Home  
Site Partners: SpotterGuides Veloce Books  
Related Sites: Your Link Here  

Go Back   TenTenths Motorsport Forum > Saloon & Sportscar Racing > NASCAR & Stock Car Racing

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 26 Apr 2012, 21:24 (Ref:3065959)   #1
Purist
Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
United States
Wichita, Kansas, USA
Posts: 5,892
Purist is going for a new world record!Purist is going for a new world record!Purist is going for a new world record!Purist is going for a new world record!Purist is going for a new world record!Purist is going for a new world record!
Tracks, Changes, and Complaints

Lately, there has been quite a bit of talk about the tracks NASCAR visits, the racing that has been happening, and the interplay between the cars and the tracks. Along with all this, there has been a fair bit of complaining about all of the above. So, here are some of my thoughts, and some information I have been able to compile on the matter.

In just the last few years, Daytona, Michigan, and Pocono have been repaved, but there were no configuration changes, and eventually, every track has to be resurfaced as a part of basic maintenance.

The following speedways have had changes in the last 15 years, and/or are having changes now:
Atlanta- tri-oval added (1997)
Texas- tri-oval widened (1997)
Homestead- four separate corners consolidated, short chutes removed, 9 degrees to 6 degrees banking (1998)
Loudon- corners redone, apron lane added to bottom of racing surface, 12 degrees changed to 2-7 degrees progressive banking (2002)
Homestead- corners raised, 6 degrees to 18-20 degrees progressive banking (2003)
Las Vegas- corners raised, 12 degrees to 18-20 degrees progressive banking (2006)
Bristol- corners redone, 36 degrees changed to 26-30 degrees progressive banking (2007)
Phoenix- dogleg moved outward and raised, 3 degrees to 10-11 degrees progressive banking, corners redone, 11 and 9 degrees changed to 10-11 and 8-9 degrees progressive banking (2011)
Bristol- corners redone, upper portion of progressive banking ground down (2012)
Kansas- corners raised, 15 degrees to 17-20 degrees progressive banking (2012)

A lot of ire has been directed at the intermediate ovals, particularly the 1.5-milers. However, these tracks have produced quite a number of good, exciting races, as well as some that weren't so enthralling, not unike most other racetracks. Admittedly, many of these ovals are seeing their bankings made more similar to one another, which is a trend I do not like. Prior to the changes fhough, there were clear complaints about boring racing on some of these ovals because, it was thought, they were too flat, and that the lack of banking wasn't allowing enough "racing". In fact, I have recently been going back through and watching the 2001 Winston Cup race from Homestead, and Benny Parsons said out loud that he hoped they would add some banking. It just seems ironic, and kind of silly and stupid, that people called for these changes in the first place. These alterations helped in some respects by making side-by-side running more possible. Now though, these people are complaining again about the racing, and also about these tracks becoming more similar to one another because of the very changes that were asked for. Am I missing something here?

This brings me to something else though. We seem to get on these bandwagons periodically in calling for more "copies" of one racetrack or another. Starting around 1995, "everybody" wanted a 1.5-mile oval, and most often, one with a tri-oval configuration. This tapered off after 2001. A few years later, and perhaps still going a bit now, the fad was for 0.75-mile ovals in the pattern of Richmond. This has expanded a bit, with the length range running from 0.75-1.0-mile iterations. The initial plans for New Jersey Motorsports Park called for a twin to Richmond. Iowa Speedway is a 0.875-mile oval very similar to Richmond. Also, plans for the proposed Canadian Motor Speedway include a 1.0-mile oval very much like Richmond in plan form.

My point here is, I think we want a variety of ovals, so while it is fine to point out features we like, it can come back to haunt us when we attach ourselves too strongly to a particular track as "the model" we want to follow and recreate over and over again.

Before I get to the cars, I have to say that Phoenix in its new form is annoying me. They should rip up most of the pavement inside of the actual racing surface, and especially along the back stretch, there should just be a single lane of apron. At the kink, inside of the white line, there should be curbing and/or ripple strips, to make it an automatic penalty to go outside the designated racing surface in that area.

Last edited by Purist; 26 Apr 2012 at 21:37.
Purist is offline  
__________________
The only certainty is that nothing is certain.
Quote
Old 26 Apr 2012, 22:00 (Ref:3065969)   #2
Purist
Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
United States
Wichita, Kansas, USA
Posts: 5,892
Purist is going for a new world record!Purist is going for a new world record!Purist is going for a new world record!Purist is going for a new world record!Purist is going for a new world record!Purist is going for a new world record!
I thought a post break would be welcome here before I finish.

Quite a few complaints have been leveled against the cars for various reasons. A lot of them appear to come out of a certain old school mentality. What I would say is that this is the big leagues, and "run what you brung" doesn't work in that setting. A home garage lacks the means, equipment, and finances to make a competitive car at the top echelons. Also, such a car would be sufficiently slower as to pose an unreasonable hazard to its driver and to those around it, if it were allowed onto the track. In adition, the simple truth is that a "precision perfect" effort is going to be faster, and more reliable, than one that is just cobbled together and called "good enough".

Aerodynamics have also surfaced in the discussion, but I think this aspect is heavily misunderstood in how it relates to NASCAR. Here, the issue is most certainly not downforce, because NASCAR machines make next to no downforce. The problem is the big boxy cars make a wake like the Queen Mary ocean liner. This wake provides the excellent draft on the larger ovals, those 2.0 miles and over, and isn't such a big deal on the smaller ovals with their lower speeds, especially the ovals of one mile or less. The trouble comes in most prominently in the high-speed corners on the intermediate, and some of the large, ovals. All that drag production from these cars with the aerodynamic qualities of a brick, at those cornering speeds, just creates horrendous turbulence behind the leading car.

So, it is not the precision-built bodywork causing the issues, but rather, the sheer size of the hole in the air that these things make that is hurting the racing. I don't think downforce needs limiting beyond anything we've seen over the last eight years or so, but these cars need to be allowed to have a smaller, lower profile to cut down dramatically on the drag and consequent wake turbulence.

To close out, some of you are probably wondering just a bit about why the behavior of the cars is what it is, and how this relates to speed on different tracks. To put it simply, force is calculated by an exponential function. It takes force being applied to move the air out of the way of an object like a racing car. However, this is not a linear progression. If you have a car that tops out at 60-mph, and you want to get to 120-mph, doubling the power will not get you there; you must quadruple the power to double the potential top speed. If you want to triple that same car's speed, from 60 to 180-mph, it will take nine times the power to do that, if you are simply going by the brute force method. What this means on the track is that for the same settings on the car, your drag production at 180-mph is 2.25 times what it is at 120-mph. Just remember, force equals the mass times the velocity squared (e=mv^2).

Last edited by Purist; 26 Apr 2012 at 22:06.
Purist is offline  
__________________
The only certainty is that nothing is certain.
Quote
Old 27 Apr 2012, 01:18 (Ref:3065998)   #3
NaBUru38
Veteran
 
NaBUru38's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Uruguay
Las Canteras, Uruguay
Posts: 10,352
NaBUru38 is going for a new world record!NaBUru38 is going for a new world record!NaBUru38 is going for a new world record!NaBUru38 is going for a new world record!NaBUru38 is going for a new world record!NaBUru38 is going for a new world record!NaBUru38 is going for a new world record!
Track must get repaved every few years. I can't tell how many. It seems that Daytona has a much better weather than Kansas, so Daytona could keep it for decades and Kansas must rework the place every decade. Mexico City is also a terrible place, the volcanic activity damages the track each year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purist View Post
It just seems ironic, and kind of silly and stupid, that people called for these changes in the first place. These alterations helped in some respects by making side-by-side running more possible. Now though, these people are complaining again about the racing, and also about these tracks becoming more similar to one another because of the very changes that were asked for. Am I missing something here?
Are you sure it's the same people?

Also, it can happen that people make mistakes and change their mind. Guillermo Maldonado proposed that the South American Formula 2 should drop the locally-made cars to F3s. This would prevent the better builders outrun poorer / less talented builders.

What happened is that spec racing killed local car building and caused a massive dislike for formula racing. Before, formula racing was the pinnacle of South American motorsport. Now it's a very poor development ladder. So Maldonado regretted publicly this year and admitted his wrong thoughts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purist View Post
A few years later, and perhaps still going a bit now, the fad was for 0.75-mile ovals in the pattern of Richmond.
Three ovals isn't a trend.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purist View Post
My point here is, I think we want a variety of ovals, so while it is fine to point out features we like, it can come back to haunt us when we attach ourselves too strongly to a particular track as "the model" we want to follow and recreate over and over again.
Sure, how can we disagree!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purist View Post
it is not the precision-built bodywork causing the issues, but rather, the sheer size of the hole in the air that these things make that is hurting the racing. I don't think downforce needs limiting beyond anything we've seen over the last eight years or so, but these cars need to be allowed to have a smaller, lower profile to cut down dramatically on the drag and consequent wake turbulence.
Moreover, better fuel efficiency is a must in times like these.
NaBUru38 is offline  
__________________
Nitropteron - Fly fast or get crushed!
by NaBUrean Prodooktionz
naburu38.itch.io
Quote
Old 27 Apr 2012, 04:46 (Ref:3066008)   #4
Purist
Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
United States
Wichita, Kansas, USA
Posts: 5,892
Purist is going for a new world record!Purist is going for a new world record!Purist is going for a new world record!Purist is going for a new world record!Purist is going for a new world record!Purist is going for a new world record!
Paving intervals can be interesting to say the least. A good, quality material can hold up for quite a while, even in somewhat harsh conditions. Mosport Park definitely sticks out for me, as that was laid down in 1961, and a comprehensive repave wasn't done until the 2001 season.

Building a serious speedway is a bit more of an undertaking than a club-level road course, so three ovals of a type is a decent indicator. And actually, Pikes Peak (1996) and Memphis (1997) both likely got some inspiration from Richmond as well. I'll keep looking, because I still feel like I'm missing one or two of these 0.75-mile ovals that were included in the master plans of a recent motorsports park project or two.

I can't be sure if it's the same people who complained before, asked for change, and are complaining again now. However, when it's just a pastime, people often just don't think things through very thoroughly. It's not their livelihood, so I don't exactly blame them, but still, the shortsightedness can be frustrating sometimes.
Purist is offline  
__________________
The only certainty is that nothing is certain.
Quote
Old 27 Apr 2012, 14:08 (Ref:3066170)   #5
NaBUru38
Veteran
 
NaBUru38's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Uruguay
Las Canteras, Uruguay
Posts: 10,352
NaBUru38 is going for a new world record!NaBUru38 is going for a new world record!NaBUru38 is going for a new world record!NaBUru38 is going for a new world record!NaBUru38 is going for a new world record!NaBUru38 is going for a new world record!NaBUru38 is going for a new world record!
I'll take Pikes Peak, it's four then
NaBUru38 is offline  
__________________
Nitropteron - Fly fast or get crushed!
by NaBUrean Prodooktionz
naburu38.itch.io
Quote
Old 28 Apr 2012, 17:17 (Ref:3066619)   #6
The Original Instag8or
Racer
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
United States
Veneta, Oregon, USA
Posts: 201
The Original Instag8or should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridThe Original Instag8or should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
NASCAR markets itself as rough and tumble racing, the type of which is common on short tracks, not so much on the big tracks. When you sell the general public the type of racing found on Bristol, Richmond and Martinsville, then fill the schedule with "boring" intermediate sized 1.5-2 mile tri ovals, the general public will fill cheated. Think of it as false advertisement.

Another form of false advertisement is the name of the cars being raced; National Association of STOCK CAR Auto Racing. Stock does not mean Spec, never has never will. I understand how the cars have evolved into what they are, as I have watched it happen. When it comes to FWD 4 and 6 cyl sedans being raced as V8 coupes, I wish NASCAR had never wavered from the initial "race what you sell" pertaining to bodywork and engines. I'd have rather seen it become 43 Ford Thunderbirds rather than phony Luminas and Grand Prixs circa 1991. 43 real cars is better than 43 spec cars, even if it boils down to one mfg.
The Original Instag8or is offline  
__________________
Ever read a thread and think "I better not post here"?
Quote
Old 29 Apr 2012, 22:52 (Ref:3067191)   #7
Purist
Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
United States
Wichita, Kansas, USA
Posts: 5,892
Purist is going for a new world record!Purist is going for a new world record!Purist is going for a new world record!Purist is going for a new world record!Purist is going for a new world record!Purist is going for a new world record!
They may advertise as rough and tumble racing, but the promotional clips they use certainly don't favor the short tracks. Also, that Talladega preview was nothing but crash footage, and they say the people don't watch for the wrecks.

You can get rough and tumble racing perfectly easily on the bigger tracks if the guys are feeling aggressive; they're not exactly being relaxed when they go 5-6 abreast at Pocono, Michigan, or California, now are they. Conversely, we've seen quite sedate races recently at Martinsville, Bristol, and Richmond.

NASCAR has itself locked into a large schedule; it's always had a large schedule from the start. The trouble with keeping a large schedule with fewer races on other types of ovals is, there are a rather limited number of short tracks that could justify the "upgrades" required for one of the top-tier NASCAR series. It's expensive as all get-out to do the additions, and when you're done, it's NOT going to be a small town short track anymore. So, there's a price to be paid for doing that in more than one sense.

I wouldn't mind proper silhouette cars, that actually appear to resemble a road-going model, and I think it should be built as a facsimile of a road car that actually has a V8 under the hood. It's not feasible to do a true stock car anymore. You practically have to rebuild the things to begin with to incorporate the mandated crash cell. In addition, many road cars would be unreasonably, aerodynamically unstable at race speeds.

Unfortunately, it would quickly go from 43 Thunderbirds to no cars at all. It wouldn't be much of a marketing exercise against the other manufacturers once there are no other manufacturers left. Also, it would cost the surviving manufacturer more to support the entire field than just 25-33% of it, and without the other brands fighting them, there would be fewer sponsors and fans tuning in. You end up spending more on a smaller possible return. If the lone manufacturer tries to spread its existing resources, the quality of the field, racing, and series would suffer quite noticeably.
Purist is offline  
__________________
The only certainty is that nothing is certain.
Quote
Old 29 Apr 2012, 23:52 (Ref:3067206)   #8
The Original Instag8or
Racer
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
United States
Veneta, Oregon, USA
Posts: 201
The Original Instag8or should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridThe Original Instag8or should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purist View Post
In addition, many road cars would be unreasonably, aerodynamically unstable at race speeds.
Not meaning to be argumentative, but ANY modern full size sedan would be aerodynamically superior to those models that they did use back when they did use stock body panels:

early Superspeedway cars, circa 1959:Thunderbird, Plymouth Fury, Impala, Pontiac Catalina

1960s: Galaxie, Impala, Fury, Coronet

mid 1970s: Monte Carlo, Thunderbird, Charger, Cutlass

1980s: Monte Carlo, Thunderbird, Grand Prix, Regal, Grand Prix

You compare what those cars looked like, some boxes, some with tail fins and deep body line creases, all with huge bumpers... then you have today's modern sedan that has been designed from inception in a wind tunnel. I am pretty sure that today's stock body would be a bit better than the 1959 Fury or 1964 Impala or 1979 Monte Carlo.
The Original Instag8or is offline  
__________________
Ever read a thread and think "I better not post here"?
Quote
Old 30 Apr 2012, 02:24 (Ref:3067231)   #9
Purist
Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
United States
Wichita, Kansas, USA
Posts: 5,892
Purist is going for a new world record!Purist is going for a new world record!Purist is going for a new world record!Purist is going for a new world record!Purist is going for a new world record!Purist is going for a new world record!
A lot of the thing with those older cars was just how far off the ground they were. Sure, they were draggy in their own ways, with blunt front ends (some of them), the fins (particularly those on the front fenders), and having all that air going underneath.

Today's cars are smoother in some ways, which helps with drag. However, as far as the blunt face of bodywork on the front, it's taller now than it was then, with that front airdam coming up to the top of the hood, and then the tall, not-so-raked windshield above that. Also, I bet those old fastbacks and coupes had less separation drag off the back of the cab compared with today's NASCAR cars. The spoiler used to be smaller, or way back when, was non-existent, and that adds a fair amount of drag, as do those strakes and things up on the roof of today's machines.

Much of the aim with today's road cars is drag reduction, at least until you get to the rear drop-off of the car. The thing is, a number of those smoothing methods lead to lift production. Smoother, swoopier fenders, which also can be used in a more toned down form just to allow for big, flashy wheels, help make lift. One of the biggest things now is to put smooth panels on the undertray. However, this makes the entire car act more like an airplane wing. The air going underneath then has a shorter path, and can go slower, increasing the upward pressure on the floor. The cab on any sedan forces the main airstream over the top to travel farther, and so it has to go faster, which means it is applying less downward pressure on the vehicle.

Also, eliminating some of that space under the rear on the CoT, which would catch air when the old car was backwards and cause lift-off, increases separation drag at the back of the car. Those 1930s and '40s coupes with those nice slopes down off the back had much less drag in this particular area.

One major thing that you don't think much about, but becomes very apparent in a side-by-side, is that cars of a given class have gotten steadily bigger over the decades. If you want a really good example of this, look at an old Mini Cooper, and compare it to the new Mini; the old one looks tiny. Bigger means more frontal area, which means more inherent drag.

During testing a few months back, it was estimated that today's car, unrestricted, would do around 216-mph average at the two plate tracks. Remember that Bill Elliott set the records at those two tracks in his Thunderbird in 1987 at 210.3-mph (Daytona) and 212.8-mph (Talladega). Unrestricted power since then has gone from 650-850hp or so. Based on those figures, a car with the same drag as that 1987 Thunderbird, but with the new generation of engines, should be able to average around 240-mph at the plate tracks. These are somewhat rough calculations, but that sort of a speed differential at those already high speeds says that the CoT makes ~23% more drag than was the case with that 1987 Thunderbird Elliott was driving.
Purist is offline  
__________________
The only certainty is that nothing is certain.
Quote
Old 30 Apr 2012, 17:18 (Ref:3067547)   #10
Flyin Ryan
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
United States
Carolina del Norte
Posts: 944
Flyin Ryan should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
The reason for all the 1.5s is (per a Humpy Wheeler interview once) it gives you the best balance of maximizing the number of fans that can watch and they can still see the full track unless you're one of the guys that bought seats in the bottom 5 rows.

There is a disconnect between what NASCAR markets itself as and what it really presents, and the Texas race was very much what they don't market. The problem for NASCAR is they don't want to be perceived as a sport for rednecks because they want to be marketable nationally and to sponsors, but their biggest highlights is stuff like rough-and-tumble at Bristol plus big crashes at Talladega.

There's nothing they can do about it now. Even the repavings won't do much. They're locked into their schedule with how the series' dates are distributed to ISC and SMI and the only way they'll change is when lack of ticket sales at existing dates dictate it and ISC or SMI decide to move the date "in house", which is not a good solution either.

The cars are very aerodynamically sensitive for speed but that means on anything over a mile, it's not in your interest to bump and grind. Although I think a lot of this is overstated, you can watch a NASCAR Winston Cup race from Michigan in 1992 and they didn't bump and grind then either. What has changed from 1992 to now is we have better drivers, better teams, more well-prepared cars, and a few dates on the schedule have been taken from rough-and-tumble tracks and gone to smooth big tracks with little car-on-car interaction such as Texas, Fontana, Kansas, etc.

Changes from '92 schedule to now:

Gone: 2 x Rockingham, 1 x Atlanta, 1 x Darlington, 2 x North Wilkesboro

Added: 1 x Phoenix, 1 x Las Vegas, 1 x Fontana, 2 x Texas, 2 x Kansas, 1 x Indianapolis, 1 x Kentucky, 2 x Loudon, 1 x Chicagoland, 1 x Homestead

1. 7 more races on the schedule (from 29 to 36).
2. All the dates left the Southeast.
3. You look at all the tracks that came on, only three of those tracks predated the 1990s expansion of track building: Indianapolis obviously, Phoenix which already had a Cup date, and the 3rd was Loudon which was opened in 1990.
4. Not so coincidentally, of the dates that came in (removing Indy since it's an anomaly for this discussion) Phoenix and Loudon are the only ones smaller than a 1.5-mile oval, which speaks to how general the new tracks being made were which speaks to the corporate-style building of them done by ISC, SMI, and Penske. No track-building corporation today aims to build a Darlington or Pocono (or an Indianapolis for that matter). Penske when he built Fontana intentionally made it as close to Michigan as he could.

Last edited by Flyin Ryan; 30 Apr 2012 at 17:39.
Flyin Ryan is offline  
Quote
Old 2 May 2012, 18:01 (Ref:3068394)   #11
Purist
Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
United States
Wichita, Kansas, USA
Posts: 5,892
Purist is going for a new world record!Purist is going for a new world record!Purist is going for a new world record!Purist is going for a new world record!Purist is going for a new world record!Purist is going for a new world record!
I could see some restructuring. Some of those farther-flung places aren't drawing, and there certainly is demand in the middle and the east. Rockingham is back on the Trucks calendar, so who knows. Also, most of the major ovals Cup isn't going to currently are shorter than 1.5 miles. Memphis and Gateway are back up and running. Also, I don't see Cup adding another road race in reality, so maybe Milwaukee could be an option.

This is just personal preference, but if they're going to have two races in Texas, I kind of wish they would do one at Forth Worth, and have the other at College Station (Texas World Speedway); TWS might even have to be a plate race given the size of the track and the banking there (2.0-mile oval with 22-degree turns).

NASCAR is going to have to make some changes, whether they want to or not; I just wish they could start making some of the right ones, because doing play-offs, and re-jigging the points system as they have, has NOT done the trick. Neither is redoing tracks to have higher banking when the racing could be perfectly good on the tracks as they were/are. They ouled up with the points system, and now the guys can't afford to be so aggressive on-track, so we all pay the price in terms of actual racing.
Purist is offline  
__________________
The only certainty is that nothing is certain.
Quote
Old 5 May 2012, 04:51 (Ref:3069561)   #12
The Original Instag8or
Racer
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
United States
Veneta, Oregon, USA
Posts: 201
The Original Instag8or should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridThe Original Instag8or should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
^ You touched a nerve there, Purist. Point racing hurts the races.

I think much of the "boring" racing is due to worries about points risks. And the media doesn't help as they tend to focus too much on the Championship and less on each individual race. The Chase further compounds the issue, as people start worrying about points in July and August rather than October and November. When focusing on potential point loss, drivers make less risks, resulting in more following and less passing.

Seeing as Bristol and Richmond wrap up the regular season, the focus on "making the Chase" has taken most of the bump n run type action away, and some fans with it.

<rant over
The Original Instag8or is offline  
__________________
Ever read a thread and think "I better not post here"?
Quote
Old 5 May 2012, 14:22 (Ref:3069833)   #13
NaBUru38
Veteran
 
NaBUru38's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Uruguay
Las Canteras, Uruguay
Posts: 10,352
NaBUru38 is going for a new world record!NaBUru38 is going for a new world record!NaBUru38 is going for a new world record!NaBUru38 is going for a new world record!NaBUru38 is going for a new world record!NaBUru38 is going for a new world record!NaBUru38 is going for a new world record!
If the points scale was 100-70-60-50-40, then drivers would drive to win.
NaBUru38 is offline  
__________________
Nitropteron - Fly fast or get crushed!
by NaBUrean Prodooktionz
naburu38.itch.io
Quote
Old 10 May 2012, 17:03 (Ref:3072327)   #14
Flyin Ryan
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
United States
Carolina del Norte
Posts: 944
Flyin Ryan should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by NaBUru38 View Post
If the points scale was 100-70-60-50-40, then drivers would drive to win.
And the fans would then complain that the season is over by August. The year Kenseth won the title which was the last year before the Chase, fans everywhere griped about the championship being a formality. Some of this is the echo chamber of moron racefans on the internet complain about what they want changed, they get it, and then they don't like what they got and blame the rulesmakers. Which reminds me of this quote on politics:

"Democracy is the theory the common man knows what he wants and he deserves to get it good and hard."

Quote:
Purist: I could see some restructuring. Some of those farther-flung places aren't drawing, and there certainly is demand in the middle and the east.
An ISC date is only moving to an ISC track and an SMI date is only moving to an SMI track. I'm willing to bet anyone 50 gazillion dollars on that.

Quote:
Rockingham is back on the Trucks calendar, so who knows.
Trucks are a series that struggles for dates and crowds and they found someone to pay the sanctioning fee in Hillenburg, and since it's owned by Hillenburg, that means neither SMI or ISC own it.

On this argument, you're better off trying to tell Bernie he should reduce the sanctioning fee he asks for so they can race at Spa every year. Yes, it's what every racefan wants, but they don't make the decisions.

Quote:
They fouled up with the points system, and now the guys can't afford to be so aggressive on-track, so we all pay the price in terms of actual racing.
The points system they have now if you dissect it is effectively the same as the one they had since the 1970s. The only real difference was the minimum value then was higher (which that change greatly reduces the value of results for start-and-parkers, something I think everyone agrees with), the credit for leading a lap has been slightly reduced, and you were mostly increasing by three instead of one (which means nothing).

You can make an Excel spreadsheet and do points in the old system compared to now for the same race results this year and you'll see hardly any difference in placement except for the start-and-parkers. That's true for most points systems actually.

Last edited by Flyin Ryan; 10 May 2012 at 17:14.
Flyin Ryan is offline  
Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The "4 New Tracks A Month" Movement (a desperate attempt to revive My Tracks) bio My Track Designs 36 8 Apr 2015 02:55
Complaints from a new user about a specific thread Firestone Marshals Forum 3 14 Sep 2006 15:46
Official Big Kev Complaints Thread Crash Test Australasian Touring Cars. 26 27 Jul 2005 11:56
[LM24] Complaints to the BBC about Le Mans coverage JAG 24 Heures du Mans 23 23 Jun 2003 17:21
What tracks has everyone been to? Lars NASCAR & Stock Car Racing 29 1 Apr 2002 23:11


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:58.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Original Website Copyright © 1998-2003 Craig Antil. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2004-2021 Royalridge Computing. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2021-2022 Grant MacDonald. All Rights Reserved.