[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by jks812

RD those are some good choices. I also wouldn't give Jr much of a chance. I don't think I would Jeff either. The majority of the time he's not to good if his car isn't set up perfect for him. I agree about Kyle. He seems to be able to driver almost anything and be competitve. I hadn't thought about Robby, but I could see him doing pretty good.

I'd agree on the thing with Jeff if it weren't for this: how often does he finish really badly when he hasn't been involved in a wreck or loose an engine? Somehow he manages to get it together near the end of the race. By and large his bad finishes are due to mechanical problems, not setup. In fact, I don't know of another driver that is able to overcome setup problems so consistently at the end of the race than Gordo. It's almost like he spends 80% of the race with "issues" then decides to ignore them and go racing.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by jks812

I like those too. But I'd have to add Ryan Newman to the list.

I wish I'd have put him on my list too. Good choice.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by BiscuitMan

They would be worse. Those old cars did not have "power steering" and current day drivers have a hard time when the power steering unit fails.

Power steering wouldn't be but about half of the problems this current group of drivers would face.

I'm dating myself here but I think anyone here who was hanging around race tracks in the 50's will remember some of the other differences in stock cars vs. this new "stock car."
1. Power steering... already correctly noted

2. Safety equipment... Usually consisted of a open-faced helmet, a $4.95 lap belt with friction hold, leather soled shoes, short-sleeved shirt and slacks. IF door were secured beyond the door lock, they were either chained or welded. A single roll bar behind the driver, usually spot welded to the frame. No fuel cell. Gas tanks were mounted behind the driver where the back seat normally sat. (This was supposed to be a safety measure?)

3. Suspension... As I remember it this was basically factory stock with hand-fabricated mount for a second shock absorber on the right front. Through 1957 they ran leaf rear springs. These were modified by either taking a leaf out of the assembly or heating the springs to take the spring out of them for flatter cornering. Shocks were usually truck shocks or some after market heavy duty shock

4. They ran either truck tires or the widest tire they could find. The wheels were reversed by knocking the center out and re-welding it in place backwards so that a wider width could be achieved. An addition steel plate was welded to the wheel and punched for the lug studs to keep the bolts from pulling through the wheel.

Does any of the above sound like anything today's drivers would want to get into?

Bring back any memories to you other "Old timers?"

[Fireball]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

Power steering wouldn't be but about half of the problems this current group of drivers would face.

I'm dating myself here but I think anyone here who was hanging around race tracks in the 50's will remember some of the other differences in stock cars vs. this new "stock car."
1. Power steering... already correctly noted

2. Safety equipment... Usually consisted of a open-faced helmet, a $4.95 lap belt with friction hold, leather soled shoes, short-sleeved shirt and slacks. IF door were secured beyond the door lock, they were either chained or welded. A single roll bar behind the driver, usually spot welded to the frame. No fuel cell. Gas tanks were mounted behind the driver where the back seat normally sat. (This was supposed to be a safety measure?)

3. Suspension... As I remember it this was basically factory stock with hand-fabricated mount for a second shock absorber on the right front. Through 1957 they ran leaf rear springs. These were modified by either taking a leaf out of the assembly or heating the springs to take the spring out of them for flatter cornering. Shocks were usually truck shocks or some after market heavy duty shock

4. They ran either truck tires or the widest tire they could find. The wheels were reversed by knocking the center out and re-welding it in place backwards so that a wider width could be achieved. An addition steel plate was welded to the wheel and punched for the lug studs to keep the bolts from pulling through the wheel.

Does any of the above sound like anything today's drivers would want to get into?

Bring back any memories to you other "Old timers?"

Oh! Man! Does this ever bring back memories? I remember going to the stock car races when I was a teenager at Phillips Field in Tampa. Most drivers wore white t-shirts or their garage uniform from where worked. Race helments were shells with a leather brim and leather ear cover with a chin strap. That helmet made the driver's handsome looking. I remember one guy was an air jock from McDill AFB and he wore his pilot's helmet.

In those days Tampa was a "hot bed" for fast race cars and drivers. During the winter months the field of drivers included all these guys from New England and the Midwest. Even Parnelli Jones showed up from California one winter to out duel Pete Foltz, Frank and Jimmy Riddle, Buzz Barton, Emil Reutimann etc.

Phillips Field was a flat 1/4 mile asphalt track. Cars had to have big wide right front tires with a lot of camber. Most modified stock cars used "recapped race slicks". It was common to use the four-wheel drift to make the turns. Today, that's the slow way around a track.

Most of the engines used in the cars were flathead Fords. The "B" division, cars were limited to 1 2-barrel carburetor. To keep cost down these were claiming races. If you won, another driver could "claim" your engine for a couple hundred dollars. That was always good for a fight betwen drivers when someone claimed the other drivers engine. A" division cars had 3 2-barrel carburetors.

Those were the days.

[DOF_power]

Would this time machine include a memory earser ?!
Cause if not, none would go for it.

That's because their expectations are different, higher in terms of safety, money, car specification.
That's like asking how many of us would want to be transported in the 1300 Europe really ?!
The plague, the wars, lack of freedom, social differences, yep it would be really fun ... but the knights that fought in tournaments must have been really brave.

Here's reverse question what would a 40s/50s stock car driver do in today
NASCAR ?!

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by DOF_power

That's like asking how many of us would want to be transported in the 1300 Europe really ?!


Here's reverse question what would a 40s/50s stock car driver do in today
NASCAR ?!

Of all the Centuries you could have picked the 14th was the worse. Male life expectancy was 45 (Expectations of Life by H.O. Lancaster (1990)), the Black Plague, 50% infant mortality rate, a simple impacted tooth could be a death sentence... I think I'll pass.

I believe a 40's/50's stock car driver wouldn't even be let in the door today.

Let's look at a few of the big ones...
Herb Thomas... Nope. Had bad teeth, wasn't photogenic, I was told he was basically illiterate
Junior Johnson... Nope. A criminal moonshiner, who sat out the 1957 (I think) season in Columbia, SC jail. (Unlike Rick Hendrick, he was man enough to do the time)
Curtis Turner... Maybe. Well spoken and well-to-do. Successful businessman. Big time party-er and alleged alcoholic.
Fonty Flock...Maybe. Was a moonshine runner but never caught. Was dapper and articulate.
Tim Flock... Maybe. Was a party er and had some baggage.
Lee Petty... Yes
Red Byron... Probably not. He, like Thomas, wasn't photogenic and wouldn't have made a good pitchman for a product.
Jim and Dick Rathmann... Yep. No problem
Buck Baker... See Red Byron
Marshall Teague... Probably. Was successful businessman.
Fireball Roberts... See Red Byron.

For where I set, the biggest drawback to the early drivers is that they had good faces for radio, not TV. Their driving skills, compared to today's crop is, unfortunately , something we'll never know. But, today, a successful driver has to have contacts, looks, speaking ability, and the ability to pitch a product and represent a corporation.

So when it comes to the overall package a current driver needs, the 50's/60's drivers would, on the whole, fail miserably.

But, I could be very, very wrong...

[DOF_power]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

Of all the Centuries you could have picked the 14th was the worse. Male life expectancy was 45 (Expectations of Life by H.O. Lancaster (1990)), the Black Plague, 50% infant mortality rate, a simple impacted tooth could be a death sentence... I think I'll pass.

I believe a 40's/50's stock car driver wouldn't even be let in the door today.

Let's look at a few of the big ones...
Herb Thomas... Nope. Had bad teeth, wasn't photogenic, I was told he was basically illiterate
Junior Johnson... Nope. A criminal moonshiner, who sat out the 1957 (I think) season in Columbia, SC jail. (Unlike Rick Hendrick, he was man enough to do the time)
Curtis Turner... Maybe. Well spoken and well-to-do. Successful businessman. Big time party-er and alleged alcoholic.
Fonty Flock...Maybe. Was a moonshine runner but never caught. Was dapper and articulate.
Tim Flock... Maybe. Was a party er and had some baggage.
Lee Petty... Yes
Red Byron... Probably not. He, like Thomas, wasn't photogenic and wouldn't have made a good pitchman for a product.
Jim and Dick Rathmann... Yep. No problem
Buck Baker... See Red Byron
Marshall Teague... Probably. Was successful businessman.
Fireball Roberts... See Red Byron.

For where I set, the biggest drawback to the early drivers is that they had good faces for radio, not TV. Their driving skills, compared to today's crop is, unfortunately , something we'll never know. But, today, a successful driver has to have contacts, looks, speaking ability, and the ability to pitch a product and represent a corporation.

So when it comes to the overall package a current driver needs, the 50's/60's drivers would, on the whole, fail miserably.

But, I could be very, very wrong...

I wanted to say 1300s witch is the 14th century (1301-1400).
For the rest, the guys you mentioned would know nothing of testing, and would be surprised to hear that the suspensions could be adjusted in terms of camber/caster/toe/ride-height and Co.
And without ("no time to spend"/ cause they had more "fun") testing & setup they'd be completely lost.

[jks812]

But above all, looks and speaking ability aside, they raced. Now isn't that something strange to expect from a race car driver? Seriously though, it does seem like that nowdays you don't have to be that good of a driver, as look as you are saleable to the public for the sponsor.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by DOF_power

I wanted to say 1300s witch is the 14th century (1301-1400).
For the rest, the guys you mentioned would know nothing of testing, and would be surprised to hear that the suspensions could be adjusted in terms of camber/caster/toe/ride-height and Co.
And without ("no time to spend"/ cause they had more "fun") testing & setup they'd be completely lost.

I think they would have the innate ability to catch on and learn but... I think they would handle NA__AR and its policies much the same way Junior Johnson did. I'd hope that they'd figure it was just to damn much bother and was total BS, despite the money they could make. I'd like to think they'd tell NA__AR to shove it, go back to the country, find local tracks where the politics didn't overshadow the weekly competition, and do what they did best, just race.