The cars don't make as much power down there, and top gear would have to > be> very tall.>

Granted there would need to be a bit of cleverness in enforcing and> preventing cheating, but just the concept, I wonder how it would work. It> might give some throttle response back, stop the penalty of the lift > killing> the airflow, while keeping speeds down....>

-- >

-Russ.>

The cars don't make as much power down there, and top gear would have to > be> very tall.>

Granted there would need to be a bit of cleverness in enforcing and> preventing cheating, but just the concept, I wonder how it would work. It> might give some throttle response back, stop the penalty of the lift > killing> the airflow, while keeping speeds down....>

What would happen if they introduced a rev limit of say 6500, but left the>engine formula the same otherwise as any other race. No plates.

What would happen if they introduced a rev limit of say 6500, but

The cars don't make as much power down there, and top gear would have

Granted there would need to be a bit of cleverness in enforcing and> preventing cheating, but just the concept, I wonder how it would

Make them STOCK to the eye. 100% STOCK template, NO air dam or rear> spoiler. Drivers with wingless sprint or midget 'sperience shouldn't> have too much trouble adjusting. Either that, or take the "S" out of> NASCAR®.>

Now I'm looking into the past..... In the turns at Darlington with the> back end kicked out a couple degrees and a slight haze coming off the> tires.

Hell I'd like to see them take the air dams and spoilers off the cars and >let the boys have at it. Thing is not one of these drivers have driven a >car with out the aero assistance, so they'd be wreaking all over the place >until they finally figured out that racing isn't about how fast you're >going.

I'll bet just putting them back on Bias Ply tires would help a great deal.

Now I'm looking into the past..... In the turns at Darlington with the> back end kicked out a couple degrees and a slight haze coming off the> tires. YeeHaa!

What would happen if they introduced a rev limit of say 6500, but left> the engine formula the same otherwise as any other race. No plates.

The only viable solution is to make it imposable for the cars to> physically stick to the track at such high speeds.

Hell I'd like to see them take the air dams and spoilers off the cars> and let the boys have at it.

Thing is not one of these drivers have> driven a car with out the aero assistance, so they'd be wreaking all> over the place until they finally figured out that racing isn't about> how fast you're going.

That's exactly it. Any solution which either reduces power or> increases drag just results in all the cars going the same speed,> full throttle all the way around. Daytona & Talladega will be> pack racing until a way is found to force the drivers to back off> going into the turns, as they do at (for example) Atlanta.>

I think you'd have to keep a small spoiler on there...the back end> of a NASCAR body will lift off at around 160 without any spoiler.

I don't think they're as dumb as all that. Give them a couple of> test sessions, and they'd figure out what the limits are pretty> quickly. That's what really seperates the best drivers from the> guys in all the lesser series - the guys on top can find a car's> limits more accurately, and keep the car there.

Maybe NASCAR should build a car like that, and get one of the old> guys (Dave Marcis, say) to take a few laps, and see how it works.

"John McCoy" <igopogo@ix.netcom.­com> wrote in message >news:Xns9630D046D3­B56pogosupernews@216­.168.3.30...>> "Robert R Kircher, Jr." <rrkircher@hotmail.­com> wrote in>> news:0-ednRUPkK_Evc­nfRVn-pg@giganews.co­m:>>

This is true and they'd need some sort of ground effects to keep them from >flipping over and lifting off the ground. Then again they could add about >500lbs of lead to the lower frame. ­

Maybe NASCAR should build a car like that, and get one of the old> guys (Dave Marcis, say) to take a few laps, and see how it works.

Make them STOCK to the eye. 100% STOCK template, NO air dam or rear> spoiler. Drivers with wingless sprint or midget 'sperience shouldn't> have too much trouble adjusting. Either that, or take the "S" out of> NASCAR®.>

Now I'm looking into the past..... In the turns at Darlington with the> back end kicked out a couple degrees and a slight haze coming off the> tires. YeeHaa!>

I certainly don't have the technical expertise to know how that would> work and/or what the repercussions there would be.>

However, the garage area is full of people with just such knowledge.> Seems to me that if this were indeed a viable solution, someone would> have suggested it already.>

So, my guess is that this is not viable, but I can't begin to tell you> why not.

Way too low a limit for a lot of tracks, I'd say.>

8500? 9000?>

Gotta keep the NASCAR rumble, even if it's old-fashioned.>

A standard-issue, sealed, inspected to within an inch of> its life, enforced-by-audiome­ters-rev-limit system is> fine by me. It might also help keep traction-control> systems at bay.>

Marty

Everybody would go exact same everloving speed as everyone else, and> the race would end with everyone in the exact same order they started.>

The engine builders are similar enough in what power they make, and> the selection of rear gears is small enough, that everyone will end> up with the same gear, same RPM, same speed.>

Incidently, with the current engine rule the builders can likely> get well over 500hp, at 6500rpm. That's enough to get over the> magic 200mph lap speed. To keep speeds under the lift-off speed> you'd probably need a limit under 5000, or a limit on the allowed> rear gear (which just guarantees everyone running the same speed).

"David Starr" <davestarr@sbcgloba­l.net> wrote in message> news:dnl851199hlof5­j0a1oabbdvq9b6fpm7qk­@4ax.com...>

I've been thinking along the same lines. Pick a year when the cars were> boxes. 60's, 70's or early 80's. Make them race the box template instead> of the restrictor plates.>

I miss slingshots.

"Somebody" <somebody@nospam.ru­ssdoucet.com> wrote in message> news:%PU4e.817$5u4.­2953@nnrp1.uunet.ca.­..> > What would happen if they introduced a rev limit of say 6500, but left

If that would give them enough throttle response and reserve horse power

make a pass before the 6500 limit, then it would work. Problem is I don't> think it would. You'd have the same problem. The cars can physically go> faster then the rev limiter will allow so the drivers are faced with the> same problem, foot on the floor all the way around the track.>

The only viable solution is to make it imposable for the cars to

I think the only solution is to somehow remove the aero affect for plate> races. I liked the wickerbill (sp?) direction NASCAR was going and I

Hell I'd like to see them take the air dams and spoilers off the cars and> let the boys have at it. Thing is not one of these drivers have driven a> car with out the aero assistance, so they'd be wreaking all over the place> until they finally figured out that racing isn't about how fast you're> going.

"John McCoy" <igopogo@ix.netcom.­com> wrote in message >news:Xns9630D046D3­B56pogosupernews@216­.168.3.30...>

<snip>>

Interesting you mention Dave Marcis. AFAIK, he was one of the top test >drivers. Apparently he has the uncanny ability to really dissect a racecar. >I hope the guy is doing well. Back in my broadcast days, I had him on the >air and he was truly one of the class guys in the sport. Showed up in a >flannel shirt and jeans with no pretentions. God love 'em.>

Don't know if he's still doing testing but I hope so for his sake.

Marty, they already have an effective limit of around 7800 at plate tracks>at speed.

OK. It's been a while since I watched any telemetry from the> cars. I thought that they were getting up into the 9,500-10,000 range.>

I'm not against the idea of a truly standardized rev limiter. The> cars have to be kept on the track somehow. Watching folks pick> up wrecks isn't as much fun as watching racin'.>

"John Richardson" <jrichardson214@hom­e.com> wrote in message> news:s86dnSNJL-YX4s­nfRVn-iA@comcast.com­...>>

That might give us slingshots, but I suspect that it would do even more to> remove the relevance to production car marketing tie ins than the current> silhouette racing does.>

-Russ.

From where I sit, there's not much relevance to be lost. The common

"Somebody" <somebody@nospam.ru­ssdoucet.com> wrote in message> news:ska5e.911$5u4.­3302@nnrp1.uunet.ca.­..> >

... I'm talking about the relevance to the production car marketing tie ins.>IE, the reason the manufacturers are in it. If you take that away, they>pull out. ...

I believe it is inevitable that the imports will be in the sport and they will >be positioned as "as American as the big 3" (you already see commercials stating >this theme) when they enter.

I wonder how much of a financial contribution the manufacturers make> to Cup nowadays.

I wonder how much the manufacturers care about the advertising> value of the series.

I wonder how much technical help the teams really get from the> manufacturers.

I wonder whether NASCAR will break with the manufacturers> in my lifetime.

Now NASCAR may break with the manufacturers, but I don't think the reverse > will happen. And if NASCAR DOES break from the Manufacturers, there are going > to be a LOT of teams screaming at the top of their lungs. NASCAR might not get > direct support from the manufacturers, but the TEAMS get a lot, and the teams > are what makes NASCAR.>

Ford has whole teams of people that go to each race, practice, and team >shops to help them tune their cars and work on engineering stuff. I'd say >they get a LOT of technical help from the manufacturers. Even on the >pre-race show they've talked about the teams from the manufacturers setting >up computers and equipment and making themselves available to every team >running their make.

Now NASCAR may break with the manufacturers, but I don't think the reverse >will happen. And if NASCAR DOES break from the Manufacturers, there are >going to be a LOT of teams screaming at the top of their lungs. NASCAR might >not get direct support from the manufacturers, but the TEAMS get a lot, and >the teams are what makes NASCAR.

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote ..> >

I wonder if the "big 3" are only doing what they need to now from a

Question for you... who are the "big 3" and why are they called that?>

I'm a brain-damaged Ford kid. I latched onto Ford by the> time I was eight and still have a kid's affection for the company> despite all reasons to think or feel otherwise.>

(I've got the same problem with the Buffalo Bills. <sigh>)>

... Eagles, Phillies and Fords too.

GM is devoid of common sense in design. Who >would put the auto window up and down button somewhere OTHER than on the door?

Chevy - somewhere on the center console. Gee, why not put it in the glove box?

Having all four window switches in the center allows the driver and the> passenger both the ability to control all four windows (ie, mom and dad> control the kids windows), takes half the wiring and switches (weight, cost)> and makes for less wiring going through the doors, eliminates the switch> wiring going through a flexible joint that causes a failure point,> simplifying the door design and interior wiring which is a hard to service> area that should be dedicated to side intrusion protection.>

Putting them on the door is the opposite of all of those things.>

Just because it's not what you're used to, doesn't make it wrong.>

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote:>>

Eagles, Phillies and Fords too. GM is devoid of common sense in design. > Who would put the auto window up and down button somewhere OTHER than on > the door? Chevy - somewhere on the center console. Gee, why not put it in > the glove box?>

"John McCoy" <igopogo@ix.netcom.­com> wrote in message > news:Xns9630D046D3B­56pogosupernews@216.­168.3.30...>

<snip>>

Interesting you mention Dave Marcis. AFAIK, he was one of the top> test drivers. Apparently he has the uncanny ability to really dissect> a racecar.