New Post
Hot Topic
New Poll
Moved Topic
Sticky Topic
No New Post
Old Hot Topic
Old Poll
Announcement
Closed Topic
Is Nascar really stock car racing?
Veteran
Total Posts: 98
Joined
How can nascar be stock car racing if all the cars are the same even though they're supposed to be different makes?...I guess it used to be stock car racing but not anymore. I have not seen any Toyota Camry or Ford Fusion on the streets with 8 cylinders engines or rear traction...So what kind of racing competition is nascar?...From what I see it is not stock car racing.
Veteran
Total Posts: 111
Joined
you waited till 2009 to bring this up
stock cars stoped being stock cars in the 1970s
and they stoped being stock cars because
Racers were getting Killed Left and right
stock cars stoped being stock cars in the 1970s
and they stoped being stock cars because
Racers were getting Killed Left and right
Signature:
Nascar Modifeds
The Fastest And The Oldest
-------------------------
Veteran
Total Posts: 101
Joined
That question has been a mute point for more than 20 years and closer to 40 years. The financial cost of running stock bodies and engines in NASCAR started to become unbearable for the manufactures in the mid 80s. At that time they began to lobby NASCAR to allow them to run other than stock offerings for engines as well as bodies. By the early 90s the verbiage in the rulebook had been changed to reflect the fact that only the major components had to be stock. The truth is, they haven’t been stock since the first fabricated chassis cars were allowed to run in the late 60s. It’s a cost thing, and that is why the constant groaning from folks asking; why aren’t they stock? Or, when are they going to be stock again? Is a waste of time. Its not 1962 and the manufactures, teams, and NASCAR can not afford to run stock offerings.
Back in the 50s and 60s it was possible to use a stock offering because the manufactures change models yearly, and sometimes more often than that. Today if you manufactured a car and homologated in NASCAR, and it is a turd you would be stuck with it because it takes years and hundreds of millions of dollars to change an assembly line over. That’s why we had so much bickering in the 90s over bodies, nose length, fender size, roof height, quarter height, and everything else. The manufactures were asking for concessions each time another manufacture brought out a new car model because they didn’t want to bring out a new model or they didn’t have one ready. All it did was add a bunch of confusion. The manufactures were happy as the cars became increasingly more alike. It has saved them a ton of money in R&D;. The fact that things haven’t changed and the cars perform more or less the same is one of the things that keep the manufactures involved. NASCAR and NHRA are two of the manufactures best venues for advertising because it doesn’t cost an arm and a leg in R&D;to stay involved.
On the other hand ALMS is one of the worst. I love the cars, but the reason you don’t see many of them on the track is because the cost is very, very, very, high. Chevy spends more on their Corvette program in ALMS than they do on all their NASCAR programs combined. Is it a good return on investment? From an advertising point of view no; from an advancement in technology stand point it probably is worth it.
I lived thru the stock car era and you didn’t miss much. They looked cool, but they didn’t race very well. You were lucky to go to a race and see more than 4 cars on the lead lap; more than half the field would be out of the race for mechanical reasons. Most of the guys who were winning were factory drivers so unless you liked one of them you didn’t have many other folks to watch. It’s 2009 and time marches on; stock cars in the form of bodies or engines are not coming back; the reason, it’s just too costly. NASCAR is as close as you are going to get to a stock car Series in America; unless you are a fan of the Koni Series, or you frequent your local short track where the cars are still fairly stock.
Back in the 50s and 60s it was possible to use a stock offering because the manufactures change models yearly, and sometimes more often than that. Today if you manufactured a car and homologated in NASCAR, and it is a turd you would be stuck with it because it takes years and hundreds of millions of dollars to change an assembly line over. That’s why we had so much bickering in the 90s over bodies, nose length, fender size, roof height, quarter height, and everything else. The manufactures were asking for concessions each time another manufacture brought out a new car model because they didn’t want to bring out a new model or they didn’t have one ready. All it did was add a bunch of confusion. The manufactures were happy as the cars became increasingly more alike. It has saved them a ton of money in R&D;. The fact that things haven’t changed and the cars perform more or less the same is one of the things that keep the manufactures involved. NASCAR and NHRA are two of the manufactures best venues for advertising because it doesn’t cost an arm and a leg in R&D;to stay involved.
On the other hand ALMS is one of the worst. I love the cars, but the reason you don’t see many of them on the track is because the cost is very, very, very, high. Chevy spends more on their Corvette program in ALMS than they do on all their NASCAR programs combined. Is it a good return on investment? From an advertising point of view no; from an advancement in technology stand point it probably is worth it.
I lived thru the stock car era and you didn’t miss much. They looked cool, but they didn’t race very well. You were lucky to go to a race and see more than 4 cars on the lead lap; more than half the field would be out of the race for mechanical reasons. Most of the guys who were winning were factory drivers so unless you liked one of them you didn’t have many other folks to watch. It’s 2009 and time marches on; stock cars in the form of bodies or engines are not coming back; the reason, it’s just too costly. NASCAR is as close as you are going to get to a stock car Series in America; unless you are a fan of the Koni Series, or you frequent your local short track where the cars are still fairly stock.
Veteran
Total Posts: 98
Joined
Thank you pontiactim43 for taking the time to anwer my question. I'm trying to learn more, I'm watching the races but I'm nt a big fan yet. There are some aspects of the races that I don't get or like for example the competition yellow flags with no reason. I love te races at Infineon and Watkins Glenn, I would love to see, at least, 2 road courses in The Chase and 2 more in the regular season...those are more fun to watch...
Speed Freak
Total Posts: 495
Joined
Good reply pontiactim43. I would just like to add that even in the 1950's people like Smokey Yunnick were playing with not only the mechanicals of the 'stock cars' but also changing body panels to gain more speed. So in a sense the cars were never really 'stock cars'.
Abnormal User
Total Posts: 1414
Joined
^ Yeah, Smokey was the man!
Signature:
removed
Abnormal User
Total Posts: 1216
Joined
^ Yeah, Smokey was the man!
+1
Signature:
At GKR, we’re here to learn...... R.I.P., Giant.
Ultimate Insider
Total Posts: 845
Joined
Great post pontiactim43, I'm gonna use that as forum ammo in other forums where this topic comes up, giving credit to you for posting it of course.
Ultimate Insider
Total Posts: 936
Joined
How can nascar be stock car racing if all the cars are the same even though they're supposed to be different makes?...I guess it used to be stock car racing but not anymore. I have not seen any Toyota Camry or Ford Fusion on the streets with 8 cylinders engines or rear traction...So what kind of racing competition is nascar?...From what I see it is not stock car racing.
no!
Abnormal User
Total Posts: 3493
Joined
How can nascar be stock car racing if all the cars are the same even though they're supposed to be different makes?...I guess it used to be stock car racing but not anymore. I have not seen any Toyota Camry or Ford Fusion on the streets with 8 cylinders engines or rear traction...So what kind of racing competition is nascar?...From what I see it is not stock car racing.
no!
The OP never asked a question that would deserve your response.
Signature:
“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex. It takes a touch of genius—and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.” --physicist Albert Einstein
Ultimate Insider
Total Posts: 885
Joined 05/08/2009
The "competition" yellows are to prevent a real race from breaking out within NASCAR's carefully choreographed show.
Sometimes in real racing on e car is better, and the driver is having a good night, and the set-up is just right, and that driver pulls far ahead of everyone else. That's racing; a fast, reliable, stable car with a good driver will be faster than slower, less reliable, less stable cars.
But NASCAR doesn't like that. So NASCAR throws a full-course caution to bring the leaders back to the pack, and allows a lapped car to join up on the lead lap. This way the guys at the back race hard even if they can't get out of 40th place, just so they aren't last.
And the guys at the front can try to cheat - I mean, anticipate - the restart, and get ahead of the faster car, or ram him, and push him into the wall or off the track. Fans love this.
I mean, what kind of world would it be, if the fastest driver in the fastest car won? If winning races was more about driving skill and engineering expertise and not about being able to carefully ram a car so he crashed and you didn't? What kind of racing would that be?
Some people really like the spectacle called "NASCAR racing." I am glad for them. But the rules are designed to produce entertainment of a certain type, not a race, which could go any which way. So long as the fans like that type of entertainment, NASCAR is doing just fine.
And for people who don't enjoy that, there are other kinds of autosports where cars and drivers compete at driving and racing. No problem there either.
Whatever kind of motorsports you like, glad you do. There is a lot of enjoyment to be had there.
Sometimes in real racing on e car is better, and the driver is having a good night, and the set-up is just right, and that driver pulls far ahead of everyone else. That's racing; a fast, reliable, stable car with a good driver will be faster than slower, less reliable, less stable cars.
But NASCAR doesn't like that. So NASCAR throws a full-course caution to bring the leaders back to the pack, and allows a lapped car to join up on the lead lap. This way the guys at the back race hard even if they can't get out of 40th place, just so they aren't last.
And the guys at the front can try to cheat - I mean, anticipate - the restart, and get ahead of the faster car, or ram him, and push him into the wall or off the track. Fans love this.
I mean, what kind of world would it be, if the fastest driver in the fastest car won? If winning races was more about driving skill and engineering expertise and not about being able to carefully ram a car so he crashed and you didn't? What kind of racing would that be?
Some people really like the spectacle called "NASCAR racing." I am glad for them. But the rules are designed to produce entertainment of a certain type, not a race, which could go any which way. So long as the fans like that type of entertainment, NASCAR is doing just fine.
And for people who don't enjoy that, there are other kinds of autosports where cars and drivers compete at driving and racing. No problem there either.
Whatever kind of motorsports you like, glad you do. There is a lot of enjoyment to be had there.
