Tim Shelton <noemail1543 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in
news:0lcse5pjcje96tg15m8hmcq73co48eo5ie (AT) ccr (DOT) org:

Neither am I (nor pretty much anyone else), but without either
eliminating or radically changing Daytona and Talladega, there
is no good alternative.

Disagree with this...a better solution would be to return to a
stock appearing body.

I agree with the first and third. On downforce, the goal needs to
be eliminating it, which is easiest done by requiring the stock
body, with very small and tightly controlled spoiler/air dam added
on to control high-speed lift.

I agree to the extent that there needs to be much less regulation
of the motor. For simplicity and cost reasons, I'd require 6 or
8 cylinders (no exotic V-12 or V-16 designs), iron block, no
titanium, etc. I'd go to a smaller displacement, maybe 265 cid.
I'm not sure if I'd require cam-in-block or allow OHC.

Doesn't make any difference to me if they stay carb or go FI.
The results will be the same either way.

Disagree with this one - I think this is one of the worst ideas
NASCAR has had. I'd leave ratios, both transmission and rear gear,
open to the teams. If they want to shift, go for it.

No problem with this one.

Basically, where you're heading with your list (and where NASCAR
should be heading, if they didn't have such a complex about
"being in charge") is for the rules to cover safety aspects,
and leave performance (within broad limits) up to the teams.
Which is how it once was, and how it should be.

John

"John McCoy" <igopogo (AT) ix (DOT) netcom.com> wrote

Yes there is. NASCAR could mandate the final drive gear number. Like if a
4.11 gear would yield 190 MPH at 9500 RPM they would have a deal with no
intake manifold plate.

"RickyBobby" <nascar42 (AT) cox (DOT) net> wrote in
news:J4HHm.16$0U4.3 (AT) newsfe16 (DOT) iad:

And then everyone would go precisely 190 mph. And what,
exactly, would that solve?

John

John McCoy wrote:
Smaller lower HP engines for Dega and Daytona.

TS02_05champ <tonystewart02_05champ (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in news:4aef7171$0
$5681$9a6e19ea (AT) unlimited (DOT) newshosting.com:

Like I said to Ricky Bobby, how exactly is that going to help?
You've got 440hp now, and everyone runs nose-to-tail at 191mph
in one massive pack. Give em a 2liter V6 from a Camry or Accord,
they'll make 300hp, and run nose-to-tail at 176mph. They'll
still be in one huge pack with no-one able to pass anyone else
without bump drafting, and 15 car wrecks, and all the other
evils of plate racing. Just without the plate.

John

John McCoy wrote:
Seems the only solution is to change the track:

I suggest they eliminate the backstretch and connect turn 2 to 3 using
Talladega Blvd, see attached:
http://www.indux.com/map/talledaga_tn.gif


As far as Daytona goes, it's not so bad there since it's more of a
handling track. The pack seems to break away at the front eventually.
The late race caution for the sake of the "show" is usually when the big
ones happen there.

"Chuck Steak" <chuck_steak (AT) nospam (DOT) com> wrote

That'd werk fer me!

--
Tom in Bristol

John McCoy wrote:
I 'think' one of the problems with the plates is that they are choking the
engines to the point where they accelerate at a crawl near the top end. (is
that lack of torque?)

Maybe a V6, using it's full capacity, would have a power range that works
better at the top end, and improve the racing.

--
Chad

"Chad" <cbstun (AT) safemail (DOT) com> wrote in news:4aefeeb0 (AT) news (DOT) x-privat.org:

That's true, but incidental to the problem at hand

Going off on an aside, you can say lack of torque if you want,
or you can say lack of power, it's the same thing. Power is torque
times rpm. At any particular speed, it takes a certain amount of
power to overcome rolling and wind resistance. If you have more
than that certain amount of power, then you accellerate until you
reach the speed where the amount of power required matchs the amount
you have. You pick your gearing so the torque times rpm gives you
the power for the highest speed.

You'll sometimes hear motor folk say "torque gives you accelleration,
power gives you speed". What they're talking about there is two
different things, namely peak torque (which happens fairly low in
the rpm range) and peak power (which happens near the top of the
rpm range - even tho the engine makes less torque, the rpm increase
faster than the torque declines, so rpm x torque makes a bigger
number). Since you usually start accellerating from a fairly low
rpm, the peak torque number gives a better indication of how the
car will accellerate than the peak power.

Nope. The problem here isn't one of accelleration, the problem is
that everyone runs all the way around the race track wide open
(except when they're backing out of the throttle to avoid bumping
the guy in front and getting a NASCAR penalty). Throttle response
doesn't make any difference if you're not moving the throttle.
As long as the speed which the cars can go thru the turns is greater
than the speed the power of the engines can produce you're going to
have everyone running in a pack at the same speed.

John

John McCoy wrote:
I've seen quite a few people suggesting the new 1/64th smaller restrictor
plate bunched up the pack even more. Do you think that's true? (I guess
not?) I've wondered a few times why people think that, and thought my theory
about top end power being the issue might have been part of the answer.

Another question for anyone. Why do they need to restrict the engines all
the way down to 440hp when the trucks run the track with 650hp? Taking 400hp
out of the Cup engine to drop 15-20mph off the top end speed sounds like
more than I would have ever guessed would be needed. That's near 50% of the
total HP needed to get the last 10% of top speed out of the car.

And an extra one, and I'm sure it's been suggested in the past, but wouldn't
mandating a high diff ratio for Dega be a better way to contain top end
speed than the plate anyway?

--
Chad