For those who bash NASCAR's technology (a must read for open wheel-only fans)

[Joe Fan]

As much as the "F1/CART-only" crowd loves to bash NASCAR for its relatively low technology and as much as they claim that NASCAR is a "lower formulae", have they ever stopped to think that any open wheel series is conceptually based on late 1800's technology? I mean come on think about it. The first passenger cars ever produced were open wheel cars in the late 1800's which gradually were phased out design-wise to the more modern closed wheel, enclosed driver compartment production models by the 1940's. Open wheel race cars with open cockpits are a recipe for accidents and driver fatalties and probably should have slowly disappeared over time.

Why should we keep accepting drivers like Gonzalo Rodriguez and Greg Moore being killed because the open cockpit of these cars provide little protection to the heads of the drivers when the car turns over or lands upside down? Critics can badmouth high speed ovals but Gonzalo was killed on a road course and CART officials confirmed that Greg Moore's head never hit the infield wall in his fatal crash at California, so any situation where a Champ car overturns at high speed would allow the same scenario. And note that at this year's Le Mans race, a driver whose car flipped up in the air at a very high rate of speed, landed in some trees and the driver walked away unharmed. Come on, we are entering the 21st century why are these series so popular and still using a basic late 1800's design concept? Personally, I don't like seeing drivers getting their head rammed into the ground and their arms flailling out of the car in accidents. Are we such a sick and twisted society to fanatically continue to patronize these series that have cars with open cockpits without demanding major safety reforms? And to think that we are supposed to be entering the space age and that we should be a more advanced civilization after 100 years.

And I also hear critics say that NASCAR is an artificially competitive, contrived series. What series is more artificial and contrived really? I would have to say just about any open wheel series because what is the likelihood of me being able to buy and own a car with a V10 or V12 engine, without fenders, with an open driver compartment and with a huge wing mounted on the back of the car? (And by the way, wings are a late 1960's invention that disappeared from production model cars in the early 70's--see they are still clinging to outdated 1960's technology just like NASCAR.) At least NASCAR uses V8 engines and has mounted 5-6 inch spoilers on their deck lids. Something that you can still buy off the showroom floor today and at least NASCAR stock cars resemble their production model counterparts.

Another point I would like to bring up is how much of the cutting edge technology used in F1 aerodynamics can really be applied to modern cars? It seems to me that the $150-200 million dollars that the top F1 teams spend each year is a waste since F1 offers very little useful technology in the real world unless the speed limits are raised to 200mph. I would say that NASCAR makes greater strides in this area as experimentation on stock car aerodynamics can and is being applied to modern cars today to improve fuel mileage and to cut down on wind noise in the driver compartment.

I really feel deep down that open wheel cars are really lower formulae even though I know that it is not actually the case. Open wheel series should be training ground for closed wheel series. Why? Because it is easier to find the proper apex of a turn in an open wheel car than in a closed wheel car. A case in point was with arguably the greatest F1 driver of all-time, Juan Manuel Fangio, who complained about not being able to see the turns in his streamlined version of the W196C Mercedes-Benz car (the one that looked like a sports car) as he subsequently hit a number of oil drums that marked the course. Training-wise, open wheel cars serve a good learning tool for drivers when move up to race enclosed wheel, enclosed cockpit cars where they can't see their front wheels. It also teaches young drivers how to make clean passes because when two open wheel cars enter a corner, one has to lift sooner than in an enclosed wheel car to avoid potential wheel contact that could put both cars in the wall. Once they master this type of racing, then they can move up to enclosed wheel cars where fender to fender, door slamming passes are made and involve more car control skill. I mean really does anyone like to hear Paul Tracy and Michael Andretti whine about eachother all the time after wrecks when one tries to outbrake the other? I don't.

So why is there all this fascination with open wheel cars? In the U.S., NASCAR has leapfrogged over all open wheel series here for a multitude of reasons (more exciting on track product, the IRL-CART split, no recent spectator fatalities, etc.) but I would bet mainly it was due to the cars having more modern designs that fans can actually relate to. Why hasn't stock cars, rally cars, sports cars or touring cars done the same on the other side of the Atlantic?

Don't you think it is time for the "open wheel only" fans to shed the late 1800's technology and join the more civilized and advanced motorsports world of enclosed wheel racing? Just a thought.



[This message has been edited by Joe Fan (edited 24 December 1999).]

[Gerard]

Joe Fan, you are a true fan of NASCAR.
In your post you definitely expressed your love for this kind of motorsport.
And I can only have a lot of respect for someone who speakes out so clearly.
But please, do not throw all open wheel fans on one heap.
There are open wheel fans who love NASCAR too, like I do.
I will never say anything denigrating about NASCAR, because it's racing, and racing is what I like to watch.
Unfortunately, I can only watch it on Eurosport and they don't even broadcast every race.
As a matter of fact, in the future I'm planning to visit the USA, and one thing I will definitely do is visit a Winston Cup race.
Some people may say racing in the USA, and especially NASCAR is not really racing, but more of a family entertainment show.
I do not agree with them, and even if this were true, so what?
NASCAR is entertaining and exciting and whenever I see the start of a race, with 200.000 plus spectators getting out of their seats and cheering, I wish I could be there.

Gerard.

[Invader]

What Gerard said

[Megatron]

It certainly is debatable to say that F1 technology does not get used in street production.

I remember BMW did a whole program talking about how thier F1 program directly speed up their street car performance (they were the same engine block), particurally in the electroincs of all around performance of the engine.

Renault developed engine mapping and stuck it on their road cars in the 1980's. Do I really need to mention traction control and ABS sysyems?

[Redneck]

Real men race on two wheels!!!

If safety, and lethality are going to be the driving force behind eliminating a race series, then motorcycles are out the door.

The Isle of Man has hosted motorcycle racing since before WWI. It is the last true bastion of pure roadracing. Since the beginning this event has averaged two deaths per year. Top professional racers won't even touch it. It is not for the faint hearted, and no one wants to see any one die. Yet it has always had this irresistable draw to me. When I was younger and dumber, the Isle of Man was a racing goal of mine.

Just to say I did it!

To crack the 100mph average barrier would have been a victory.

Racing in all forms is inherently dangerous. If the racer can't take the heat, then don't put on the helmet!

Joe...you know I am a NASCAR fan, but I am also a fan of all forms of racing. Well maybe not monster trucks. F-1 and Champ cars are on the leading edge in engine, suspension, and aerodynamic technology. That is what makes it so appealing to me. NASCAR has a flavor all its own. There is nothing like standing next to the track and having 42 stock cars come roaring by in a pack. It makes the hair stand up on my neck. Those who put down stock car racing don't understand racing. Until you have sucked the seat up your ass while racing...you won't ever understand.

"If it can't kill you...then it's not a sport!"


[This message has been edited by Redneck (edited 28 December 1999).]

[Joe Fan]

Gerard, I am not trying to throw all open wheel fans into one heap but I have encountered my share of the "F1/CART/Open Wheel-only" crowd who like to denigrate NASCAR and closed wheel racing. This post is for them. I have done quite a bit of thinking lately about open wheel racing and what the point of it is as you can tell.

Redneck, Ok then motorcycles can stay open wheel and open cockpit.

But really, we are entering the year 2000. Taking into the consideration the popularity of F1 and CART today, how and why should these series be so popular with late 1800's design concepts? Any amount of high technology put into these cars doesn't diminish the fact they are still dressing up late 1800's technology that probably should have faded by now. The major manufacturers involved in F1 would like you to believe that their presence in the series allows them to extract useful technology for their production models but in all reality unless you are buying a sportier model of their particular make, F1 doesn't offer much more than NASCAR does as far as technology that can be used for regular production models. F1 and CART is a big phony stage for them to bullsh*t you into thinking that their cars are the best so that they can sell more cars to Joe Consumer and pay more for them at the same time.

Any amount of the so called technology attributed to Formula One more than likely was in the works beforehand and was tested before it made its way on an actual F1 car. Formula One is too much of a high stakes motorsports platform for it to be otherwise.

The technology gained from Formula One might be useful in the motorsports world to a series like CART but a smarter Joe Consumer says big deal.

As far as the risks involved in motorsport, I think they should be much less than what they are today. We can put men on the moon safely and when we don't we learn from it but it seems to me that F1 and CART leadership is still plodding along and tip-toeing around the major safety concerns. Adding chicanes here and there to keep the speeds down (road racing fans complain that they don't drive in circles so why should there be oval circuits but how many chicanes do you encounter in every day driving?) But when it gets right down to it, the leadership of F1 and CART, to put it blunty, are clinging onto late 1800's technology that should have faded altogether by now or to lower motorsports formulae (ie Sprint Cars) where it belongs. Why? Is it the bravado of open wheel, open cockpit cars which in turn creates ratings?

Some important questions every open wheel race fan should answer. Are you one who crains his neck to see the aftermath of a bad accident on the highway? Do you get thrills out of seeing drivers mangled in horrifying wrecks? If not, then why do you still blindly and faithfully support such open wheel series that have open cockpits?

If you are a huge fan of high technology then why do you still enthusiastically support motorsports series that fundamentally use a late 1800's design?

I have tremendous respect for CART and Formula One and their drivers but I cannot see why these series should be as popular as they are today and why a closed wheel series hasn't overtaken Formula One in popularity around the world like NASCAR has in the United States.



[This message has been edited by Joe Fan (edited 29 December 1999).]

[KC]

I must agree with Gerard. I like to watch tin tops as well as open cockpit racing. Yes, NASCAR, BTCC, WRC, and other tin top production or silhouette-based championships readily influence the design of automobiles, but the cutting edge technological series also affect auto design as well. High wear and temperature resistant alloys, plastics and compsites are a direct result of F1 and CART. Advances in automobile braking systems and suspension design also are a direct result of countless hours and years of experience in open wheel and sports car design. Drive by wire, computer management systems, and data logging by onboard computers are all systems that high end racing have brought about to the diagnostic and service end of automobiles. There is no reason to really ever compare NASCAR to any open wheel series as the goal is very different. All have their advantages and disadvantages. The only thing that all of these vaery different series have in common is that a group of drivers are all vying for the win to the endless joy of the fan.

[Megatron]

I forgot about the semi automatic gearbox which appeared on Ferrari road cars in 1993, just 4 years after Ferrari originally developed it for F1. But that, in all honesty, is not very pratical.

[Redneck]

The same sort of discussion is taking place over in the F1 forum about what is the goal of sponsors involved in racing. The main reason manufacturers are involved in NASCAR, or any form of racing, is to market an image. It is not to improve their production vehicles. They want you to think that is occuring, and why they are racing, but they are really after the marketing and exposure of the brand name.

Each form of racing appeals to different segments of the population. NASCAR appeals to the "meat & potatoes" crowd, while F1/CART appeals to the "wine & cheese" crowd. Look at the manufacturers and see where they are involved and you will see where they are trying to sell cars.

[Megatron]

I am not arguing the point that exposure is the main (only?) reason a car manufactur enters a sport. Trying to increase brand awarness.

But there are some things that a manufactur can learn that will eventually end up on road cars. This is an added bonus.

[kmchow]

Redneck wrote:

>Each form of racing appeals to different >segments of the population.
>
That is so undeniably true.

>NASCAR appeals to the "meat & potatoes" >crowd, while F1/CART appeals to the "wine & >cheese" crowd.
>
Funny, recently, there has been A LOT of criticism among Nascar fans/teams that the crowds are starting to become more and more wine and cheese. This is in part driven by the ticket prices, those VIP boxes,etc...

[kmchow]

Personally, I believe the different series has different things to offer the racing/showroom world. I think (some say too stubbornly) Nascar has little to contribute in terms of technological advancement. It all goes back to the "old, but "obvious excuse"--the technology is just too old". What could pushrod engines possibly contribute to the world? Within another 5-10 years, GM would be finished or near finished in replacing it's entire lineup with OHV instead of pushrod engines.

HOWEVER!!!!! Nascar can certainly WRITE THE BOOK on how to market/run a successful and appealing racing series. Absolutely NO other series can compete with Nascar in this area. Nascar business/marketing/promotions should be worshipped and studied. Heck, it's the business/marketing side of Nascar that attracts me to it!! You need a strong marketing/business plan to promote and grow a series. Nascar had done everything right!!! F1 and CART (Openwheel and even other touringcar series)? They're nothing in this area.

Consider the success of DTM and V8Supercars? They are successful because they followed the Nascar formula of offering recognisable and "down to earth" sponsors like UPS and McDonalds. Not sponsors like Visteon,etc who are very fan UNfriendly.

SO in the end, I think each has taken a round? A tie in terms of usefullness! =)

Any responses??? Bought my fire/flame suit along just in case people want to respond!!
=)

[Joe Fan]

BTW, did anyone see the January 2000 issue of MotorSport magazine? The cover is titled "The Future of Formula One" and has a Gordon Murray drawing of a future F1 car that is closed wheel and has an enclosed cockpit. He he he! What will the critics say now as a non-NASCAR biased individual sees the future of F1 the same way as Joe Fan?