[BiscuitMan]

Originally Posted by clutch

to be honest Bob, this is the first time that I've heard the Stock appearing bit.

Lets face it things have evolved since the 50's.........if you want stock cars...and great racing ...over 150mph, then I reckon a few of you will be disappointed. STOCK CARS are NOT race cars.....I guess I just dont get it. Sometimes its OK for things to change and still have references to what was........without being what was.....if you get that

The first NASCAR "Strictly Stock" race ever was held at Charlotte Speedway in 1949. The race was won by Glen Dunnaway who was immediately disqualified because the rear springs were altered on his car. Jim Roper was then named the winner.

Initially, the cars were known as the "Strictly Stock Division" and raced with virtually no modifications on the factory models. This division was renamed "Grand National" beginning in the 1950 season.

However, over a period of about a dozen years, modifications for both safety and performance were allowed and, by the mid-1960s, the vehicles were "purpose-built" race cars with a "stock-appearing" body. Even through the 1970s the front clip had to be manufacturer's original and the engine had to be placed where the original manufacturer's motor mounts were.

About that same time, the standard rear suspension used by nearly every car since evolved to the old style Chevy truck coil spring with trailing arms. This configuration has long since disappeared from cars and trucks in the showrooms.

All along, the engines were derived from the "stock appearing" V8 with one carbureter just as they were in the 1950s.

So, with this heritage of "stock appearing" cars, we old timers still like to recognize what "brand" of car is circling the track. Today, that is extremely hard to do.

Yes, we all realize progress is necessary to stay with the times, but I would like to see a "real looking" Ford, Chevy, Dodge or Carolla hit the track.

[Bob Tanner]

I believe that since my first days here at GTG I have complained about, harped on, and just generally showed disdain for the way NA__AR has allowed the stock car they began with to devolve into a simple "race car." No real difference between it and other forms of racing except car size, fenders and technology.

I know that they haven't been "stock" for decades. I do no delude myself into thinking, or even desiring, that NASCAR return to a "Bomber," "Thunder Car," or other entry level type of car. It probably would make for some very interesting racing but for two basic reasons I don't think it should happen
(1) safety
(2) NASCAR's highest level needs to be several cuts above entry level racing.

But there is no reason for the cars bearing manufacturer's logo's on the hoods to not closely resemble that car maker. THAT is what I mean when I get into these "stock car" tirades.

Get NASCAR COMPLETELY out of the car design business. Like our Imperial Government, NASCAR has entered into areas it has no business being directly involved in. If GM's doesn't want to build a car which is competitive, that's GM's problem, not NASCAR's.

GM, Ford, MOPAR, Honda and Toyota needs a wind tunnel, NOT the teams.

In short, put the "stock" back in stock car. At least give the fans the opportunity to see <insert driver> and think, "Gee, I drive one of those."

I see going "stock" having multiple positive effects.
(1) Let's the fans relate to the cars
(2) Would reduce costs - the factories are doing the design work, all the teams would have to do would be to make the metal conform to factory templates
(3) Stock templated bodies would be less aerodynamic. Cars would go slower and the need for restrictor plates would be reduced.
(4) Going to stock templates might encourage NA__AR to increase the numbers of manufacturers in the series. More brands equal more interest. (Yes. This might result in more rice burners... I don't approve but I do accept the fact that they're here so we might as well try to enjoy it
(5) It just might bring back some fans who have felt totally disenfranchised by this new NASCAR and its new fans.

[DOF_power]

Originally Posted by BiscuitMan

...

Initially, the cars were known as the "Strictly Stock Division" and raced with virtually no modifications on the factory models. This division was renamed "Grand National" beginning in the 1950 season.

However, over a period of about a dozen years, modifications for both safety and performance were allowed and, by the mid-1960s, the vehicles were "purpose-built" race cars with a "stock-appearing" body. Even through the 1970s the front clip had to be manufacturer's original and the engine had to be placed where the original manufacturer's motor mounts were.

About that same time, the standard rear suspension used by nearly every car since evolved to the old style Chevy truck coil spring with trailing arms. This configuration has long since disappeared from cars and trucks in the showrooms.

All along, the engines were derived from the "stock appearing" V8 with one carbureter just as they were in the 1950s.

So, with this heritage of "stock appearing" cars, we old timers still like to recognize what "brand" of car is circling the track. Today, that is extremely hard to do.

Yes, we all realize progress is necessary to stay with the times, but I would like to see a "real looking" Ford, Chevy, Dodge or Carolla hit the track.

Virtually no modification would have meant on some races virtually no car could/would have made it to the finish line (flaws, tolerances, stress).
They had modifications (engines) since the beginning.

[BiscuitMan]

So, back to the originial topic of this thread: No smiles at the sale of Petty Enterprises.

Richard Petty was acknowledging that Petty Enterprises gotten beat at their own game. In the 1970s - 80s Petty Enterprises was the technology and innovation team of NASCAR. Week after week they would show up at tracks with a new configuration to the chassis or more horsepower in their engines. They discovered those little things that put Richard Petty in the winners circle.

In the 1990s and so far in this decade they had consistently fallen behind.

Now, with Boston Ventures taking the reins, David Zucker will be controlling the direction Petty Enterprises will take in the future.

One can wonder what Zucker will bring to Petty Enterprises to guide them to greater performance on the track. He has already said that racing is not his expertise. So, maybe spending big bucks is his expertise.

Zucker has also said he wants to bring the right people into the organization and acquire the right equipment to build better cars. All of that will cost a lot of money.

Maybe that strategy will turn around Petty Enterprises. Only time will tell.

[DOF_power]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

I believe that since my first days here at GTG I have complained about, harped on, and just generally showed disdain for the way NA__AR has allowed the stock car they began with to devolve into a simple "race car." No real difference between it and other forms of racing except car size, fenders and technology.

I know that they haven't been "stock" for decades. I do no delude myself into thinking, or even desiring, that NASCAR return to a "Bomber," "Thunder Car," or other entry level type of car. It probably would make for some very interesting racing but for two basic reasons I don't think it should happen
(1) safety
(2) NASCAR's highest level needs to be several cuts above entry level racing.

But there is no reason for the cars bearing manufacturer's logo's on the hoods to not closely resemble that car maker. THAT is what I mean when I get into these "stock car" tirades.

Get NASCAR COMPLETELY out of the car design business. Like our Imperial Government, NASCAR has entered into areas it has no business being directly involved in. If GM's doesn't want to build a car which is competitive, that's GM's problem, not NASCAR's.

GM, Ford, MOPAR, Honda and Toyota needs a wind tunnel, NOT the teams.

In short, put the "stock" back in stock car. At least give the fans the opportunity to see <insert driver> and think, "Gee, I drive one of those."

I see going "stock" having multiple positive effects.
(1) Let's the fans relate to the cars
(2) Would reduce costs - the factories are doing the design work, all the teams would have to do would be to make the metal conform to factory templates
(3) Stock templated bodies would be less aerodynamic. Cars would go slower and the need for restrictor plates would be reduced.
(4) Going to stock templates might encourage NA__AR to increase the numbers of manufacturers in the series. More brands equal more interest. (Yes. This might result in more rice burners... I don't approve but I do accept the fact that they're here so we might as well try to enjoy it
(5) It just might bring back some fans who have felt totally disenfranchised by this new NASCAR and its new fans.

Bob what you're suggesting is a system with ideas used in
sportscar-endurance racing GT classes, touring car, V8 supercars.
I agree, but NASCAR won't go for it.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by BiscuitMan

So, back to the originial topic of this thread: No smiles at the sale of Petty Enterprises.

]

Thank you, I did digress. Sorry.

Speaking only for the way I would personally feel; if I ran a business where many people depended on me for an income, and I made poor decisions and had to go to an outside source for a bailout, I would not be a proud or a happy camper. Shame, anger and regret come to the top of the list of feelings I would experience.

I'm sure it was a sad day when the deal went through. Unfortunately it went through on Boston Venture's terms and not Petty's.

[BiscuitMan]

Originally Posted by DOF_power

Virtually no modification would have meant on some races virtually no car could/would have made it to the finish line (flaws, tolerances, stress).
They had modifications (engines) since the beginning.

With my statement I was not to imply that all the NASCAR cars in the early years had "no modifications". I'm sure some did. However, the "rules" required no modifications. The winnner of the first NASCAR race was disqualified because of altered rear springs.

The rules in those days did not preclude a person from tearing down the engine to set the tolerances. Naturally, they knew then that less friction means an engine can run at higher RPMs and have more horsepower.

In the 1950s the term "shaved heads" meant closer tolerances and resulted in higher compression for the engine to gain horsepower. This was a common engine modification that NASCAR looked for then.

So, if you could make it to the winner's circle and no modifications were found your "win" would stick. However, it was common in the early years for NASCAR to take the win away if a modification was found.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by BiscuitMan

So, if you could make it to the winner's circle and no modifications were found your "win" would stick. However, it was common in the early years for NASCAR to take the win away if a modification was found.

I'm not disputing you, Biscuit, just looking for sources.

I know of only three examples of NASCAR taking away a win in a GN or Cup race.

(1) Glen Dunnaway in 1949 for having "bootleger's springs" on his car
(2) Tim Flock in 1954 (?) for having an illegal carb at Daytona
(3) Ricky Rudd in 1991 for spinning Davey Allison in the hairpin on the final turn of the Sears Point race.

I know of one race (I can't remember off the top of my head which one) where Richard's engine, in tear-down, was found to have almost 20 cu. in. more displacement than allowed and they let him keep the win?

I'd be interested in some more example to increase my amount of relatively useless NASCAR trivial knowledge.

Thanks.

[DOF_power]

Originally Posted by BiscuitMan

With my statement I was not to imply that all the NASCAR cars in the early years had "no modifications". I'm sure some did. However, the "rules" required no modifications. The winnner of the first NASCAR race was disqualified because of altered rear springs.

The rules in those days did not preclude a person from tearing down the engine to set the tolerances. Naturally, they knew then that less friction means an engine can run at higher RPMs and have more horsepower.

In the 1950s the term "shaved heads" meant closer tolerances and resulted in higher compression for the engine to gain horsepower. This was a common engine modification that NASCAR looked for then.

So, if you could make it to the winner's circle and no modifications were found your "win" would stick. However, it was common in the early years for NASCAR to take the win away if a modification was found.

But many where not found until later on.

"All NASCAR's early tech inspectors had to work with were the basic parts catalog books of Hudson, Chevrolet, Oldsmobile, Ford, and so forth. This was during the '50s, when NASCAR liked to imagine that it truly was the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing - no modifications allowed, nothing but stock parts, period. But it took Buddy Shuman a while to discover what really was going on. When he tech-inspected your car and discovered the correct parts number on, say, a camshaft, it was so enchanting to him that it didn't dawn on him to wonder whether or not the cam-shaft itself had come out of the parts book. Very few of them did. And I know damn well that I wasn't the only engraving artist at work. Almost everyone ground his own cams-and often his own crankshafts, too-and then hammered on the appropriate parts number. No problem. It was Buddy who had the problem."

Smokey Yunick - Circle Track November 1988, Smokey Tells All

[DOF_power]

Now back on topic.

I just hope Petty Enterprises will get some cash infusion and improve.

[BiscuitMan]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

I'm not disputing you, Biscuit, just looking for sources.

I know of only three examples of NASCAR taking away a win in a GN or Cup race.

(1) Glen Dunnaway in 1949 for having "bootleger's springs" on his car
(2) Tim Flock in 1954 (?) for having an illegal carb at Daytona
(3) Ricky Rudd in 1991 for spinning Davey Allison in the hairpin on the final turn of the Sears Point race.

I know of one race (I can't remember off the top of my head which one) where Richard's engine, in tear-down, was found to have almost 20 cu. in. more displacement than allowed and they let him keep the win?

I'd be interested in some more example to increase my amount of relatively useless NASCAR trivial knowledge.

Thanks.

You are correct Bob. There are not that many disqualifications that took the "win" away. I should have said it was common in the early years for NASCAR to disqualify cars from competition. This was common during post-qualifying inspections.

It was 1983 in Charlotte when Richard Petty was disqualified for illegal tires and an oversize engine. Petty Enterprises would be fined a then-record $35,000 and would be stripped of 104 Winston Cup points, but the win itself would stand. Good negotiations by Maurice Petty, who admitted that Richard knew nothing about the illegal tires or engine.

That incident created "Pettygate" that led to Richard leaving Petty Enterprises, his family team, to drive for Mike Curb. Maurice Petty built the engines for Richard's cars at Petty Enterprises and this incident caused a family feud. Maurice's reputation never recovered and he drifted into the background of the race team's operations.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by DOF_power

Bob what you're suggesting is a system with ideas used in
sportscar-endurance racing GT classes, touring car, V8 supercars.
I agree, but NASCAR won't go for it.

Yep. Guilty as charged.

And I will continue to lobby for this change until I go Tango Uniform. Bring NASCAR back to NA__AR!!!!!

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by BiscuitMan

You are correct Bob. There are not that many disqualifications that took the "win" away. I should have said it was common in the early years for NASCAR to disqualify cars from competition. This was common during post-qualifying inspections.

It was 1983 in Charlotte when Richard Petty was disqualified for illegal tires and an oversize engine. Petty Enterprises would be fined a then-record $35,000 and would be stripped of 104 Winston Cup points, but the win itself would stand. Good negotiations by Maurice Petty, who admitted that Richard knew nothing about the illegal tires or engine.

That incident created "Pettygate" that led to Richard leaving Petty Enterprises, his family team, to drive for Mike Curb. Maurice Petty built the engines for Richard's cars at Petty Enterprises and this incident caused a family feud. Maurice's reputation never recovered and he drifted into the background of the race team's operations.

I remember the controversy. I remembered the bored out engine but your mention of the ties jogged my memory banks. From what I remembered the tires weren't illegal, per se. They just put right side code numbered tired on the left and vice versa.

FYI, I did a little bit of research and found out that Richard went to Mike Curb right after Rockingham in '83. He tried to take some heat off Maurice and denied that he was leaving because of "Pettygate." He claimed that running a two-car shop (his and Kyle's) put too much of a workload on the crew and his taking his car and team to Curb lessened the load at Randleman. (Forty Years of Stock Car Racing 1972-1989, Greg Fielden, page 399-400)

Thanks for bringing this up. I love to discuss NASCAR history.