http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...rging_gas.html

On May 21, 12:01 am, darvi... (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote:
Though the article is intended to be humorous, I think shortening up
some of the races, say, California, Pocono, 1 Texas date, the fall
Charlotte race, makes some pretty good sense.

Especially given the number of cautions that tend to occur these days.
Races tend to be much longer than they used to be because of it. Case
in point:

2007 Darlington race length: 4:01
1967 Darlington race length: 3:50

2006 Coca Cola 600 4:39
1967 World 600 4:25

Amazing, isn't it? The time it takes to complete the same distance
seems to have went up over the past 40 years, despite much faster and
more dependable race cars.

Satire is great stuff....especially when it is subtle enough to pass off as
truth.

<darvijen (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

! wrote:

That's only 4% longer.

"much faster"......... hardly, cars were going 200MPH back then too. Now
that's amazing, I bet there aren't many racers today that have big enough
nads to go 200MPH in a real stock car. ;-)

Satire aside, I've said here before that in my lifetime, I expect all NASCAR
Cup races to be at night and to be changed from 500 miles to fit into
prime-time slots.


<darvijen (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

"Greg Bailey" <nowhereman (AT) nowhereland (DOT) org> wrote

100 laps or 2 hours, whichever comes first.
Please don't go there NA$CAr.
CRU

On Mon, 21 May 2007 15:09:49 -0400, "Crusader" <cru357 (AT) sbcglobal (DOT) net>
wrote:


NASCAR had it right when all races were either 500 miles or
500 laps, whichever was the least. But now we have so many young
people that can't maintain thier own focus for more than a very short
time span and now cry for shorter races. What I don't understand, is
if they want shorter races, why don't they go to the local tracks that
run shorter races or go to sprint cars, but leave NASCAR races alone!

On May 21, 1:18 pm, "Anthony Fremont" <any... (AT) nospam (DOT) com> wrote:
With all the new technology, they should be able to complete a race
faster, not slower. It's not like there was some ridiculously long
caution period for something.

They may have been able to get up to 200 mph, but they had nowhere
near the acceleration and top speed that the present cars do today.
They certainly couldn't have averaged over 231 mph, like Rusty Wallace
did at that Talladega test without the plate a while back. Nor were
they as aerodynamic as the cars of today. Put the car that won the
1967 race on the track with the car of 2007, and the 2007 car would
smoke the 1967 car.