NASCAR?

"Slant6" (slant-6) 01/10/2015 at 21:43 • Filed to: None

0

23

I'm staff writer for my school's newspaper 'The Eagle's Eye'. I'm writing this piece about NASCAR and how it's not really stock car racing and how actual stock car racing could promote development as it did in the past. Here's what I have:

The National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, or NASCAR is one of the best known stock car racing franchises in the world, but is it really "stock" car racing? Not a single Sprint Cup race car (with the exception of the pace car) is an actual production vehicle. Sure, Toyota might say their current stock car is a Camry, but Toyota has never mass produced a rear wheel drive V8 solid axle Camry with a tube frame and fiberglass body. Which brings up the question: how is this a stock car?

Dictionary.com defines a stock car as "a standard model of automobile changed in various ways for racing purposes." By definition these purpose built racers we see in NASCAR are not infact stock cars, they're race cars. But why are they called stock cars? Early auto racing used open wheeled race cars, built from the ground up specifically for racing circuits. These vehicles were complex and expensive to build. As popularity grew more people wanted to enter races but couldn't due to the high cost of building a car. Open wheeled racing began to be seen as an aristocratic sport, one that the average man couldn't compete in. People were frustrated by this, so by the 1920s small dirt tracks across the South East were hosting races that allowed the entry of production vehicles.

In 1948 NASCAR was founded as a sanctioning body for stock car races. One of the first NASCAR series was the Strictly Stock series, which was a race exclusively for late model cars, unmodified (not to say that all teams followed this rule) with the exception of crude safety equipment. This requirement to remain unmodified drove manufactures to produce faster cars. Similar to the development induced by NASA in landing in the moon NASCAR stimulated technological growth within the automobile industry. Manufacturer's benefited from their participation not only by having a more refined product but by the marketing strength that came with winning races. Bob Tasca, a Rhode Island Ford dealer and racing team owner coined the term "Race on Sunday, sell on Monday".

NASCAR regulation originally required manufacturers to sell at least 500 cars to be considered stock and later one for every two dealerships...

This is all I have so far. If I messed up a part of NASCAR history or I'm just wrong feel free to tell me. Complements are also accepted.

415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°) > Slant6 01/10/2015 at 21:46

2

You have the right idea, they should race modified real cars. Too bad Australian V8s is going away from that as well.

ly2v8-Brian > Slant6 01/10/2015 at 21:48

1

Not bad

Slant6 > 415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°) 01/10/2015 at 21:50

0

NASCAR is it's own thing at this point. Not stock car racing but still cool. New stock car racing could be based on production vehicles with airbags and interiors removed and a roll cage added. Maybe there could be another element to the race that makes a winner based on winning the race and another winner based on the ratio of average speed and mpg. I'm just saying why stint development. Imagine if Americans were 50 years more advance in supercharger technology (NASCAR banned them before they could race on Fords).

Slant6 > ly2v8-Brian 01/10/2015 at 21:54

0

Thanks!

Justin Hughes > Slant6 01/10/2015 at 21:58

1

Nice start. I'm not sure if it would be appropriate or not to mention that NASCAR's roots lie in moonshine running. They used souped up cars to do it, and then started racing each other to see whose car was fastest. Lots of the first NASCAR drivers were moonshine runners.

Being a school publication, though, the mere mention of alcohol might not be a good idea!

Slant6 > Justin Hughes 01/10/2015 at 22:03

0

We're pretty liberal about that kinda stuff. I originally had something about moonshine but I took it out besides I feel like that could be another article in it's self. And I don't want to stray too far away from my point. I tried to give just enough history to speak from.

Grindintosecond > Slant6 01/10/2015 at 22:06

0

Nice. something of possible interest, Toyota does not sell a pushrod-V8 at all in their cars....and yet they race with one. So, the built an engine just so they could go racing and market their products.

Slant6 > Grindintosecond 01/10/2015 at 22:10

0

I could mention that but I feel like I'm already pushing it with configuration. My readers don't know anything about cars and if I mentioned push rod, or OHV I would sound confusing or people would think I'm making stuff up. If I was writing this for Oppo then yeah, I could mention that. Thanks though.

camaroboy68ss > Slant6 01/10/2015 at 22:17

0

nascar's current cars are not fiberglass and they never have been, they are still steel paneled cars. the current gen 6 cars panels are actually stamped buy the manufacturer now. the closest car to being correct for nascar is the chevy ss.

one of the main problems with racing R&D going over to production cars is a lot of the time it just doesn't work at the time. Your pic of the superbird is a great example. that car was designed for one purpose only, run circles around Ford (GM was not active with racing programs) at Daytona and Talladega. So they build the required amount of cars to pass(another joke in itself) problem is they are a huge sales flop, takes over 2 years ive read to sell all the superbirds for 1970.

another problem is that nascar wants an even playing field. if you are running "stock" cars then there will almost always be a better car. Examples would be the Hudson Hornet, The black widow 57 Chevy, The 63 Mystery Motor Chevy, the 64 Hemi mopars, the Daytona/Superbird etc. all of these cars would just run circles around the competition. So nascar would either put restrictions on the car or let others have more mods. (I can give examples if you want)

The quest for a even playing field and safety is what has pushed nascar from running true production cars to what we have today.

Justin Hughes > Slant6 01/10/2015 at 22:17

0

Fair enough. Keep up the good work!

John Norris (AngryDrifter) > Slant6 01/10/2015 at 22:17

0

Two things drove NASCAR away from the stock configuration, safety, and competitive parity.

Safety features in the 50's were pathetic, poor in the 60's, and evolved in the 70's through today. A number of the safety features force significant changes from stock.

NASCAR is all about money. Racing money is all about sponsors. Manufacturers aren't going to invest sponsorship money unless they have a reasonable shot at winning. The 500 car production rule didn't work out so they had to establish standards. Standards drove the cars away from stock.

norskracer98-ExploringTheOutback > Slant6 01/10/2015 at 22:25

0

The Continental Tire Sports Car Challenge is more stock car than NASCAR is at this point. Most of the cars are street cars modified to race. How do I know? I've part of an M3 that raced in the series and it still has all the stuff BMW put on the skirts. Plus I know someone who raced the series and I've been around those cars a lot.

Slant6 > camaroboy68ss 01/10/2015 at 22:25

0

Thanks for pointing out the fiberglass thing. That was more of an assumption on my part. As for the rest I can't do anything but agree with you. You obviously know more than I do so I won't try and fight it (I can't fight facts).

What I'm going for with this article though is what if certain banned technologies , like fuel injection weren't banned and adopted by the industry much sooner. We could be 40 years farther ahead with fuel injection technology.

And so many racing series are made level so driving ability shines over the capability of the car, but what if we had a series where manufactures competed and actually produced these cars. I'm not trying to attack NASCAR, I just think a more stock stock car race would be interesting and maybe even beneficial to the industry.

gogmorgo - rowing gears in a Grand Cherokee > Slant6 01/10/2015 at 22:31

0

This is why I watch the ALMS TUSC. And other GT racing. Sitting here in Take No Prisoners shirt, waiting impatiently for the 24 hours of Daytona...

DrScientist > Slant6 01/10/2015 at 22:33

2

The National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, or NASCAR is one of the best known stock car racing franchises in the world, but is it really "stock" car racing? Not a single Sprint Cup race car (with the exception of the pace car) is an actual production vehicle. Sure, Toyota might say their current stock car is a Camry, but Toyota has never mass produced a rear wheel drive V8 solid axle Camry with a tube frame and fiberglass body. Which brings up the question: how is this a stock car?

this is a good intro paragraph.

Dictionary.com defines a stock car as "a standard model of automobile changed in various ways for racing purposes."

the ol' "the dictionary defines..." intro... i'd lose this. its a common practice in high school term papers, but one you should get out of quickly. you can say: By definition, a stock car is a standard model...

your readers should assume your references are solid. because they should be.

As popularity grew more people wanted to enter races but couldn't due to the high cost of building a car. Open wheeled racing began to be seen as an aristocratic sport, one that the average man couldn't compete in.

do you have references to the first sentence? consider rewording. to make it really tight, you could present the average cost to build a race car in whatever year, and then compare that to the median yearly income in the country.

"began to be seen?" i have a feeling it was this way from its inception.

People were frustrated by this, so by the 1920s small dirt tracks across the South East were hosting races that allowed the entry of production vehicles.

i believe i read somewhere that nascar actually developed from races of stock cars that were modified to transport liquor illegally across state lines. these "smugglers" needed cars faster than the police and so they modified them to go fast. of course this lead to the "my car is faster than yours" debates among men that so frequently occur. and from there unsanctioned "stock car" races were born. (you should be able to find some definitive references on this.) this leads into your next paragraph.

In 1948 NASCAR was founded as a sanctioning body...

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Similar to the development induced by NASA in landing in the moon NASCAR stimulated technological growth within the automobile industry. Manufacturer's benefited from their participation not only by having a more refined product but by the marketing strength that came with winning races.

your analogy is not completely accurate. i understand what your trying to say about racing influencing manufacturer technology. this is not exactly how nasa influenced anything... afterall, until recently, there were no "commercial" space technology manufacturers.

Bob Tasca, a Rhode Island Ford dealer and racing team owner coined the term "Race on Sunday, sell on Monday".

phrase, not term.

NASCAR regulation originally required manufacturers to sell at least 500 cars to be considered stock and later one for every two dealerships...

not sure what the one for every 2 dealerships means. is this a new requirement that trumped the 500 unit sales? as in... if ford had 100 dealerships, they'd need to sell 50 mustangs in order to race it?

anyway, good start. hope my comments are helpful.

norskracer98-ExploringTheOutback > camaroboy68ss 01/10/2015 at 22:34

0

Theres some CF on the newer cars. I think the roof, hood, and deck lids are all CF.

Aaron James > camaroboy68ss 01/10/2015 at 22:41

0

Another interesting thing about that is that by the end dealers were pulling the wings and nose cones off just so they could sell them.

camaroboy68ss > Slant6 01/10/2015 at 22:51

0

I think for the sake of your purpose you have to attack nascar. mainly for the fact that whenever a manufacturer tries to develop something new to one-up the others nascar has usually banned it.

Examples:

1957 - Banned Chevy's Fuel injection after a couple races,

1964- Banned the dual four hemi - Chrysler had to come up with a single 4 barrel intake that was just for nascar

1969/1970 - Nascar put huge restrictions on the winged mopars. that include pulling the Hemi for a 301ci motor, pulling the side windows out to slow the cars down, then after the 70 season just flat out banning the wings and nose cones.

A better example of a series that focused on running true stock cars that the manufactures really put time into designing parts to race and offer to the public, you should look at the 66-71 trans am series. that was as close to the goal you have in mind that you can get.

Zoom > Slant6 01/11/2015 at 12:11

0

mmmmmmmmmm.......

Dat livery

Braking-Dad > Slant6 01/11/2015 at 15:24

0

Here's my thought on this, and the folks at Toyota aren't going to like it. But if NASCAR really wanted to return to their roots (somewhat) and get their fans really geared up, is go by way of Pro Mod Drag Racing body formula. For those who are familiar with Pro Mod racing, their fans get drag cars wearing beautiful fiberglass repro bodies from a bygone era - i.e. first gen Camaro's & Firebirds, second gen Corvettes, Daytona's, etc, all running in the high 5's to low 6's. Since NASCAR doesn't used "stock sheetmetal" anymore, but a reasonable facsimile of what is interpreted as a current production vehicle [i.e. SS, Fusion, and Camry], would make it quite simple to transition back to look of stock cars from a bygone era. Imagine if NASCAR changed it up and told their teams that they can mimic past NASCAR era's by running look alike bodies from from each half decade - i.e. 60-65, 65-70, etc. Change the era every five years to make it fun for the fans. Imagine repros of big Galaxies of the 60's running up agains Plymouths, Mercurys, and Impala's. Then move to Fairlanes, Chargers, and Chevelles. Then Lagunas, Torinos's and Sebrings. You get the picture. it would be very easy to do, provided the Ford and GM (and maybe Chrysler) were good with it. And Toyota? Who really cares? Their time in NASCAR could go by way of the Dodo and the fans wouldn't really care.

Fordsportsman74 > Zoom 01/11/2015 at 17:00

0

Not saying that the car in the picture(Plymouth Superbird,Ramo Stott-Keokuk,IA)never participated in a NASCAR sanctioned race(generally the Daytona 500,which was/is held earlier in the year than most sanctioning bodies schedule races),but the car/driver combination shown in the photo with the heading"NASCAR", is probably better known for competing in the USAC stock car division.At that time,the USAC cars and drivers were probably on par with all but a select few NASCAR Grand National outfits.

John Norris (AngryDrifter) > Slant6 01/11/2015 at 20:05

0

I never heard of this driver so I looked him up. I just love the road runner graphic on the wing.

Slant6 > John Norris (AngryDrifter) 01/11/2015 at 20:10

0

I chose that image because it's one of the few superbird NASCAR pictures that isn't Richard Petty's #43.