4. If they went back to racing ACTUAL PRODUCTION-BASED STOCK CARS under a reasonable rule package, it wouldn't cost $40,000,000 a year to field a team.
5. Speaking of the Aussies, NASCAR could learn plenty from V8 Supercar racing down under.
yeah road racing is really packin them in here , the last grand american race on tv loooked like it was in an abandoned parking lot
aussie racing ? yeah , the run the LS motor down there , but road racing is not major league in the USA
dirt tracks get bigger crowds , which sprint cup should be doing
The sort of things that NASCAR could learn from V8 Supercar racing are:
1. Production-based sedans can still put on a good, close show. And the fans can relate better to race cars that are based on what they can buy.
2. Multiple races on a weekend (think short track-style heat races) are more exciting than a bunch of boring practice (Why does Speed TV waste air time on it?), single car qualfying (Yawn. Same question) and a long, overblown "A Main" event.
3. Forcing the OEMs to stay in the homologated "production" box is the best way to control costs and tighten up competition.
4. A variety of tracks (not more cookie-cutters) is good. Very good.
5. There's no valid technical reason why the driver's door cannot open now. (It's not 1950 anymore. Better latches, cages, and safety seats can portect the drivers well enough without all the "traditional" "Dukes of Hazard" theatrics)
There are lots of reasons why the "gate" for road racing isn't what it should be. (And I wasn't suggesting that NASCAR should become a road course series) On the other hand, anyone who has been to a NASCAR road race or to a well-established tradition such as Sebring can testify that Americans will watch road course events under the right circumstances.
Attendance at Grand-Am events is hardly indicative because they have a terrible TV package, minimal tradition, poor promotion, confusing class structures (the Koni Challenge cars never run in prime time) and few, if any stars known outside of the discrete and insular world of Grand-Am followers.
One should note that NASCAR Cup attendance wasn't all that great until it became a TV phenomenon in the 1980s. They used to only have about 25,000 seats at places like Bristol and Martinsville. And places like Texas World Speedway near Houston couldn't hardly give away tickets.
Dirt doesn't work on TV very well (too "dirty," ugly pictures), but NASCAR was better back when they had a few dirt shows to spice up the schedule (Before Winston brought in the "modern era" and killed the mid-week shows)
So why is Tony Stewarts Prelude to the Dream on PPV?
ANY EE PROM BOX CAN bE REPROGAMMED - haha , while the car is racing , fauxcar is going to have to hire half of hewlett packard to police an efi nightmare
which is why there'd be no restrction on tuning, just like there's no restriction on what main jets you can run on a NASCAR carb. Here's a hint: there's no "magic powers" in that little box of electronics you fear so much. It mixes fuel with incoming air, just like that archaic, fire-prone device we call a "carburetor"
they also don't have the wealth we have - 20-30 million a year and a team of engineers to run a "backward low tech car "
I guess that's one way of looking at it. The way I see it is, "what kind of idiots are allowing themselves to be suckered into spending 30 million dollars a year to field a car so boring as this??"
www.realtuners.com - catch the RealTuners Radio Podcast on Youtube, Facebook, iTunes, and anywhere else podcasts are distributed!
ANY EE PROM BOX CAN bE REPROGAMMED - haha , while the car is racing , fauxcar is going to have to hire half of hewlett packard to police an efi nightmare
which is why there'd be no restrction on tuning, just like there's no restriction on what main jets you can run on a NASCAR carb. Here's a hint: there's no "magic powers" in that little box of electronics you fear so much. It mixes fuel with incoming air, just like that archaic, fire-prone device we call a "carburetor"
they also don't have the wealth we have - 20-30 million a year and a team of engineers to run a "backward low tech car "
I guess that's one way of looking at it. The way I see it is, "what kind of idiots are allowing themselves to be suckered into spending 30 million dollars a year to field a car so boring as this??"
It has to be an ego thing for someone to spend that kind of money, think of the profit dollars one has to make(not gross sales mind you) to to come close to paying just for the sponsorship alone ,much less putting money in the stockholders pocket.
BG never heard of the benefits of traction control
that is why he works for free
BG- bad ground
There's only so much you can do for traction control without sensors on the non-driven wheels. And much of what you could do without those sensors could be hidden in an ignition box in a current NASCAR car.
y'all ever hear of a yaw sensor ? g meter - tps ? nascar issues the msd boxes , but I think some traction control is goin on right now with one chase team [11] nascar could issue the pcm , but once you have the harness in there - a tiny - wireless device can be all that you need
the trick is - less techno , not more - go back to points or a dizzy that is self contained and issued by nascar - carbs - all that - heck , nascar could just take the advance mechanisms out of the ignition system , thats it , no more trouble , don't need it anyway
you just need traction control in the turns
we call it torque management
Comment