aw come on...hundreds of millions to cut the banking down?don't you think you're being a bit over the top with what that would cost?

That's a lot to tear down and rebuild, and they would have to do it - and test it - during the off-season. So that would be a high-speed job, and they would probably have to resurface most of the track because if the coefficient of friction was different on the banking it would cause all kinds of headaches.


And what if the cars kept getting faster, so that they were flat-out and deadly around the lower banking?

But no, I did not call a bunch of contractors and get estimates. But I have to imagine, rebuilding a few miles of a couple racetracks can't be cheap.

Title of the thread is "Cheap Restrictor Plate Fixes."

Lovey-Dovey - 02 November 2009 01:33 PM

johnalex1273 - 02 November 2009 01:24 PM

Lovey-Dovey - 02 November 2009 12:35 PM

johnalex1273 - 02 November 2009 12:30 PM

7 inch frame rail height. No skirts. No Valance. 2 inch spoiler, width of trunk lid only. Roof and hood flaps. No plates.

Yo, johnalex, you might have to rethink that... I am in 100% agreement.

Ya think they would be hunting that brake pedal going in to the corner? lol!

There is a downside though...
I posted this in another forum, but it could be used here as well...

"The problem with making the cars more difficult to drive is that we would lose a few of today's drivers. There are more than a couple drivers out there who got the ride due to looks and marketability or other sponsor driven reason, but not necessarily talent. Make them actually drive the car, at those speeds, and some will no longer be with us."

I know I complain a bit about the John Wes Townley's and David Stremme's of today's NASCAR, but watching them perish in violent on-track wrecks is not the best way to get rid of them.

I think they would weed themselves out. That kind of pressure would separate the men from the boys.

well Maelochs,there's the problem-there is no "cheap" fix.there is only one fix.tear down the banking and have real racing,or take the races away from the tracks.

maybe i'm not the best to comment,nascar has done a good job of chasing me away,and other than Darlington,road races and the short tracks,i really never pay much attention anymore......

We 100% agree - almost. I think we both agree there is no Easy fix.

Superspeedway racing just doesn't work. It was a bad idea all along. When Indianapolis was built, cars were lucky to hit 100. When Talladega was built, the cars could top 200, but the same ancient technology was used.

Two problems I see with tearing down the banking: one, as technology improves, even ten degrees might prove too much, with those long straights.

Two, if the banking is laid totally flat to avoid issue #1, the tracks become just flat ovals. I don't mind, but i have seen others complain about that.

Personally, i think flat ovals take a lot more skill to drive and make for better racing. But whether going to ten or zero degrees, that is a lot of tearing down and rebuilding. NASCAR looks at it like, 'The fans are still buying tickets. if we spend huge bucks and ticket sales drop, we lose twice over.'

So the only kinds of changes we are likely to see, are simple, temporary changes that NASCAR can undue in a hurry if the fans complain.

For thee record, tearing down the banking entirely would be fine with me. So would adding two turns in each of the long straights, so long as they were gradual enough not to cause pack-wrecks at the entrances.

I just don't see NASCAR having the courage to make major changes.

how bout switching to 310ci engines or even a 265ci V6 since they were thinking about going to fuel injection in 2011 that would be the time to do it

I repeat this over and over...but Robert Yates said in '91 or '92 he could make a smaller CI V8 that would work without plates at Talladega and Daytona, using off the shelf parts that didn't cost a bundle. At the time, I think his idea was 265 CI, but 20 years on, maybe have to be closer to 200 CI. Everyone called him a nutter. He was, IMO, right.

Barring that, I agree with the OP, chicanes. All it would cost is some paint and some cones. maybe a little asphalt in the tri-ovals, but that would be negligible compared to knocking down the banking....make the drivers DRIVE again.

Even with drastically reduced horsepower the cars get going so fast, if any air gets under them they float.

To fix the racing, NASCAR has to give up the "Pack" mentality. Right now NASCAR lieks cars to run in packs and swap the lead. Only problem is, lead changes mean nothing because no one can get away from the pack. Talladega is almost always won by a guy who took the lead on the last lap.

But NASCAR is afraid that fans won't watch if their favorite driver isn't in contention. So NASCAR wont let a field string out. Essentially, being fast is meaningless.

Because the cars run flat-out all the way around, cars can't pass on their own, and can't pull away. Because restrictor plates destroy throttle response, drivers don't dare lift. And because, even with plates, the cars run 200 mph, no one is safe in the event of a crash.

Maybe if the cars were limited to 200 HP, they wouldn't be fast enough to fly on impact. But they would still be stuck in huge packs, and when one guy lost it, everyone else would get collected.

Something has to be done to make the drivers slow down at some point during the lap. Something has to be done to give the faster cars an advantage, so that the faster cars can actually open up a lead. Something has to be done to break up the pack.

If the cars aren't running in a pack, they can run faster more safely. Flying into the crowd will still be a big issue, but at least one error won't wipe out fifteen cars.

Problem is, stock cars were never meant to run on speedways. Heavy, low-downforce cars are too dangerous to fans and drivers alike at 200+mph.

But even at low speeds, heavy, low-downforce cars running at the limit in a huge pack is too dangerous to the quality of the racing.

Chicanes, assuming the are gradual enough not to be collision-inducers, are a good option, I think. Grats to the OP.

mewman - 02 November 2009 01:44 PM

i can't believe no-one said the real fix(the one Dale Sr liked).just cut the banking in two at both tracks,and let the cars race.then they have to back off for the turns,and we have real racing again.this one is SO simple,i can't believe they don't just do it.there is no other fix to this,the technology has outrun the tracks.in a perfect world,F1 would still race at the old Monza without chicanes,but it's not......

I agree...Cut the banking down to 24-26 degrees. I believe Jimmy Johnson said the same thing in yesterday's post-race press conference.

How about taking a page from the ALMS and Grand Am by changing the position of the restrictor plate from under the carb to the front of an air intake system-basically place the restrictor in the cowling unstead of under the carb. ALMS and GA cars run air restrictors to slow the cars and equalize competition, but those cars don't have the throttle response problems that the NASCAR cars have.

Or how about setting the cars up to use tall rear gears like in the old days, because the COT's configuration makes these cars turn too many RPMs for a plate engine-Nationwide and ARCA cars still turn 7000-7400 RPM. Why? The COT makes more power with the higher revs and larger restrictor, and horsepower = torque times RPM divided by 5252 in the most basic form of that equation, as well as variables like air flow into/out of the engine, etc.

But I doubt that NASCAR will take banking out of Daytona or Talledga, nor make the cars slow enough on their own to get rid of the plates like the CWTS vehicles, which are draggy enough to not use them.