Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lol. Yeah, I dont think you can really call it "stock car" racing anymore.
Stock cars are named like that for the same reason fberglass tube frame sports cars are called "production" class racers in SCCA. They vaguely resemble the full fendered production cars. In NASCAR, the Stock cars are differentiated in the same way from modifieds and Super Modifieds, both of which have progresively less bodywork on them, and progressively less stock in the layout (Super modifieds have their engines way offset and canted over).
stock car:
modified:
Super Modified:
And I like spec series, from NASCAR to Spec Miata, to Spec RX7, to just about every Formula car class, where the DRIVER makes the difference. I'm a driver, not a car, and I follow drivers, and appreciate talent rising to the top. Taking production out of it (at the lower levels at least), takes money out of it, so you don't have some talentless asshat simply buying the newest, trickest ride and winning. (like happens in autocross often enough).
my theory about all the NASCAR hate is that it comes down to the fact that most of their races are run on ovals (anyone can do it, right??? ask Indy 500 winner, CART series champ, and former F1 race winner Juan Pablo Montoya how easy it is to win on ovals in full fendered cars...) and are more popular in the USA than the next 10 biggest professional race series combined.
Ovals work real good for small town racing at fairgrounds. They are easy to set up and easy for the spectator to see the entire track. Same reason the Romans set up colesseums that way for chariot racing. Same reason track and field running tracks are set up that way. And bicycle velodromes.
then there is the elitist angle- people tend to look down on anything related to the South as being something only ignorant redneck hillbillies could possibly like.
This is a serious question. After all, there are a number of racing specs and series out there, all of whom claim manufacturers should participate because it helps to advance automotive technologies. But while FIA's various races specify 4 cylinder engines with direct injection, turbocharging, advanced transmissions and suspensions, NASCAR is specifying pushrod V8 engines, recirculating ball steering, 4 speed manual transmissions (not 5, 6, or 8, four, and carburetors up to this year, when they finally adopted port fuel injection as the market moves on to DI.
So tell me, other than putting really fast relatively primitive cars into a small box so they can crash into each other and sell concessions, what purpose does NASCAR serve?
It is called...entertainment....just like any of the other sporting venues out there. People like it .. they pay the bills...there you go.
It's also not very competitive. I havent watched an F1 race in since Schumacher was driving and it was sooooo boring. Schumacher and his teammate [cant remember his name] would gap the rest of the field by like half a lap. They're absolutely incredible machines but the racing is uncompetitive and boring.
Don't remember his name... You are clearly not a F1 fan.
Yes, F1 can be competitive:
2012:
The first 7 races all had different winners: Button (McLaren), Alonso (Ferrari), Rosberg (Mercedes), Vettel (Red Bull), Maldonado (Williams), Webber (Red Bull), Hamilton (McLaren). Alonso and Vettel were fighting for the championship title until the very last race in Brazil. Vettel won the championship title by only 3 points.
2010:
Only 16 points separated the top 5 drivers after the last race. 1st = 25 points, 2nd = 18 points, and so on. Vettel won the championship title by only 4 points.
2008:
Hamilton won the championship by only 1 point.
2007:
Räikkönen won the championship by only 1 point to Hamilton and Alonso (109 points each).
You probably watched the 2004 season. Schumi won 13 out of 18 races. That season was a massive snooze-fest. The same goes for the 2011 season. Vettel dominated from start (Australia) to end (Brazil)
Stock cars are named like that for the same reason fberglass tube frame sports cars are called "production" class racers in SCCA. They vaguely resemble the full fendered production cars. In NASCAR, the Stock cars are differentiated in the same way from modifieds and Super Modifieds, both of which have progresively less bodywork on them, and progressively less stock in the layout (Super modifieds have their engines way offset and canted over).
It used to be stock cars were "stock" cars. "Modifieds" were heavily modified cars, etc etc. Now it's just pathetic to call them "stock." They're not remotely "stock."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merc63
Ovals work real good for small town racing at fairgrounds. They are easy to set up and easy for the spectator to see the entire track. Same reason the Romans set up colesseums that way for chariot racing. Same reason track and field running tracks are set up that way. And bicycle velodromes.
In other words, ovals work real good for sticking people in a box and selling concessions at a 300% markup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merc63
then there is the elitist angle- people tend to look down on anything related to the South as being something only ignorant redneck hillbillies could possibly like.
Well, tube frame, fiberglass replica bodies was not what SCCA Production class cars were opriginally intended to be, but as racing had progressed, it's where they ended up: nowhere near production.
I mean, NASCAR racers were originally cars of the '40s, too, that were slower than today's basic midsize sedan. Should they still be cars of the '40s?
Quote:
"Modifieds" were heavily modified cars, etc etc. Now it's just pathetic to call them "stock." They're not remotely "stock."
*sigh* as I said, they are stock in NASCAR the same way that "production" is in SCCA. They resemble the full fendered stock vehicles more than the open wheel modifieds and formula cars or prototypes. As speeds increased and the dangers of completely stock vehicles was exposed for what it was, NASCAR and SCCA changed the rules to make the cars safer. Thus, tube frame, silhouette bodied race cars. And if you paid attention, this started in the '50s in NASCAR, and by the early '60s, you had cars that were 7/8ths replicas of the stock vehicles running mostly gutted, semi-tube frome cars with altered aero.
Some people simply can't get more than two brain cells at work on the concept of " stock" in relationship to circle track.
It means full bodied. Period. Do ytou have more than two working brain cells? Then it should be easy for you to get it. Harping on that point after it is explained to you is just saying "I want to be closed minded and hateful just to say I can be."
Quote:
In other words, ovals work real good for sticking people in a box and selling concessions at a 300% markup.
They are really good at letting the spectator see the whole event, just like those other sports I mentioned. And work in the limited real estate of a county fairgrounds. Does it really cost a lot to see an event at a county fairgrounds these days? Not that I've seen.
Why hate on only NASCAR? Why not hate on the Romans, track and field, cycling, etc? Why not fill your world with irrational hatred and dislike of everything just so you can feel superior to those that do like them?
Quote:
Your words, not mine.
If you can't recognize smarmy sarcasm designed to express what my feelings towards the sort of elitist trash that would say something like that in seriousness, then I can't help you.
By the way, there's a LOT of spec class and formula class racing out there. What sort of production car does this resemble?:
But, NASCAR isn't a Spec class, where a spec car had to be purchased from a single manufacturer and controlled ie. sealed engines etc. NASCAR is closer to a formula... the car has be built a certain way to certain dimensions,but NASCAR doesn't build the car. Makes NASCAR closer to Formula 1 and Formula 1 closer to NASCAR than the purists would like to admit.
All "Top-Tier" levels of motorsport require an insane amount of skill to just qualify, let alone considered as competitive, or a winner.
I know NASCAR racing takes a very skilled driver to win against everyone else, in damned near identical cars, on a big open circuit. You have to have your line down to a science. Your braking for your corner entry has to be perfect, or you're just an also-ran.
I've crewed for a local circle track team as well as a local road racing formula car team. I've drivn formula cars, prototypes, and even a rallye car (SCCA Pro Rally Mazda RX2). I've never driven a NASCAR vehicle, but I've been to the races and from what I've experienced in local circle track, know what it takes to be successful at the pro level. I love ALMS road racing as well. Why? I love motorsport, of all kinds, from NASCAR down to a local autocross event. And I have for over 45 years. (my first exposure to motorsports was watching on TV the Ford GT40s run at Le Mans).
Well, tube frame, fiberglass replica bodies was not what SCCA Production class cars were opriginally intended to be, but as racing had progressed, it's where they ended up: nowhere near production.
I mean, NASCAR racers were originally cars of the '40s, too, that were slower than today's basic midsize sedan. Should they still be cars of the '40s?
It'd be a lot more interesting to watch, I'd say that much.
Whatever you might have changed the definition to NOW in order to keep the "heritage" name, this is what this stuff meant when the race was born. But these days they just want to hang on to tradition without actually honoring it. Which I find annoying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merc63
Why hate on only NASCAR? Why not hate on the Romans, track and field, cycling, etc? Why not fill your world with irrational hatred and dislike of everything just so you can feel superior to those that do like them?
Because to you my hatred of F1 is not irrational, it's justified. I don't particularly like F1 either, for similar reasons, though there is a little more flexibility in the hardware specifications, and they get to turn right, and they don't pretend to be cars you can buy in a showroom. But other than that I also find F1 to be pretty boring. Rally racing is better, though I think the Super2000 spec homogenized WRC a little much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merc63
But, NASCAR isn't a Spec class, where a spec car had to be purchased from a single manufacturer and controlled ie. sealed engines etc. NASCAR is closer to a formula... the car has be built a certain way to certain dimensions,but NASCAR doesn't build the car. Makes NASCAR closer to Formula 1 and Formula 1 closer to NASCAR than the purists would like to admit.
Granted but the fanboys of each will never admit to that, so we may as well get over it.
Stock cars are named like that for the same reason fberglass tube frame sports cars are called "production" class racers in SCCA.
I always thought E, F, G, and H production cars were not tube frame but just had a roll cage welded to the stock frame of the MGB, Fiat or whatever, though I may be wrong (I'll have to look up the rules). I know the GT1, GT2, GT3, and the Formula classes (Atlantic, Ford, Continental, V) are tube frame but then again they are obviously not production/stock cars and, as NPaladin pointed out "they don't pretend to be cars you can buy in a showroom". Regardless, that NASCAR Toyota Camry bares little resemblance to the ones at the dealership.
It's also not very competitive. I havent watched an F1 race in since Schumacher was driving and it was sooooo boring. Schumacher and his teammate [cant remember his name] would gap the rest of the field by like half a lap. They're absolutely incredible machines but the racing is uncompetitive and boring.
I watched F1 races for many years, but shortly after Ayrton Senna died it got boring for me. I find F1 bike racing a lot more entertaining than car FI, but these days I watch NASCAR and Indy car racing.
I grew up in Berwick, Penna, home of Jimmy Spencer, and am the right age to remember the earliest national TV broadcasts of NASCAR events in the early Sixties. To say it caught on fast in these parts is an understatement. I'm also old enough to remember that period a few years later when every form of auto racing was growing too fast, and all of them lost some great divers in the pursuit of too much -- too fast..
During the period 1963-1966, the attempt to "keep a stock a stock" also had some crazy repercussions. Chrysler's "hemi-head" engine was so dominant in '64 that it was banned the following year, causing Mopar to pack up and leave for the '65 season. I suspect that this politicization of the sport increased the pressure to standardize and equalize the various makes.
There's no doubt in my mind that the NASCAR brain trust has been conditioned to market the sport more as entertainment than competition. But I think it's worth noting that the doping scandals in baseball, the strike/lockout in hockey, and the various troubles of football at both the college and pro levels has cast a similar pall over those venues. I can't offer an answer to the apparent "induced blandness" of all professional sport, but there ought to be enough tradition to build upon and weather the storm until the next big shakeup.
Personally, I think it's most important to preserve the history of how it all got started. When Banjo Matthews, who did about as much for racing safety as anyone, passed on, now some sixteen years ago, even so high-brow an institution as National Public Radio was astute enough to note his loss. That tells me that this experiment called NASCAR won't be dismissed anytime soon.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 01-24-2013 at 05:08 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't particularly like F1 either, for similar reasons, though there is a little more flexibility in the hardware specifications, and they get to turn right, and they don't pretend to be cars you can buy in a showroom. But other than that I also find F1 to be pretty boring. Rally racing is better, though I think the Super2000 spec homogenized WRC a little much. 
