The Frontstretch: Fanning the Flames: "Smack" Talk, Engine Issues, And That Damn Gopher Cam by Matt Taliaferro -- Thursday April 17, 2008

Go to site navigation Go to article

Fanning the Flames: "Smack" Talk, Engine Issues, And That Damn Gopher Cam

NASCAR Fan Q & A · Matt Taliaferro · Thursday April 17, 2008

 

Thanks to all the guys and gals out there who are sending a wide range of questions. You all manage to keep the input timely and (sometimes) challenging … but that's a good thing. Here's the wormhole to my world; drop me a line with your questions, opinions, rants or recipes. I'll do my best to get you up next week.

By the way, could someone tell me who won that Yankees / Red Sox game last Saturday night? I was watching a ballgame that was one pitch from being over when the sound of 43 engines abruptly slapped me across the face.

Q: NASCAR keeps saying that the CoT will get better as teams learn more about the car. Wouldn’t it make more sense, coming out with a new car with so many restrictions, to allow teams to do more testing to speed up the learning curve? Even opening a track up a day early, allowing the teams to run tests just before the races would seem relatively inexpensive (as opposed to having to schlep everyone back and forth midweek) and could actually make the racing more competitive. Oh right, that would make too much sense, wouldn’t it?
— SallyB

A: It would make sense, Sally. So much so that NASCAR has taken Lowe's Motor Speedway president Humpy Wheeler up on his offer to open the track May 5th and 6th for an impromptu test session. Go figure, huh? This after Eddie Gossage, president of Texas Motor Speedway, made the same offer to NASCAR in March … an offer it promptly declined.

But after an Atlanta race that witnessed just 13 cars on the lead lap by race's end and a Texas race that had only 10, NASCAR asked around the garage at Phoenix and got a resounding “yes” from the teams when asked if they'd be in favor of the Lowe's session.

"We always strive to work with the teams and do what is in the best interest of the competitors," NASCAR V.P. of Competition Robin Pemberton said concerning the test.

Funny you should say that, Robin. Read on…

Q: Bottom line, Matt. Why isn't there a more thorough (drug) testing policy in NASCAR? Many of the biggest stars have said they have never been tested since they have been in NASCAR. I don't think there is a big problem, but just one bad seed that gave the sport a black eye. Still, isn't the adage "it's better to be safe than sorry" a fitting one in this case?
— TG in Indy

Aaron Fike’s recent admission to driving while high on heroin has prompted many of NASCAR’s top drivers to speak out against the current drug testing policy.

A: Well, the word “stubborn” comes to mind. “Idiocy” is another. Everyone down to the local sports talk radio dorks that know nothing about NASCAR (except that they have to schedule a weekly "expert" to call in for 15 minutes) has given an opinion on this by now, so I'll keep mine short:

It took a tragedy — hell, it took four tragedies — to get some major safety initiatives enacted. Is that what it's going to take to institute a hard and fast drug testing policy in the sport? You'd think someone in Daytona would realize that — especially when the actual competitors are pining for it.

Most people you talk to will tell you there is not a drug problem in the sport — and I'd agree. However, some guy admitted to being geeked up on smack while racing, which, as it turns out, is a huge problem. Some, including NASCAR, believe there is no reason to be proactive on this issue. I believe there is no reason not to be.

Q: Hi, Matt. My husband swears the Gopher Cam has been used before. He says FOX isn't the first to utilize that camera angle. Is this true?
— Samantha Daugherty

A: He's right. The first time I remember seeing that camera used was on ESPN's “Thursday Night Thunder” broadcasts back in the ’80s. I'm sure it's been utilized since, as well, but I couldn’t pinpoint it; my colleague John Potts actually has a good column on the history of the camera he wrote a few weeks back (click here to read). FOX, however, is the first network to give the thing a name, a mascot, and a merchandising link on its website. Shameless.

Q: What is the CoT engine program from each manufacturer? Do they each cast and assemble the engines? Trying to clarify this confusion amongst friends. Thanks!
— Mike Miller

A: The engines used in the CoT are no different than what was used with the spoiler cars, Mike. Each manufacturer provides its unique engine block to the teams, which are then bore, outfitted, and assembled with proprietary parts to meet NASCAR's specs.

Q: It's so good to see Kenny Schrader get in a ride at Talladega that stands a fighting chance! The BAM deal was going nowhere for him, even though it was good to see him on the track. Is this a one-race deal, or will he be in the No. 70 for awhile? And what do you think of his chances at Talladega with a Hendrick engine?
— Terry G.

A: I wondered if I'd hear from our lifelong Schrader honk this week. Schrader is a good choice for a team just trying to get a car in the show, although he hasn't had any success at Talladega in a decade. He does run well at Daytona; but for some reason, the notes just don't transfer to Alabama for him.

I'm glad to see your boy got a ride, Terry, but I figured the smart call would have been to Mike Wallace, who is a plate-track ace. And as for the length of the contract, it appears it's a one-race deal for the time being. I'm sure that could change in short order, depending (and most likely will the minute this article posts!)

Enjoy the slow weekend, everyone. I can be reached on our bass boat at Lake Barkley.

NASCAR NEWS, RIGHT TO YOUR INBOXAND IT’S FREE.
The Frontstretch Newsletter, back in 2014 gives you more of the daily news, commentary, and racing features from your favorite writers you know and love. Don’t waste another minute – click here to sign up now. We’re here to make sure you stay informed … so make sure you jump on for the ride!

Today on the Frontstretch:
NASCAR Easter Eggs: A Few Off-Week Nuggets to Chew On
Five Points To Ponder: NASCAR’s Take-A-Breath Moment
Truckin’ Thursdays: Top Five All-Time Truck Series Drivers
Going By the Numbers: A Week Without Racing Can Bring Relief But Kill Momentum
FREE NEWSLETTER! CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP

 

©2000 - 2008 Matt Taliaferro and Frontstetch.com. Thanks for visiting the Frontstretch!

Margo L
04/17/2008 01:01 PM
permalink

You know, you might have hit on an excellent name for the gopher cam . Shameless would be perfect .
The reason NASCAR always has and always will seem to ignore the safety side of racing , is the NASCAR legal department . Their view is that if NASCAR takes any stand on any safety issue , then they can be held liable for damages if they backed the wrong idea . Ridiculous as it may seem , they are far more worried about losing liability lawsuits than making a safety decision and sticking to it . That has a great deal to do with the deaths of several drivers who would very possibly be alive today if NASCAR had mandated the HANS Device instead of hiding under their desks in fear of possible legal action .

ACEr
04/17/2008 06:33 PM
permalink

Someone correct me if I’m wrong. But, isn’t the main thing that’s different about the “gopher cam” is that it is buried in the track. (hence, the name) As far as I knew, all previous low angle cameras in NASCAR were on the ground and it was an even money bet whether or not it would get destroyed by a wreck. I guess FOX got tired of buying new Hi-Def cameras.

I may be in the minority about liking the “gopher cam’s” view. But, I do agree that it has been overhyped, overexploited and, perhaps, overused.

Matt T. -- FS Staff
04/17/2008 06:55 PM
permalink

Cameras used from this angle in the past were buried in the track as well — at least some were. They were somehow loaded on a spring, so when a car ran over it, the camera would go down further (the small camera was encased in some kind of hard, clear, rounded plastic). Wish I could draw a pic… it would make much more sense.

Copperhead
04/18/2008 12:38 AM
permalink

The COT spec engines ARE differant than the old engine package. Before the engines were based on production models and had to be within certain production specs. Now the manufacturers were given a clean sheet of paper and told they could produce a strictly race piece. On the new “Chevy” V8 the exhaust ports are not siamesed in the center of the head anymore, the cam bore has been raised to allow a bigger cam base circle, the head bolt pattern has been changed from stock, the block now has internal cast passages for piston squirters, and there are other changes I can not think of off the top of my head at this time.

The only thing the same is that they both have 8 cylinders, burn gasoline and displace 358 ci.

 

Have a question for Matt's Fanning the Flames?>Just click here! and Matt may answer YOUR question right here on the Frontstretch.

Like what you see from Matt? Well you're going to love what you hear from Host Patrick Snow, Matt and Frontstretch's own Tom Bowles every week on the Athlon Inside Racing Powered by Pepsi podcast!

Contact Matt Taliaferro

Recent articles from Matt Taliaferro:

Fanning the Flames: Of Daytona, Danica, Dale, and Duels
2009 Season Review: Tony Stewart
2009 Season Review: Ryan Newman
Fanning the Flames: Closing the Inbox on the 2009 Season
Fanning the Flames: The Crew Chief Carousel and Other Assorted Oddities