[MikeRaceDayTek]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

I see what you mean, Mike but Rule 12-4-A wasn't exactly what I had in mind. That's a rule like the Army UCMJ's Article 15 and just about every major organization has a rule something like that.

What I was specifically referring to was the ambitious way NA__AR publicizes its rules. For example, if NA__AR makes a rule impacting the competition and it favors one driver or team over, NA__AR can tell the public anything it desires with impunity.

What this does is to decrease NA__AR's credibility and to leave open speculation that NA__AR is possibly playing favourites. If the fans questioning a NA__AR decision have no access to the Rule Book, then... It's like getting into a high stakes card game and the other players tell you, "Just ante up and play your cards. We'll tell you whether you've won or lost."

But, this has been NASCAR's way of doing business since 1949 and I doubt if it'll change. Whether it's real or imagined, your statement: "They also don't really seem to care about public scrutiny, do they? just about says it all except for the addition "or the fans," after "scrutiny."

Seeing as how this is the field I am trying to get into, I wish I could disagree. But I can't. The NASCAR of old France Sr and Jr would never have agreed to some of these changes. And there are other changes that I keep hearing rumors about that could make things worse, but I also have heard some things that could be super positive.

We'll just have to see which way it goes. In one direction you have the old IROC series. In the other is the NASCAR that I grew up with.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by MikeRaceDayTek

Seeing as how this is the field I am trying to get into, I wish I could disagree. But I can't. The NASCAR of old France Sr and Jr would never have agreed to some of these changes. And there are other changes that I keep hearing rumors about that could make things worse, but I also have heard some things that could be super positive.

We'll just have to see which way it goes. In one direction you have the old IROC series. In the other is the NASCAR that I grew up with.

I, for one, applaud your honesty, Mike. I realize that you're in NTI (is Chuck Bown still involved with that program?) but apparently you haven't progressed far enough to be choked by the "Corporate line." It'll probably come and there is nothing wrong with being loyal to those who sign your paycheck.

I am sure that there are some things talked about which could enhance the produce NA__AR produces. I hope that those get put on the fast track. However, I've seen the sport I grew up with go in such an obtuse direction that I harbor very little hope.

I agree with everything you say EXCEPT you feelings about Bill Jr. I, personally, hold him responsible for much of what's wrong with NASCAR today, and why it morphed into NA__AR. Big Bill was a great guy, for a promoter. Bill Jr was... 'Nuff said; O know most feel he is a candidate for canonization but let's just say I don't hold his memory in very high esteem. About the best thing I can say is that I firmly believe that NASCAR might still be NASCAR if Jim had been given the reins and not Bill Jr.

But there are very, very few of us who feel that way so go figure...

[MikeRaceDayTek]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

I, for one, applaud your honesty, Mike. I realize that you're in NTI (is Chuck Bown still involved with that program?) but apparently you haven't progressed far enough to be choked by the "Corporate line." It'll probably come and there is nothing wrong with being loyal to those who sign your paycheck.

I am sure that there are some things talked about which could enhance the produce NA__AR produces. I hope that those get put on the fast track. However, I've seen the sport I grew up with go in such an obtuse direction that I harbor very little hope.

I agree with everything you say EXCEPT you feelings about Bill Jr. I, personally, hold him responsible for much of what's wrong with NASCAR today, and why it morphed into NA__AR. Big Bill was a great guy, for a promoter. Bill Jr was... 'Nuff said; O know most feel he is a candidate for canonization but let's just say I don't hold his memory in very high esteem. About the best thing I can say is that I firmly believe that NASCAR might still be NASCAR if Jim had been given the reins and not Bill Jr.

But there are very, very few of us who feel that way so go figure...

France Jr did wonders for bringing the sport into the spotlight. Thats the only thing I give him credit for. The COT is a complete dismal failure, everyone knows it. You want my best example of why I say the COT fails? Take 'Dega's avg speed.

Sprint Cup: 147.565
Nationwide: 149.004

Lemme make sure we are clear on this... The feeder series goes faster? And I will grant you that there were 3 more cautions in the Cup race, but they also have roughly 70 - 80 more HP.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by MikeRaceDayTek

France Jr did wonders for bringing the sport into the spotlight. Thats the only thing I give him credit for. The COT is a complete dismal failure, everyone knows it. You want my best example of why I say the COT fails? Take 'Dega's avg speed.

Sprint Cup: 147.565
Nationwide: 149.004

Lemme make sure we are clear on this... The feeder series goes faster? And I will grant you that there were 3 more cautions in the Cup race, but they also have roughly 70 - 80 more HP.

I'll close with this thought; a subject we've discussed ad finitum here and some of us feel strongly about.

The BGN "Twisted Sister" is the answer to your question but it isn't the right answer. It became so aerodynamically engineered that, while slicker than snot on a rock, it looks nothing like a stock car one can buy off a showroom floor, unless you're buying a car out of a junk yard.

Stock car racing needs more good mechanics and much fewer aeronautical engineers.

We're way off the "Expert's subject" so I'm out of this one.

[yatesracing]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

I'll close with this thought; a subject we've discussed ad finitum here and some of us feel strongly about.

The BGN "Twisted Sister" is the answer to your question but it isn't the right answer. It became so aerodynamically engineered that, while slicker than snot on a rock, it looks nothing like a stock car one can buy off a showroom floor, unless you're buying a car out of a junk yard.

Stock car racing needs more good mechanics and much fewer aeronautical engineers.

We're way off the "Expert's subject" so I'm out of this one.

Bob, truer words were never spoken

[gordon_fan_4_life]

If you use the wave around rule...are you required to pit a certain amount of laps after the restart or can you stay out as long as possible? A situation would be...if someone was 2 laps down and they had a caution...the driver would pit that caution, then say another caution happened just 5 or so laps after the restart. The driver 2 laps down could then do the wave around and get one of his laps back...then another caution comes 5 more laps later and he could do the wave around again and be back on the lead lap? If you understand what I am trying to say...is that legal? Or do you have to pit after you do the wave around?

[MikeRaceDayTek]

Originally Posted by gordon_fan_4_life

If you use the wave around rule...are you required to pit a certain amount of laps after the restart or can you stay out as long as possible? A situation would be...if someone was 2 laps down and they had a caution...the driver would pit that caution, then say another caution happened just 5 or so laps after the restart. The driver 2 laps down could then do the wave around and get one of his laps back...then another caution comes 5 more laps later and he could do the wave around again and be back on the lead lap? If you understand what I am trying to say...is that legal? Or do you have to pit after you do the wave around?

So, I can try to answer it for you, but I haven't seen a rule book since the wave around came into effect. As I get your question, you are asking if a driver stays out on 2 consecutive cautions will they get the wave around twice. As I understand it, the easy answer is yes. The problem is, that means that you have tires that have been heated and cooled 2 times, compared to the leaders. Also, you can't be sure another caution is going to come out. Most teams will not take that chance, but to answer your question, I believe they COULD do that, but I doubt they would.

[mccastle]

If teams go to fuel injection how will this affect restrictor plate races. If there are no carburators then I would think the plates can not be used. What would be used to restrict a fuel injected car to slow it down?

[MikeRaceDayTek]

Originally Posted by mccastle

If teams go to fuel injection how will this affect restrictor plate races. If there are no carburators then I would think the plates can not be used. What would be used to restrict a fuel injected car to slow it down?

The ECM can change the injector pulse width, making less fuel go into the cylinder, working just like a restrictor plate. And since (most likely) NASCAR would be handing out the ECM's at the track before practice and qualifying, I would think it would be easy to have different ECM's for SuperSpeedways, and all others.

[Racer Duck]

Asdditionally, if they choose the TBI (Throttle Body Injection) route, then, since the TBI is pretty much just like a carb, but with injectors, they could use a plate also.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

Asdditionally, if they choose the TBI (Throttle Body Injection) route, then, since the TBI is pretty much just like a carb, but with injectors, they could use a plate also.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Duck. A TBI isn't computer controled, as a normal F.I. is, via an ECM? Also, they quit using TBI on cars around 2000, didn't they?

My son had an '86 Olds with TBI, I believe. That's been my only expedrience with them.

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

Correct me if I'm wrong, Duck. A TBI isn't computer controled, as a normal F.I. is, via an ECM? Also, they quit using TBI on cars around 2000, didn't they?

My son had an '86 Olds with TBI, I believe. That's been my only expedrience with them.

Don't know whether it's computer controlled or not.. but I'll find out...

Sorry to burst your bubble, Bob, but "they" quit using carburetors long before "they" quit using the TBI.

But who ever said NASCAR was technologically advanced, anyway? To them the TBI is "new technology"!!!

[wingkey1]

Good "primer" on FI

HowStuffWorks "How Fuel Injection Systems Work"

TBI is/was electronically controlled but it was less complex, responsive, and efficient than multi-port/sequential.

As one reads through the info, it becomes obvious that FI will lend itself to a great deal of "creativity" when it comes to gaining/finding a performance advantage. A great deal.

Thought it was pretty shrewd of NASCAR (Pemberton?) to, as I think I recall, essentially say to the teams - if we're going in this direction, come up with a policeing approach. It ain't gonna be easy and it will be ultimately quite complex/defined.

One thing is likely a truism - whatever is implemented will be quite far from anything on production/showroom cars.

[Bob Tanner]

This preoccupation with carburetors goes back, I'm sure, to a short time period in 1957 when NASCAR allowed all manufacturer engine options. They had GM Fuel Injection, Ford's Paxton Supercharger and MOPAR's Ram Induction. Everyone screamed and NASCAR immediately just made carburetors the only option.

I'd like to know the REAL reason why they are suddenly willing to accept FI? I just don't see NA__AR changing anything this drastic unless there is a driving motivator.

[Racer Duck]

My guess, and it's really just a "WAG", is that carburetors are inherently "dirty". FI is much cleaner burning and thus, more "earth friendly". (Made your day, didn't I, Bob? .

Who knows, Brian may start selling "carbon credits" if it works out!