The Frontstretch: Driven To The Past: Let's Go Back A Few Years ... by John Potts -- Friday November 6, 2009

Go to site navigation Go to article

Driven To The Past: Let's Go Back A Few Years ...

John Potts · Friday November 6, 2009

 

OK, I’m not going to tell any stories about back in the day with this writing. I’m going to voice my opinion on what to do about today’s racing, and the tragedy that’s waiting to happen at Talladega and Daytona. However, I believe it bears talking about in this space because my personal remedy involves past history.

What got me rolling was Ryan Newman’s flip at Talladega last Sunday. That wasn’t just one of my favorite drivers inside that wheels-up hulk, it was a friend of mine. And I was worried! I was hoping that the radio just wasn’t working, and that turned out to be the case, thank God.

Now, I consider myself a rabid fan of all types of racing, and I enjoy watching drivers challenge the laws of physics as well as gravity, but that doesn’t mean I enjoy seeing the results when they go over the line. I admit I replay the tapes of accidents a few times to see what happened, but I don’t do it to see the wreckage — I want to figure out why it happened.

As others have already written, the next really disastrous incident is likely to involve spectators as well as drivers. Raising the Talladega fence isn’t going to help. The spectators who were hurt there in the Spring race (none life-threatening, again thank God) weren’t hit by anything going over the fence. They were hit by stuff coming through and off the fence. That’s a possibility on any track that has a tri-oval or has seating in the turns where the speeds are high.

What was wrong with this kind of racing?

So how do we fix this situation? Let’s face it, International Speedway Corporation is not going to rebuild Talladega or Daytona, so that’s not an option.

Well, I’m no Einstein, and I admit to not having all the answers, but I’m proposing a step back in time, so to speak.

Why can’t we use the technology developed for the Car of Tomorrow in a car with an older body? The door filler material, high roof, bigger “greenhouse,” etc. seems like it would adapt very well to what we had back in the ’70s and ’80s. Didn’t the bodies have higher roofs then? If not, what’s wrong with a minimum roof height that’s close to stock?

I know some experts have said that racing stock bodies, i.e. just like they look on the highway, is a bad idea. I happen to disagree. I think people would rather see the cars out there on the track at least resemble what they drove to the place.

One of the arguments against racing stock is that the manufacturers will do their best to build an aerodynamic bullet and make it available to the general public, just like they did in the late ’60s with the Torino Talladega, the Dodge Charger Daytona, and the Plymouth Roadrunner Superbird.

No problem. NASCAR no longer uses the homologation system, where a certain number of models have to be built for sale to the general public before it can be approved for competition. They simply have a list of “approved” body styles. If one of the carmakers builds something that’s obviously an attempt to beat the system, they don’t approve it.

What happens when one body style seems to have an aerodynamic advantage, as happened so often in the past? Remember the GM teams switching from Chevys to Olds to Buick to Pontiac and vice versa when the front end of one was more efficient than another?

Again, no problem. NASCAR has shown that they aren’t a bit reluctant to penalize one brand in an attempt to “equalize” the competition. Witness the restrictions put on Toyota engines in the Nationwide Series in 2008, when it was obvious they had an advantage. And with a body style, you can adjust spoiler height, spoiler angles, front air dams, etc.

A possible “downside” would be the inspection teams would have to have a set of templates for each type of car again. So what? If they’ve got enough inspectors to put one in each pit, they’ve got enough to set up multiple inspection lines.

Was that the intent of the CoT in the first place? Make it easier for NASCAR to police? Let’s get our priorities in order. Maybe a good place to start with this approach would be with the Mustang, Challenger, and whatever Chevrolet and Toyota decide to use in the Nationwide Series next year.

In the meantime, can we eliminate plate racing? Sure. Take a suggestion Robert Yates made a few years ago. Cut the cubic inch displacement. 305? 250? I don’t know, but somebody has to know. They can cope with one engine outperforming another the same way they did with the Toyota Nationwide powerplant last year.

There’s also always the option to add weight. I know a short track that steps back in the day with an entry class by adding a few pounds when you win two features in a row. Win a third, and you add more.

Would these proposed remedies be costly for the teams? Absolutely — but so is any other step NASCAR’s likely to take. Face facts. Racers are their own worst enemies, and they’ll spend every dollar they can get their hands on to go faster.

Here’s another fact: the teams with the most resources are going to use every bit of those resources to stay ahead, regardless of the rules.

That’s just my opinion – let’s go back a few years. Wasn’t the racing more fun in those days?

Contact John Potts

LOOKING FOR FREE NASCAR NEWS AND COMMENTARY SENT RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?
Well, you’ve come to the right place. The Frontstretch Newsletter is back in action for 2010, giving you more of the daily news, commentary, and NASCAR features from your favorite writers you know and love. Don’t waste another minute – click here to sign up and get all the information you need. We’re here to make sure you start 2010 off on the right foot … so make sure you jump on for the ride!

 

©2000 - 2008 John Potts and Frontstetch.com. Thanks for visiting the Frontstretch!

Bad Wolf
11/06/2009 12:50 PM
permalink

I’d cut the displacement to 250CI and keep the 4” bore. Shorter strokes will rev faster, but the overall top rpm is limited by the valvetrain, which is somewhere around 9,500-10,000 rpm now. With the smaller size of the engine displacement you could get rid of the plates, and maybe the slingshot would return.

I would also bring back the bias plies for Daytona and Talledega, putting more of the handling back into the drivers hands. I miss the old days of seeing smoke roll off the right rear tires while going through the corners, especially at Darlington. OK, bias plies are going back on at Darlington also.

One more thing they could do is make Daytona and Talledega nostalgia events and make them run stock bodies from say 1967, when cars had style and were huge boxes on wheels. If you do this the old farts like myself will be glued to the tv, and I would go to the track to see it in person. Hell, lets call up Bruton Smith and get the ball rolling on a whole new series based on old sheetmetal and run the old forgotten tracks like Rockingham. Lets show them what made Nascar and why us old fans are so incensed with the “Product” we are spoon fed from the Ivory Towers in Florida.

Mike
11/06/2009 02:48 PM
permalink

Excellent column John. I agree with almost everything you said. Something has to be done before another driver is killed.

My idea on how to fix plate racing rests on the tires, not the engine. I’m not a racer, but it seems to me that making a smaller engine isn’t any different than having a restrictor plate. Any time the drivers can flat-foot it around the track without lifting you are going to have the massive packs of cars staying in the draft.

Run narrower or harder tires that can’t maintain full throttle through the corners. Bring handling back into the equation and force the drivers to use the brakes some too. That would keep the pack broken up and would eliminate a lot of the penalty for falling out of the draft.

Don Mei
11/06/2009 04:04 PM
permalink

Excellent article…5 litres and adjustable spoilers on the older body syles. Nascar wont like it because it means dealing with the bitching about spoiler height etc but at least the cars wont look like crap.