-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
Daytona
- Thread starter EasyEd
- Start date
wombat666
Administrator
Hey All,
What is wrong with carbs and push rods? There is nothing sacred about OHC and fuel injected engines - they are just more dependable which would remove the engine durability aspect of NASCAR. There is nothing wrong with using 1960s (older actually) technology in NASCAR today if it makes for a better show. I'm surprised you didn't bring up the fact that we still use tires and gas albeit unleaded and ethanol blended. There is no requirement to use the newest technology nor should there be. We already know that NASCAR will never ever again be about racing a true stockcar against a true stockcar. No manufacturer would ever take that risk because if they were to lose alot there would be too much damage to return on investment - that is the only thing that matters to American corporations.
So the question is - once again - which is better more enjoyable racing? Racing in 1960 or racing today? Do you have an opinion?
-Ed-
What is wrong with carbs and push rods? There is nothing sacred about OHC and fuel injected engines - they are just more dependable which would remove the engine durability aspect of NASCAR. There is nothing wrong with using 1960s (older actually) technology in NASCAR today if it makes for a better show. I'm surprised you didn't bring up the fact that we still use tires and gas albeit unleaded and ethanol blended. There is no requirement to use the newest technology nor should there be. We already know that NASCAR will never ever again be about racing a true stockcar against a true stockcar. No manufacturer would ever take that risk because if they were to lose alot there would be too much damage to return on investment - that is the only thing that matters to American corporations.
So the question is - once again - which is better more enjoyable racing? Racing in 1960 or racing today? Do you have an opinion?
-Ed-
Panther_99FS
Retired SOH Administrator
wombat666
Administrator
Ed, you can't have it both ways.
I'm seriously impressed at how good those pushrod V8s with carburettors perform, but how can you say "In todays world a race is a science" on one hand and follow it up with "There is no requirement to use the newest technology nor should there be"??????
Stone age technology doesn't need 'Science', especially in cars running these engines driving through a manual gear box and a solid rear end!
While it's important the safety angle has been around for decades and is well sorted so that's not an issue.
None of us expect ANY form of motor sport to return to the sixties, for myself I would like to see NASCAR step back a couple of decades, when the drivers each had a personality and the cars bore some semblance of their manufacturers product.
I actually enjoyed NASCAR at the time.
I'm seriously impressed at how good those pushrod V8s with carburettors perform, but how can you say "In todays world a race is a science" on one hand and follow it up with "There is no requirement to use the newest technology nor should there be"??????
Stone age technology doesn't need 'Science', especially in cars running these engines driving through a manual gear box and a solid rear end!
While it's important the safety angle has been around for decades and is well sorted so that's not an issue.
None of us expect ANY form of motor sport to return to the sixties, for myself I would like to see NASCAR step back a couple of decades, when the drivers each had a personality and the cars bore some semblance of their manufacturers product.
I actually enjoyed NASCAR at the time.
Hey All,
Panther It's ok to express an opinion. Sure it's probably wrong (J/K
) but at least we know what you think.
Wombat I refer to racing as a science from the perspective of using all the engineering/mechanical skills, management skills, people (CC, Driver, Pit Crew) strategy and tactics available to you under the rules to achieve your objective whether it's winning a race or a championship. It has nothing to do with whether or not the racing series uses the latest technology. So yes I do call it a science. In the case of the TdF the use of radios to inform riders of the time ahead or behind their main competition is is part of a scientific approach.
So I take it your favorite era of NASCAR is basically the 80s and 90s - basically post Richard Petty during the time of Earnhardt Sr, Darrel Waltrip, Terry LaBonte, Neil Bonnett (I can never think of Sr without thinking of Neil as well), Bobby Allison, Davey Allison, Cale Yarborough, Rusty Wallace, Bill Elliot, Tim Richmond, Harry Gant on into the 90s which brought in Jeff Gordon, Tony Stewart, Alan Kulwicki, Dale Jarrett to challenge Dale Sr. - basically those two decades were the era of Dale Earnhardt Sr. The cars basically did represent the companies they were meant to.
As I recall even during the 90s the issue of aero was coming to the forefront. I remember well the battles over how much advantage the nose of the chevys gave the chevy teams - all because of that little ledge. You can't stop science and progress and so there was never any doubt that NASCAR would have to make the car bodies aero equal - and they did/tried. Ignorance was bliss and science always takes away the magic. Those years were great though.
Anybody else with an opinion?
-Ed-
Panther It's ok to express an opinion. Sure it's probably wrong (J/K
) but at least we know what you think.Wombat I refer to racing as a science from the perspective of using all the engineering/mechanical skills, management skills, people (CC, Driver, Pit Crew) strategy and tactics available to you under the rules to achieve your objective whether it's winning a race or a championship. It has nothing to do with whether or not the racing series uses the latest technology. So yes I do call it a science. In the case of the TdF the use of radios to inform riders of the time ahead or behind their main competition is is part of a scientific approach.
So I take it your favorite era of NASCAR is basically the 80s and 90s - basically post Richard Petty during the time of Earnhardt Sr, Darrel Waltrip, Terry LaBonte, Neil Bonnett (I can never think of Sr without thinking of Neil as well), Bobby Allison, Davey Allison, Cale Yarborough, Rusty Wallace, Bill Elliot, Tim Richmond, Harry Gant on into the 90s which brought in Jeff Gordon, Tony Stewart, Alan Kulwicki, Dale Jarrett to challenge Dale Sr. - basically those two decades were the era of Dale Earnhardt Sr. The cars basically did represent the companies they were meant to.
As I recall even during the 90s the issue of aero was coming to the forefront. I remember well the battles over how much advantage the nose of the chevys gave the chevy teams - all because of that little ledge. You can't stop science and progress and so there was never any doubt that NASCAR would have to make the car bodies aero equal - and they did/tried. Ignorance was bliss and science always takes away the magic. Those years were great though.
Anybody else with an opinion?
-Ed-