I'm pretty sure one thing you're NOT going to see anytime in the near future is ANYTHING of an electronic nature on a NASCAR stock car. They like their 1965 technology, and they are going to stick to it. Keep that kind of talk up and the next thing you know someone will be trying to get them to allow ABS or some other radical thing like EFI. Stop that right now
Bill
Yes, lets add all sorts of technology, just like F1. And, maybe, we can have the same kind of screwed up racing they have.
Being a FORMER NASCAR fan and a huge fan of F1, I am curious as to what you think is "screwed up" about F1.
The Frances have turned NASCAR into a boring version of IROC. Everybody is in the same cars with different decals to make them a Ford, Chevy, Dodge or Toyota (who doesn't even make a pushrod engine for the street but has one for NASCAR???). I don't even watch NASCAR anymore, it's a joke.
I don't have any facts to support this, it's completely anecdotal, but NASCAR tire troubles are almost always at HIGH banked tracks. I don't ever remember tire problems at the flat ovals, and certainly not at the road courses.
If we just accept that for the moment, the problem occurs PRIMARILY on the right front. All the formulas for down-force and so on MAY indicate that F1 and CUP cars put the same or at least similar loads on the tires. The fact is though that the load on the right front on a cup car isn't duplicated at any F1 track. Even if the peak load is matched, the duration as mentioned earlier in this thread is not. F1 drivers have long complained about NOT being able to keep enough heat in the tires. NASCAR usually has the opposite problem. So you have a tire that is under almost constant high g lateral load and high heat stress. It also contains quit a bit less gas than a F1 tire.
Nascar 12w x 28h x 15 rim
F1 14-15w x 28h x 15 rim
also because they are both radials the larger sidewall of the NASCAR tire has more flex which also builds heat and adds stress to the carcass. I'm not sure, but I believe the wheel of a F1 car is wider than the tread of the tire. Taking all that into account, Goodyear has a much more difficult job then B F Goodrich. AA JMHO
Bill
F1 mandates 13" wheels: FIA Rules Article 12.4.4 Wheel bead diameter must lie between 328 and 332mm.
I don't have any facts to support this, it's completely anecdotal, but NASCAR tire troubles are almost always at HIGH banked tracks. I don't ever remember tire problems at the flat ovals, and certainly not at the road courses.
If we just accept that for the moment, the problem occurs PRIMARILY on the right front. All the formulas for down-force and so on MAY indicate that F1 and CUP cars put the same or at least similar loads on the tires. The fact is though that the load on the right front on a cup car isn't duplicated at any F1 track. Even if the peak load is matched, the duration as mentioned earlier in this thread is not. F1 drivers have long complained about NOT being able to keep enough heat in the tires. NASCAR usually has the opposite problem. So you have a tire that is under almost constant high g lateral load and high heat stress. It also contains quit a bit less gas than a F1 tire.
Nascar 12w x 28h x 15 rim
F1 14-15w x 28h x 15 rim
also because they are both radials the larger sidewall of the NASCAR tire has more flex which also builds heat and adds stress to the carcass. I'm not sure, but I believe the wheel of a F1 car is wider than the tread of the tire. Taking all that into account, Goodyear has a much more difficult job then B F Goodrich. AA JMHO
Bill
F1 mandates 13" wheels: FIA Rules Article 12.4.4 Wheel bead diameter must lie between 328 and 332mm.
SORRY, I looked everywhere I could think of for that and couldn't find it. The wheel reference I found was old. The diameter of the rim however isn't as big a deal as the width of the rim. That is what changes the performance of the tire the most. When you mount a tire to a rim that is WIDER then the tread of the tire, you significantly change the tire's ability to deal with side loading. Particularly in a RADIAL TIRE, which both F1 & NASCAR use. If you watch the tire CAM mounted on both cars, the F1 tire virtually doesn't flex under side load. The NASCAR tire however has a CONSIDERABLE roll under to it when it is under side load. The movement of the carcass ADDS HEAT and stress. Thanks for giving me the correct data.
F1. Very little passing during the race. A lot of position changes occur during pit stops. O.K. maybe there are some passing during the race. But, my luck, it would happen at some other point on the race course, rather than where I am sitting.
Yes, lets add all sorts of technology, just like F1. And, maybe, we can have the same kind of screwed up racing they have.
You mean, as compared to the obese walrus races Nascar puts on? With all the cruising for 400 miles and a 100 mile sprint? Where you can be butt slow, git yerself a coupla 'luckydawgs', and boogity boogity boogity back to the top 5? Greeeeaaaaaaaaaattttttttttttt...........
Yes, lets add all sorts of technology, just like F1. And, maybe, we can have the same kind of screwed up racing they have.
You mean, as compared to the obese walrus races Nascar puts on? With all the cruising for 400 miles and a 100 mile sprint? Where you can be butt slow, git yerself a coupla 'luckydawgs', and boogity boogity boogity back to the top 5? Greeeeaaaaaaaaaattttttttttttt...........
Yes, give me 36 of those races and it would be great, rather than sit thru one F1 race. Heck, even one half of a F1 race.
Yes, lets add all sorts of technology, just like F1. And, maybe, we can have the same kind of screwed up racing they have.
You mean, as compared to the obese walrus races Nascar puts on? With all the cruising for 400 miles and a 100 mile sprint? Where you can be butt slow, git yerself a coupla 'luckydawgs', and boogity boogity boogity back to the top 5? Greeeeaaaaaaaaaattttttttttttt...........
Yes, give me 36 of those races and it would be great, rather than sit thru one F1 race. Heck, even one half of a F1 race.
With F1 they just do away with the first 400 miles of BS. And if you make a big mistake, or are slow, or 'miss the setup' you lose. Kinda like racing is s'posed to be, ya know, fastest guy wins?
Yes, lets add all sorts of technology, just like F1. And, maybe, we can have the same kind of screwed up racing they have.
You mean, as compared to the obese walrus races Nascar puts on? With all the cruising for 400 miles and a 100 mile sprint? Where you can be butt slow, git yerself a coupla 'luckydawgs', and boogity boogity boogity back to the top 5? Greeeeaaaaaaaaaattttttttttttt...........
Yes, give me 36 of those races and it would be great, rather than sit thru one F1 race. Heck, even one half of a F1 race.
With F1 they just do away with the first 400 miles of BS. And if you make a big mistake, or are slow, or 'miss the setup' you lose. Kinda like racing is s'posed to be, ya know, fastest guy wins?
That is if he starts up front. If not, he has to wait for pit stops to take the lead.
That's because the listened to the fans who demanded to cut the downforce, the electronics and make them slide.
So no active suspensions, no more big underbody/ground-effect downforce, no more slicks (suppossebly to make them drift like in the good ol' days) meant the only the teams could focus on was an upperbody overclutted hypersensitive superdirty aero witch eliminated close wheel-to-wheel, nose-to-tail racing. The racing from the days of the active ride cars (TC/LC, ABS, active suspensions, active 4 wheels systems, 2 ways telemetry, big underbody downforce) seems exciting.
Conclusion, don't listen to those dumbass fans who don't realize it's not 1967 or 1957 anymore, stuff the cars with plenty electronics (active suspensions an absolute must, TC, ABS) and plenty of ground-effect downforce and let them roll.
That's because the listened to the fans who demanded to cut the downforce, the electronics and make them slide.
So no active suspensions, no more big underbody/ground-effect downforce, no more slicks (suppossebly to make them drift like in the good ol' days) meant the only the teams could focus on was an upperbody overclutted hypersensitive superdirty aero witch eliminated close wheel-to-wheel, nose-to-tail racing. The racing from the days of the active ride cars (TC/LC, ABS, active suspensions, active 4 wheels systems, 2 ways telemetry, big underbody downforce) seems exciting.
Conclusion, don't listen to those dumbass fans who don't realize it's not 1967 or 1957 anymore, stuff the cars with plenty electronics (active suspensions an absolute must, TC, ABS) and plenty of ground-effect downforce and let them roll.
That's actually quite funny, because the "FANS" could care less about most of that stuff. They just want to go "SEE" a really good race. F1 isn't the same animal it was even 25 years ago when fans could get close and actually have a sense of the speed of the cars. NOW, they are so far from the actual track that getting a sense of how fast the cars are actually going is virtually impossible. NASCAR has begun to suffer the same fate since they won't allow spectators in the front rows at most tracks anymore. ALL those techno wonders you described are about the CAR, while they make the CAR more interesting and certainly faster, they haven't done much to make F1 more interesting in terms of racing. For the most part, they just separated the haves from the have-nots. I also would like to see some of the technology return, but it wouldn't be for making for closer racing, because that won't happen. It would however make it more exciting (at least for me), because making the cars faster simply appeals to me as long as the drivers still exercise a modicum of control. The faster the better. AA JMHO
>
^ They've separated what ?!
It's is and was still the same ol' same ol' .
They only thing they it showcased was how the cars need ground effect downforce to suck to the track to counteract the dirty air. Without that even the skilled drivers are being made to look impotent against the dirty air.
>
^ They've separated what ?!
It's is and was still the same ol' same ol' .
They only thing they it showcased was how the cars need ground effect downforce to suck to the track to counteract the dirty air. Without that even the skilled drivers are being made to look impotent against the dirty air.
It's a fairly well used term, Separating those with money from those without money.
Those ground effects you seem so fond of were eliminated for a very good reason, they have killed a bunch of drivers. With the amount of force available, you stress suspension pieces beyond their limit. The car is also ALWAYS in danger of hitting a bump or ANYTHING on the track and IMMEDIATELY being launched into the air. Ground effects are wonderful until something happens to interfere with them and at that point the driver becomes a passenger in a very fast bullet, over which he has NO control. If you have watched LeMans you will have seen what can happen with ground effects when they lose them. AA JMHO
Hence the need for active suspensions, to control the ground effect. That's the only proper way.
I've always believed that with proper active suspensions enhanced/improved to be safer, both Senna and Ratzenberger would have been alive.
While you have a point, the pressure monitor system on your car doesn't really monitor tire pressure. It monitors ride height.
That's not necessarily true. It sepends on the system. many older systems, especially in lower end cars/trucks use the abs to read the rollind diameter of the tire, and will trip the "low tire" light if it detects a difference in at least one tire, regardless of whether it's actually low or not. It only has to be "different". Most newer systems use a direct reading monitor, usually part of the valve stem, that reads actual tire pressures. This has become manditory by the DOT as of '08 on all vehicles sold in the US, namely due to the Ford Explorer issue a few years back. It would not be too difficult to incorporate this into a stock car, although the system would have to be reset on every tire change, which would slow pit stops down by quite a bit. It take about 10 minuits to reset the average direct reading pressure system on a street car.
That's because the listened to the fans who demanded to cut the downforce, the electronics and make them slide.
So no active suspensions, no more big underbody/ground-effect downforce, no more slicks (suppossebly to make them drift like in the good ol' days) meant the only the teams could focus on was an upperbody overclutted hypersensitive superdirty aero witch eliminated close wheel-to-wheel, nose-to-tail racing. The racing from the days of the active ride cars (TC/LC, ABS, active suspensions, active 4 wheels systems, 2 ways telemetry, big underbody downforce) seems exciting.
Conclusion, don't listen to those dumbass fans who don't realize it's not 1967 or 1957 anymore, stuff the cars with plenty electronics (active suspensions an absolute must, TC, ABS) and plenty of ground-effect downforce and let them roll.
It is a pity for those that have never seen a car driven that was overpowered and under tired (a lot less grip than tire).
The early 70's, late 70's, (all pre-ground effect cars). Cars existed that had far more horsepower than could be delivered with full throttle for EVERY gear change.
The tires, the cars suspension and the aero was far less developed than the horsepower of the car. It was obvious to the observing race fan, that it was a struggle and it was bravery that it took to drive these cars to the limit. It was a frequent event in every corner to have the car out of shape and "unhooked" at some point in the turn.
Having witnessed first hand the F1 Williams computer controlled suspension car driven by Nigel Mansell and having also witnessed first hand the 917-30 Porsche driven by Mark Donohue. Both were fantastic cars. However it is the horsepower and lack of grip of the Porsche that still stands out so vivid in memory, it is as though it happened yesterday. Something about a car that lays 400 feet of rubber at 165mph on a gear change and watching a driver who will do that, and marvel at how the driver looks like he's going to crash in every corner, but doesn't
... VS...
a car so hooked up that it is unreal that it can corner so fast and not put a wheel wrong and marvel at how low the lap time is and how impossible it seems that a car can be flat out around corners that weren't ever intended to be flat out...it is amazing that a computer can control every aspect that a driver would normally be responsive to. By the way the F1 Williams had computer controlled steering (steer by wire) that could correct for the right amount of loose/oversteer and basically took over from the driver, this was never used in competition.
Maybe the computer companies should take over racing and elimate the driver. We could have DEll, HP and Apple racing each other without ever having to go to a race track. We could have cars pulling 10 G's in a corner and a doing 300 mph at Indy, with no drivers involved so theres no chance of harm to any of them...
Just because a commerical aircraft can take off, locate, navigate, fly to and land without intervention by a pilot, why does anyone want racing to become the same thing?
Might just be the reason that NASCAR is so popular, cause it ain't a computer controlling anything riding on that car and without the driver in it would just sit in the pit lane and go no where... Can't say the same about an ALMS P1 car, it could exit the pitlane without a driver......
And without the crew chief to set it up, it won't win.....(Sorry, HMB, had to stick that in there..)
