with> respect to the racing surface down at the bottom of> its circuit.> Remove the ground for a moment. Please explain this with no ground reference. Just a spinning tire. Please explain the forces that cause an object in motion to not be in motion momentarily at some point within it's travel about an axis. Please explain how the ground patch becomes the arbitrary point at which motion stops. Why not at 17 degrees, or at 181 degrees? I'm not arguing the physics that John and a couple of others have attempted to interject in this, but I am disputing its presentation, or perhaps even its applicability to the discussion. -- -Mike- mike6963REMOVE@alltel.net
		Add comment


Martin X. Moleski 21 March 2005 06:21:38 [ permanent link ]
	On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:31:59 CST, "Mike Marlow" <mike6963REMOVE@alltel.net> wrote: Remove the ground for a moment. Please explain this with no ground>reference. All motion is measured against a frame of reference. This branch of this thread when someone noted that a NON-SPINNING tire is at rest with respect to the ground at the contact point. Just a spinning tire. If your frame of reference is the axis around which the tire rotates, you are correct that every point is going at the same velocity. WIthin that frame of reference, there is no difference between one point and another. Please explain how the ground patch becomes the>arbitrary point at which motion stops. Why not at 17 degrees, or at 181>degrees? It has to do with the contact point being the tangent of the circle (in an idealized world, of course). For a moment, the bottom of the tire rests on the ground. At that moment, the non-spinning tire is not moving with respect to the patch of ground that it is touching. At 17 degrees (using the compass rose as my reference) the patch is moving away from the spot it touched almost as fast as the whole car is moving. At 181 degrees, the patch is decelerating and is just about to touch the ground. I'm looking at the left rear tire. The car is going from right to left (standard oval pattern). 0 degrees is at the top of the tire and 180 degrees is at the bottom. I'm not arguing the physics that John and a couple of others have attempted>to interject in this, but I am disputing its presentation, or perhaps even>its applicability to the discussion. A non-spinning tire will ride right over a lug nut and not kick it very far (ignoring stickiness and other issues). The spinning tire, as someone else explained, is a different case. I loved the example of getting gravel in your face while trying to back up rapidly. Haven't done that yet, but I can imagine what it would be like. :o) Marty
		Add comment


John McCoy 21 March 2005 06:57:27 [ permanent link ]
	Chuck_Steak@nospam.com (Chuck Steak) wrote in news:JqCdnQ6W7LwgdaHfRVn- pg@rcn.net: But the 'bottom' cannot be motionless, if the car is moving. Of course it can. At the instant it's in contact with the ground, it's stationary. If the car is moving forward at some speed, say 100 mph, it's necessary for the wheel to be rotating so that the surface of the tire is also moving 100 mph, and thus the bottom surface is moving backwards at 100 mph, to give a net motion of 0 mph (). If the car is sliding out of control with the brakes locked up,> the bottom of the tire is moving..... That's true - but now the tire is not rotating, so you don't get the rotational speed cancelling out the linear motion. Hence a net motion that's non-zero, rubber sliding across asphalt, and lots of smoke. John ( just to add some confusion, consider the front side of the tire: it's moving forward at 100 mph due to the motion of the car, and downward at 100 mph due to the rotation of the wheel, for a net motion of 141 mph angled at 45 degrees downward.)
		Add comment


John McCoy 21 March 2005 07:12:28 [ permanent link ]
	"Mike Marlow" <mike6963REMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in news:3a6mevF65pcaqU1@individual.net: Please explain how the ground> patch becomes the arbitrary point at which motion stops. Why not at> 17 degrees, or at 181 degrees? Motion doesn't stop..maybe that's why there's confusion here. The reason it's at the ground patch is because we're dealing with the sum of two motions, and at that point they're going in precisely opposite directions. If the car is moving forward at 100 mph, then every part on that car also has the same 100 mph motion (the point Dan is making). But, if you look at the wheel rotating, it's surface also has a rotary motion. And if you think about it, you can see that the direction of rotation is such that the surface is moving forward on the top, downward in the front, backward on the bottom, and upward at the back. Now, it happens that when the tire isn't sliding or spinning or otherwise "loosing traction", that the car's linear forward motion exactly matches the wheels rotary motion, so that the sum of those motions at the ground patch is 0. Sum it up at 17 degrees and it's not zero, because the two motions aren't in opposite directions at other angles (as noted in another post, if you figure it at 90 degrees, for a car speed of 100 mph the tire surface is moving at 141 mph). John (didn't expect quite such a thread as this has developed)
		Add comment


John McCoy 21 March 2005 07:17:38 [ permanent link ]
	"Somebody" <somebody@nospam.russdoucet.com> wrote in news:J_d%d.94876$vO1.587380@nnrp1.uunet.ca: I disagree John -- those guys are running maybe 5 or 6000 rpm in> first, during the spin, which must equate to 25 or 30MPH or so. > That's the speed the surface of the tire is moving. No, that would be counterproductive. The object when leaving the pits isn't to do a burnout, it's to get accelerating as quickly as possible. A little bit of wheelspin isn't harmful (what a drag racer would call "hazing the tires"), but the drivers are trying to not get them really spinning, because that just slows them down. John
		Add comment


Somebody 21 March 2005 10:21:28 [ permanent link ]
	"John McCoy" <igopogo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:Xns961FE133BF75pogosupernews@216.168.3.30...> "Somebody" <somebody@nospam.russdoucet.com> wrote in> news:J_d%d.94876$vO1.587380@nnrp1.uunet.ca:> I disagree John -- those guys are running maybe 5 or 6000 rpm in> > first, during the spin, which must equate to 25 or 30MPH or so.> > That's the speed the surface of the tire is moving.> No, that would be counterproductive. The object when leaving> the pits isn't to do a burnout, it's to get accelerating as> quickly as possible. A little bit of wheelspin isn't harmful> (what a drag racer would call "hazing the tires"), but the> drivers are trying to not get them really spinning, because> that just slows them down. Have you ever actually watched them leave the pits? Have you ever noticed how many rubber tracks are laid down in the pits? Have you ever tried to lay down a similarly sized patch with your car and seen how much it takes? Listening to the motors, I'd say that they're at around half to three quarters of their rev range. In first gear, I'd guess that 6000 or so would be around 25MPH. It quickly drops from there as they peel out while the tires hook up and the revs drop, but when they kick it in that's where it hits. So, for a brief period they are capable of shooting stuff out the back at 25MPH or so. -Russ.
		Add comment


Mike Marlow 21 March 2005 16:56:46 [ permanent link ]
	"John McCoy" <igopogo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:Xns961FE133BF75pogosupernews@216.168.3.30...> "Somebody" <somebody@nospam.russdoucet.com> wrote in> news:J_d%d.94876$vO1.587380@nnrp1.uunet.ca:> I disagree John -- those guys are running maybe 5 or 6000 rpm in> > first, during the spin, which must equate to 25 or 30MPH or so.> > That's the speed the surface of the tire is moving.> No, that would be counterproductive. The object when leaving> the pits isn't to do a burnout, it's to get accelerating as> quickly as possible. A little bit of wheelspin isn't harmful> (what a drag racer would call "hazing the tires"), but the> drivers are trying to not get them really spinning, because> that just slows them down.> Ahhhhh... it's becoming clear now. John is assuming a departure from the pits that attempts to or succeeds in avoiding wheel spin. Those of us arguing the trajectory factor are basing our arguments on watching the cars all do burnouts as they come off the jacks and exit the pit stall. Better probably, to discuss what kind of burn out is really happening in the pits. Clearly it's not the intentional smoke generating event that is now used to celebrate a win, but it is a burn out of some sort none the less. So - what is likely to be the real speed of the wheel as it spins in the pits, and what kind of force would one expect that the spinning wheel will extract a lug nut at? -- -Mike- mike6963REMOVE@alltel.net
		Add comment


DollarBill 21 March 2005 17:32:15 [ permanent link ]
	"Crusader" <cru32@comcast.net> wrote in message news:3a0lssF63mfenU1@individual.net... <snip> Dollar Bill et.al., i think it's pretty cool that u as an UCAP> professional> & MJ would take the time to express your opinions & share your expertise> with us common ordinary race fans. Thanks Cru. I appreciate the kudos and the comparison to such a seasoned pro such as MJ. Just a wordy thanx to u Bill, for sharing your inside experiences> and thanx to Mike Joy who still seems to value the fans' opinions.> It also seems to me that MJ doesn't have to worry about contributors> in RASNMod dissin him. I think it's pretty cool that a 'celebrity'> feels comfortable enuf to part in this dynamic forum. IMHO, MJ has a great talent for hooking and keeping viewers. I thought Bestwick would have similar talent, due to his radio experience, but I don't think he has the command in the booth that MJ has. Bestwick was a stellar MRN broadcaster. Radio can be such a difficult medium for sports that require visualization. Think about it, you can watch a baseball game but you can just as well listen to a radio broadcast and appreciate the intricacies and strategies of the game without an eyeball view. (Not a slam on Bestwick's talent, just the chemistry). Although I made some cynical remarks about the pre-race, the show presents content that has important entertainment and educational value. Radio is a VERY accessible medium. Most folks don't have televisions in their automobiles or at work or on the boat or wherever but they do have a radio. There are also LOTS of stations. The fundamental principle in radio broadcasting is not to attract the listener, it's to KEEP the listener listening. It's really an exercise in ADD. :>) The pre-race show is intended to hook the casual viewer while still providing content important to the loyal follower. That is a precarious task. For some reason, I'm not sure why, Fox seems to be able to walk that fine line between insulting the weekly viewers and collecting the casual viewer. It's too bad that Other NG has become overwhelmed with extraneous BS,> but i for 1 sure appreciate the many who are willing to share> their expertise like McCoy, CSteak, etc..> CRU-lovin it Let's call it experience rather than expertise. You're stoking my ego here!! -- Gotta Go...FAST! Bill
		Add comment


Chuck Steak 21 March 2005 20:59:46 [ permanent link ]
	In article <Xns961FE133BF75pogosupernews@216.168.3.30>, John McCoy <igopogo@ix.netcom.com> wrote: No, that would be counterproductive. The object when leaving>the pits isn't to do a burnout, it's to get accelerating as>quickly as possible. Yes... and no.... In the 'ideal' world, accelerating as quickly as possible would be perfect. It the 'real' world, you have to smoke the tires for two reasons. One, you don't want to stall the motor, and two, the clutches are not meant to be slipped much... they are really too small for such a large car/engine combo. Dan ---------------------------------------------- I got a new toolbox for my wife. Best trade I ever made.
		Add comment


Chuck Steak 21 March 2005 21:22:34 [ permanent link ]
	In article <Xns961FDDC852178pogosupernews@216.168.3.30>, John McCoy <igopogo@ix.netcom.com> wrote: Chuck_Steak@nospam.com (Chuck Steak) wrote in news:JqCdnQ6W7LwgdaHfRVn->pg@rcn.net:> But the 'bottom' cannot be motionless, if the car is moving.> Of course it can. At the instant it's in contact with the ground,>it's stationary. If the car is moving forward at some speed, say>100 mph, it's necessary for the wheel to be rotating so that the>surface of the tire is also moving 100 mph, and thus the bottom>surface is moving backwards at 100 mph, to give a net motion of>0 mph (*). I think the big hangup here, has been a breakdown of understanding what we all define, in our own way, as motion, moving, etc. John... my statement is correct, in my eyes, because the point to which you claim is not moving, in my eyes is, because it is 'moving' about the axis of the tire. It has to, or the car would not be moving either....>From what I am gathering, you and some otheres, are talking about only the relationship with the ground. I'm talking about the point on the tire, that we have defined as the bottom, just moving in relationship to EITHER the ground, OR, it's center (axle). There are, as I believe you noted, two, seperate, moving objects here. They happen to be fastened to each other. For the 'bottom' of the tire, to not move, with the car moving, the car would have to be off the ground, and rotating around the 'bottom' of the tire... that's my story and I'm stickin' to it..... (that would have been a good place for a smiley, but as you know, I have never, and 'probably' will never use one) Dan ---------------------------------------------- I got a new toolbox for my wife. Best trade I ever made.
		Add comment


Martin X. Moleski 21 March 2005 21:27:19 [ permanent link ]
	On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:08:20 CST, "Crusader" <cru32@comcast.net> wrote: Marty, didn't the Catholic Church excommunicate Copernicus for stating>that the Earth revolves around the Sun? Short, sweet answer: No. The longer answers are off-topic. I only mentioned Copernicus because I teach "religion and the challenge of science" and have to do a lot of work on the laws of motion to handle the material. Moving wheels, moving planets--same laws apply. :o) Marty
		Add comment


Somebody 21 March 2005 21:37:54 [ permanent link ]
	"Mike Marlow" <mike6963REMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in message news:3a7ujhF67outjU1@individual.net...> "John McCoy" <igopogo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message> news:Xns961FE133BF75pogosupernews@216.168.3.30...> > "Somebody" <somebody@nospam.russdoucet.com> wrote in> > news:J_d%d.94876$vO1.587380@nnrp1.uunet.ca:> > I disagree John -- those guys are running maybe 5 or 6000 rpm in> > > first, during the spin, which must equate to 25 or 30MPH or so.> > > That's the speed the surface of the tire is moving.> > No, that would be counterproductive. The object when leaving> > the pits isn't to do a burnout, it's to get accelerating as> > quickly as possible. A little bit of wheelspin isn't harmful> > (what a drag racer would call "hazing the tires"), but the> > drivers are trying to not get them really spinning, because> > that just slows them down.> > Ahhhhh... it's becoming clear now. John is assuming a departure from the> pits that attempts to or succeeds in avoiding wheel spin. Those of us> arguing the trajectory factor are basing our arguments on watching the cars> all do burnouts as they come off the jacks and exit the pit stall.> Better probably, to discuss what kind of burn out is really happening in pits. Clearly it's not the intentional smoke generating event that is now> used to celebrate a win, but it is a burn out of some sort none the less.> So - what is likely to be the real speed of the wheel as it spins in the> pits, and what kind of force would one expect that the spinning wheel will> extract a lug nut at? It's pretty simple, I've already laid it out in a previous post. They rev to around 6000 rpm based on sound. They are in 1st gear. They drop the clutch and the wheels break loose. Whatever speed 1st gear at 6000 rpm would be, driving down the track, is how fast the wheels are spinning with respect to the ground when they dump the clutch. My guess is maybe 25MPH. That's how fast the wheel will spit out a lugnut. As they accelerate, the revs drop as the wheels begin to hook up and the car begins to move. The difference between the tires speed and the ground speed diminishes until they match and the spinning stops -- the ground speed comes up quickly, this occurs in only 10 or 20 feet. This friction drags the RPMs down slightly, so they probably engage at say 20MPH, 15 feet out, where the wheelspin has ceased and the outer surface of the tire comes into restful contact with the ground as it rolls by. -Russ. -Russ.
		Add comment


Crusader 21 March 2005 22:47:29 [ permanent link ]
	"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <moleski@canisius.edu> wrote in message news:vs0u31prhl2ltoj0s0g182iftfjr708t8i@4ax.com...> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:08:20 CST, "Crusader" <cru32@comcast.net> wrote:> Marty, didn't the Catholic Church excommunicate Copernicus for stating> >that the Earth revolves around the Sun?> Short, sweet answer: No.> The longer answers are off-topic.> I only mentioned Copernicus because I teach "religion and the challenge> of science" and have to do a lot of work on the laws of motion to> handle the material.> Moving wheels, moving planets--same laws apply. :o)> Marty> Gotcha!;) But am disappointed that u didn't answer my other queries for the express purpose of killing a too-long & too-free science project. Cru-who really knew it was that guy who first used a telescope to 'see'.
		Add comment


Scott Stevenson 21 March 2005 23:10:08 [ permanent link ]
	On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:47:29 CST, "Crusader" <cru32@comcast.net> wrote: "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <moleski@canisius.edu> wrote in message>news:vs0u31prhl2ltoj0s0g182iftfjr708t8i@4ax.com...>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:08:20 CST, "Crusader" <cru32@comcast.net> wrote:>> Marty, didn't the Catholic Church excommunicate Copernicus for stating>> >that the Earth revolves around the Sun?>> Short, sweet answer: No.>> The longer answers are off-topic.>> I only mentioned Copernicus because I teach "religion and the challenge>> of science" and have to do a lot of work on the laws of motion to>> handle the material.>> Moving wheels, moving planets--same laws apply. :o)>> Marty>> Gotcha!;)>But am disappointed that u didn't answer my other queries>for the express purpose of killing a too-long & too-free science project.>Cru-who really knew it was that guy who first used a telescope to 'see'. Hans Lipperhey was excommunicated? I did not know that. take care, Scott astronomy geek
		Add comment


Crusader 22 March 2005 01:10:51 [ permanent link ]
	"Scott Stevenson" <almostfm.AMSPAY@UCKSAY.comcast.net> wrote in message news:42401b79.151166218@news.giganews.com...> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:47:29 CST, "Crusader" <cru32@comcast.net> wrote:> >"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <moleski@canisius.edu> wrote in message> >news:vs0u31prhl2ltoj0s0g182iftfjr708t8i@4ax.com...> >> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:08:20 CST, "Crusader" <cru32@comcast.net> wrote:> >> >Marty, didn't the Catholic Church excommunicate Copernicus for stating> >> >that the Earth revolves around the Sun?> >> Short, sweet answer: No.> >> The longer answers are off-topic.> >> I only mentioned Copernicus because I teach "religion and the challenge> >> of science" and have to do a lot of work on the laws of motion to> >> handle the material.> >> Moving wheels, moving planets--same laws apply. :o)> >> Marty> >> Gotcha!;)> >But am disappointed that u didn't answer my other queries> >for the express purpose of killing a too-long & too-free science project.> >Cru-who really knew it was that guy who first used a telescope to 'see'.> Hans Lipperhey was excommunicated? I did not know that.> take care,> Scott> astronomy geek> Ya learn something new every day. But where's yore documentation SS? Mine is--The History Channel proved that Galileo saw 'the truth' first. SS, u r not revising history r u? And how does this fit into the thread-- Ode to Mike Joy, aka rotating or revolving rubber objects? CRU-hoping i haven't contributed to taking this subject into another realm such as the scientific method in modern day theory, aka-- Modern Era Cup racin vs Grand National racin.
		Add comment


Martin X. Moleski 22 March 2005 03:26:58 [ permanent link ]
	On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:10:51 CST, "Crusader" <cru32@comcast.net> wrote: But am disappointed that u didn't answer my other queries>> >for the express purpose of killing a too-long & too-free science project.>> >Cru-who really knew it was that guy who first used a telescope to 'see'. Hans Lipperhey was excommunicated? I did not know that.>> take care,>> Scott>> astronomy geek Ya learn something new every day. But where's yore documentation SS?>Mine is--The History Channel proved that Galileo saw 'the truth' first. Cru, I'm only replying so that you know I'm reading the thread and not treating you with cal-cru-lated coldness. If you (or anyone else) wants to get into the Galileo story through e-mail, you've got my e-mail address in every post I send. It gets complicated and it is definitely NOT racin' related. ;o) (Thread drift happens.) Marty
		Add comment


John McCoy 22 March 2005 04:15:02 [ permanent link ]
	"Somebody" <somebody@nospam.russdoucet.com> wrote in news:lHt%d.94996$vO1.587626@nnrp1.uunet.ca: Have you ever tried to lay down a similarly sized patch with your car> and seen how much it takes? My car has little power and rock-hard tires, so it's not going to lay down rubber whatever I do A sportbike, with road legal tires that are only marginally less sticky than race slicks (and need to be replaced every 1500 miles or so, at $180 apiece) will do it quite easily. Soft rubber will stick to pavement almost better than it will to itself. (which reminds me I need to call tomorrow, and find out when my R1 is going to be delivered) John
		Add comment


Somebody 22 March 2005 16:48:55 [ permanent link ]
	"John McCoy" <igopogo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:Xns9620C22B1B41Fpogosupernews@216.168.3.30...> "Somebody" <somebody@nospam.russdoucet.com> wrote in> news:lHt%d.94996$vO1.587626@nnrp1.uunet.ca:> Have you ever tried to lay down a similarly sized patch with your car> > and seen how much it takes?> My car has little power and rock-hard tires, so it's not going to lay> down rubber whatever I do > A sportbike, with road legal tires that are only marginally less> sticky than race slicks (and need to be replaced every 1500 miles> or so, at $180 apiece) will do it quite easily. Soft rubber will> stick to pavement almost better than it will to itself.> (which reminds me I need to call tomorrow, and find out when my> R1 is going to be delivered)> Actually it's about power to weight -- sticky tires will try to launch you, hard ones spin easily. The bike has a silly power to weight ratio compared to any car -- the equivalent would be a car with roughly 500HP. to 700HP. Imagine bolting any bike-sized tires to a car and trying to launch with that sort of power. Of course you an spin easily no matter what compound you use. If you put sticky tires on your street car you'd have an even harder time doing a burnout. If you put harder tires on your bike you'd have an even easier time doing a burnout. -Russ.
		Add comment


John McCoy 23 March 2005 07:18:43 [ permanent link ]
	"Somebody" <somebody@nospam.russdoucet.com> wrote in news:GuU%d.95169$vO1.588059@nnrp1.uunet.ca: Actually it's about power to weight -- sticky tires will try to launch> you, hard ones spin easily. We're going into apples and oranges here, a bit. What you say is true, but it's not relevant to laying a black patch on the pavement. To lay rubber you have to melt it off the tire, which is more easily done with a sticky tire (which is close to melted just sitting still). That implicitly assumes there's enough power to spin it in the first place, of course. The bike has a silly power to weight> ratio compared to any car -- the equivalent would be a car with> roughly 500HP. to 700HP. You're a tad low there. The R1 I have a deposit on makes 180hp (at the crank) and weighs 180kg. A typical street car (say a Ford Mustang) weighs around 1600kg. So it would need to have a 1600hp engine to be equivalent. If you put harder tires on your bike you'd have an even easier time> doing a burnout. I would have an easier time spinning the tires...not the same thing as doing a burnout (consider the extreme case of the road being wet - I can spin the tires without any chance of smoke at all). John
		Add comment


Somebody 23 March 2005 19:18:24 [ permanent link ]
	"John McCoy" <igopogo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:Xns9621E156FC04Cpogosupernews@216.168.3.30...> "Somebody" <somebody@nospam.russdoucet.com> wrote in> news:GuU%d.95169$vO1.588059@nnrp1.uunet.ca:> Actually it's about power to weight -- sticky tires will try to launch> > you, hard ones spin easily.> We're going into apples and oranges here, a bit. What you say is> true, but it's not relevant to laying a black patch on the pavement.> To lay rubber you have to melt it off the tire, which is more> easily done with a sticky tire (which is close to melted just> sitting still). That implicitly assumes there's enough power to> spin it in the first place, of course.> The bike has a silly power to weight> > ratio compared to any car -- the equivalent would be a car with> > roughly 500HP. to 700HP.> You're a tad low there. The R1 I have a deposit on makes 180hp> (at the crank) and weighs 180kg. A typical street car (say a> Ford Mustang) weighs around 1600kg. So it would need to have a> 1600hp engine to be equivalent. Not knowing what kind of bike you had I went lot so that I would not be accused of hyperbole. A 15 year old sport bike made around 100HP, new ones make power like you describe above. If you put harder tires on your bike you'd have an even easier time> > doing a burnout.> I would have an easier time spinning the tires...not the same> thing as doing a burnout (consider the extreme case of the road> being wet - I can spin the tires without any chance of smoke at> all). This is our disconnect -- I was talking about spinning wheels, you're talking about how much rubber goes down how fast. The reason I was talking about how hard to spin wheels is tha someone chimed in that he couldn't do it in his street car (was that you?) citing limited power -- which I'm sure meant he couldn't spin the wheels. Because any hard tire in the world will start laying down rubber once it gets spinning, but many, many street cars can't execute a burnout due to power. So ok, if you're speaking of how much rubber gets laid down, sticky tires are better if you can get them spinning. But harder ones make burnouts easier. The issue with the car not being able to burnout is clearly power, not tires. The reason the bike can do it is power, not tires. Putting hard tires on the bike and sticky ones on the car wouldn't change anything, except that it might take a tad more time to generate as much smoke on the bike with the harder tires. Once they get spinning though, they'll melt soon enough. The car still won't be able to do it. -Russ.
		Add comment

CarGuru > Nascar > Note to Mike Joy 23 March 2005 01:50:36

	see also: '99 Toyota Corolla engine knocking 2006 Sienna 1994 Corolla cuts out on me		pass tests:		see also: 2001 GMC Jimmy 4.3 .... need help ? 20000 hyundai elantra gls… New rubber floor mats

Copyright © 2001—2009 Car-Guru
Idea: Miсhael Monashev
See Help and FAQ in the community support.car-guru.com.
Write in the community about the bugs you have noticedbugs.car-guru.com.
Write your offers and comments in the communities suggest.car-guru.com.
Information for parents.
Write us at:

If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please .




Get comments by e-mail Add to favourites

respect your talk pals, avoid using obscene language, typing entire messages in CAPS, posting buy/sell ads or violating netiquette or the RF Criminal Code..

Note to Mike Joy

Add new comment