What Nascar needs to do is put the "stock" back in stock car racing. When was
the last time you saw a 2 door coupe with V8 and rear wheel drive as a
production car? 10 years? 15 years?? They nees to make the engines be dohc V6,
no larger than 3.5 liters, with FI. The restrictor plate can be the throttle
body used for the FI. ON a regular track, maybe 65mm and 55mm on a super open
track. Winston cup has too much HP. they need to slow down if they want to save
lives.My $.02
Bill Schmidt C stock RX7
>>> "Mark J. Andy" <marka@telerama.com> 02/24/01 05:58PM >>>
Howdy,
On Sat, 24 Feb 2001, ds_schwabe wrote:
> I too would hope that NASCAR is only putting this on the face of the safety
> topic and are *truly* doing things behind the scenes to improve safety.
> However, I firmly believe this is Not the case. Why? Very little action on
> their part... CART and F1 have studied it and made implementations... NASCAR
> puts a kill switch on the floorboard. They have their heads stuck in the
> Daytona beach sand.
And, of course, the only acceptable outcome of research is changes, right?
What if the research shows that there's no perceptible difference among
the options?
> I hear everyone (Jerry Punch, all the NASCAR lackeys) say that "Safety is
> Number 1 in NASCAR" and "NASCAR makes the safest racecars in the world." Um,
> ok... that's why we keep burying these guys, right. Racing obviously is
> inherently dangerous, but NASCAR has to bust out their big $$ and truly take
> the lead. Prove it through actions, not merely saying "Safety is No. 1."
Ok, everyone keeps comparing NASCAR safety to CART and F1... Just outta
curiosity, anyone got any specs on the length of races, average number of
incidents per race, average number of competitors per track mile, etc?
Because until you start looking at that sorta thing, comparisons of the
safety gear is useless.
Regular highway safety is pretty good too. Let's mandate 3 point belts!
> Another claim they make is that they want to watch costs... for the
> competitors, like in the case of aluminum seats. I know that Scott Pruett
> wanted to use a carbon seat last year, but Nascar mandates aluminum. Now,
> virtually every other series in the world uses carbon seats, but not Nascar.
> They claim alloy is better because of cost. Well, let's face it, these guys
> do not go down to Racer Wholesale and get the $100 seat. They spend big $$
> to get it to fit them exactly, and to have it customized with the features
> they want. By the time they are done, they probably spent what they would've
> on carbon.
? What the heck does that have to do with anything? How is a carbon seat
(aside from being flamable and much less maleable(sp)) any better than an
AL seat from a safety perspective?
> Bottom line: they can keep the cars the way they look on the outside, and
> keep using the low-tech components that they do (in comparison to CART,
> F1)... inside, however, there is no reason they have to resemble stock cars
> of 5, 10 or 15 years ago. There is enough $$ and interest in the sport to
> make these things the safest, most high-tech interiors of any sedan series
> in the world. No more excuses.
After you prove that the interiors are any less safe than any other in the
world, that statement might make some sense. Right now its hogwash.
Look, IMHO what NASCAR oughta be concentrating on is how to keep a
crapload of 3000 lb (or whatever) vehicles on an oval track from having to
run inches apart for an entire race. I don't care _what_ safety gear you
have, at 180 mph there's enough energy to kill with ease.
Mark
|