Why Stockcar Racing Does Not Suck--A Rant
tigeraid
05-11-2003, 07:13 AM
I've noticed this topic on a lot of messageboards has kind of died down, but there are still a lot of people who just don't "get" oval track racing. I'm not talking about NASCAR, but stockcar racing in general (funny how they never mention how much they hate OPEN WHEEL oval track racing). I will not disagree that NASCAR has gotten "commercialized" or "too pop" or whatever else, but for me that means more chances to watch some of the best racing in the world. I love all forms of racing, but I grew up around oval tracks and learned to drive in a stockcar, so I have a deeper understanding of our sport--which is what allows me to enjoy it. So, with a deep breath, I'll attempt to counter all the exceedingly retarded arguments against our sport (that are sometimes given in an intelligent manner, often not.)
1. "They're a buncha rednecks"
It amazes me that in this day and age that stockcar-bashers still use this. What's odd is that I find they say it about NASCAR in particular, but not any other stockcar series. I'm Canadian; we have rednecks up here, they just talk different, so I know the deal. Fact is, stockcar racing was invented by rednecks, so the stereotype used to hold merit. USED to. Consider how many drivers in Winston Cup in particular would qualify as a stereotypical redneck? Ryan Newman? He has a university degree in engineering and speaks perfect english. Matt Kenseth, Kurt Busch, Jeff Gordon, Jeff Burton, Kevin Harvick, Ricky Craven... none of these guys chew tobacco, have southern accents or have trouble with the english language. There are very few "good ol' boys" left in Winston Cup, which actually worries some of the old-school fans. Guys like Sterling Marlin are a dying breed in the sport. It's a stereotype that simply isn't true anymore.
2. "It's just going in circles, it's always turning left!"
First of all, no it's not. Many stockcar and Modified divisions, including Winston Cup, race on road courses. Winston Cup has a rich history at road courses, especially Watkins Glen.
Second of all, it's not "just turning left". People think because the track only has 4 corners and they're all left, that it's somehow boring or inferior. Since when does the direction or number of corners matter? Difficulty, challenge, and passing opportunities are what matter.
Every single oval track is different, and every corner on an oval is different (or pairs of corners), they just happen to go in the same direction. Saying that Rockingham is anything at all like Pocano is absurd. There are far far greater factors in the corners and how to take them. Banking, weather/temperature changes, surface type (concrete, asphalt, rough or smooth), transitions on an off the straights, corner radius, width of the track, where the groove is, etc etc ... It's understanding these differences and how the track is working that makes watching "cars just turning left" enjoyable. Picking your line through the turns on an oval track is just as difficult and important as a proper apex through a turn on a road course. Here's some examples of radically different tracks:
1. Daytona - 2.5 miles, very high banking, very wide track, asphalt, basically flat out the entire lap. Handling, despite what many think, is important here, but not overall car balance. The key to getting around the corners here is in, obviously, aerodynamics, but also the shock and spring package and how it works with the car bottoming out in relation to downforce and the banking.
2. Bristol - 0.5 Mile, very high banking, concrete. Incredibly small track with incredibly high speeds, very hard to get the setup right in terms of traction, tires very important here.
3. Pocano - 2.5 Mile tri-oval, and depending who you talk to, has either 3 or 5 turns. Relatively flat, asphalt. Many drivers treat it like a road course, as the chassis acts completely differently in each turn, and even requires shifting through one turn. On the North Straight they only hit about 150 mph, but on the Main Straight (longest straightaway in WC at 3740 ft) they hit over 200 mph. Very very hard track to set up for.
4. California - 2 mile flat oval, asphalt. Why is this different than, say, Daytona? Because it's essentially NASCAR's fastest top speed track (as opposed to average speed), hitting 204 mph on the front stretch, then careening into nearly flat corners and drifting wide. Braking not really required thanks to the width of the corners, but very drastic difference in speed into the corners.
5. Martinsville - 0.5 Mile, almost totally flat corners, mixture of concrete and asphalt, smallest track on WC circuit. Incredibly tight conditions, very small track with very thin corners and straights, very very hard to pass on. Hard on tires, hard to set up for, INCREDIBLY hard on brakes. A driver with the ability to conserve brakes will win here. Darrel Waltrip was a master at this.
Those are just a few examples of what I mean when I talk about the differences. Yes, they all turn left. Yes, it's mostly a round track.... but so what. AND they race on road courses.
3. "Stockcar racing sucks cuz it's low tech!"
Difficult to argue, but realise that in general, Winston Cup is low tech, not stockcars. Check out the ASA series if you want to see high tech, they run spec fuel injected LS1 engines--or any number of other series.
I understand some fans concerns for lack of technology, but stockcar racing has never been about technological breakthroughs, it's been about the racing. There are two schools of fans: those who watch racing to see drivers race against drivers, and those who watch to see cars race against cars. Fans of ALMS, 24 hrs LeMans, and Formula 1 watch cars race against cars. Fans of SPEED Touring Cars, stockcar racing, IRL (I suppose), etc etc watch it for drivers to race against drivers.
I happen to enjoy both, which is why I watch ALL forms of racing. But I PREFER driver vs driver, and Winston Cup is tops in the world for that without a doubt. Look around for the video clip of the finish to the spring Darlington race between Craven and Busch. That's what racing is about.
If NASCAR allowed "technological development" by the teams, it wouldn't be long before the big guns are building 30 billion dollar cars just like in Formula 1, and one or two drivers would win every single race in the season by lapping the entire field, just like Formula 1. Great for those interested in technology--boring as hell racing. The FIA has realised this, and that's why changes are happening in F1. It's boring, and they're working to fix that.
4. "Stockcars aren't even stock, therefore they suck!"
This has gotta be the worst argument of them all, as it has absolutely no effect on the quality of racing at all. You're right, they're not stock. SO WHAT. They haven't been since about 1971. The whole point to the word "stockcar" is not that it has to be 100% stock, but that it has to be based on a production car. Jeff Gordon's Monte Carlo may not be the kind you can buy at the dealer, but the body style is similar, and the car underneath is, essentially, a 70s a/g-body chassis and suspension, on a tube frame platform. And most importantly, it has a Chevy engine. Yes it's built by Hendrick Motorsports, but it's a Chevy engine with 95% off-the-shelf Chevy parts. You can go out right now and (for a ton of money) buy everything you need to build an SB2.2 for your street car. Prolly won't be tuned quite as nicely as his though :P ....
Seriously, I've heard some people actually say they'd LOVE to see cars CURRENTLY from the factory race on an oval track. Are you insane!? Nobody wants to see a wheezing 160 hp, front wheel drive v6 turd driving around a 2.5 mile oval. Not only that, but the racing would be pretty unbalanced.
So they say "well get the factory's back into it, and they'll build cars for stockcar racing!" Bull. Manufacturers today want to sell their family sedans and economy cars, and that means slow, front wheel drive econoboxes. If NASCAR went to GM today and said "we want you to build a rear wheel drive, carbureted v8 powered Monte Carlo" they'd laugh their asses off at them. That's not what stockcar racing is about. It's about basing it on cars you could build on the street. Tube frame was just a natural progression.
As it stands, stockcars are MORE stock than NON stock cars. They don't call Schumacher's Ferrari a stockcar because you literally cannot have any part of it in a street car, it doesn't resemble a street car, and you couldn't drive it on the street. They call Gordon's Monte Carlo a stockcar because it's based on a previous generation of the Monte Carlo, it's rwd, and you can buy every part off the shelf. Hell, Winston Cup cars even have steel bodies. Grow up. As with the previous point, not every race fan cares what KIND of car is being raced, only that the racing is good.
5. "How can you watch them go around in circles, it's so boring!"
The same reason lots of fans can appreciate a 4 second 1/4 mile run in drag racing, or rally fans can appreciate a minute and a half of footage of someone driving across the desert in the Paris-Dakaar. Because you don't give it a chance or understand what's actually happening, you can't enjoy what you see.
Being that I not only understand oval track racing but have done it myself for several years, I enjoy watching how the cars are reacting to the track surface, who is improving their chassis setup as the race progresses, what kind of pit strategy is involved, who's running what line around the track, etc etc... not just the close battles to the finish. The broadcasters know this as well and that's why Fox does such an excellent job of coverage, with DW often explaining things like lines through the corner, loose and tight conditions, what adjusting the trac bar does, etc etc... This is just as interesting and compelling as any other kind of racing, even if they are going in circles for 500 miles (or on the two road courses, I repeat yet again...)
6. "Stockcar drivers have no skill, it's not real racing"
This is the one that the real snobby, close-minded bastards use, and the one that insults me personally, being a racer myself. It's absolutely absurd to think that ANY racing in the world doesn't require skill. It's the same stupid argument that says drag racing doesn't require skill either. Fact is, different forms of racing require different forms of skill, but lots of skill nontheless. In terms of pure and simple car handling, stockcar drivers in general do suck, compared to WRC drivers. But Formula 1 drivers would suck compared to them to. Here's the way I see it:
Rally Racers - ultimate in car control, period, bar none, on any surface
Road Racers - ultimate in consistency, nailing your marks, hitting the apexes etc... since far less passing and side-by-side racing occurs, especially in Formula 1, god knows you rarely have another car to worry about when lapping.
Drag Racers - ultimate reflexes and timing, ability to handle ridiculous hp with their right foot in terms of traction
Oval Track Racers - we're the ultimate in traffic management, being able to go fast with 40 cars less than 5" away from you, unlike any other kind of racing. We also tend to be very good in fuel conservation (we can't "turn down the wick" like high tech cars), and also know how to deal with beating and banging and still come out with a car that can win.
Without a doubt too, stockcar racers in particular are the ultimate at dealing with shitty cars. You think it doesn't take skill to toss a 3600 pound, 9" tire car with 850 hp around on a knife edge at 190 mph? You're insane. We have a different skill, not a lack of skill. Put Micheal Schumacher in Jeff Gordon's car, and dump him in the middle of a race at Bristol. Guarenteed, he'd be in the wall in less than 20 laps, more than likely spinning himself out to get there, as he's never in his life even come close to driving a car that handles so poorly compared to OTHER cars.
Much the same, I feel most stockcar drivers would spin out in the first lap driving a Formula 1 car. That's why the true greats are those that can transcend a given type of racing for all of them. Mario Andretti, AJ Foyt, Dan Gurney, and the like proved this. And what a lot of people don't realise is that a lot of NASCAR drivers have proven it too. Dale Earnhardt was successful for years in IROC (the real IROC too, on road courses), and also successful racing in the ALMS series for a brief period. Mark Martin is a 4-time IROC champion, and has won class in IMSA GTP and the 24 Hours of Daytona driving Mustangs for Jack Roush. Jeff Gordon has proven he has what it takes, even winning last years Race of Champions rally race over the pond. Tony Stewart can literally drive anything with wheels, and still does. There's lots of great examples.
Well that's my rant, you can tell it's been a slow day at work. Comments welcome, provided they're intelligent. Otherwise, go to hell :p
1. "They're a buncha rednecks"
It amazes me that in this day and age that stockcar-bashers still use this. What's odd is that I find they say it about NASCAR in particular, but not any other stockcar series. I'm Canadian; we have rednecks up here, they just talk different, so I know the deal. Fact is, stockcar racing was invented by rednecks, so the stereotype used to hold merit. USED to. Consider how many drivers in Winston Cup in particular would qualify as a stereotypical redneck? Ryan Newman? He has a university degree in engineering and speaks perfect english. Matt Kenseth, Kurt Busch, Jeff Gordon, Jeff Burton, Kevin Harvick, Ricky Craven... none of these guys chew tobacco, have southern accents or have trouble with the english language. There are very few "good ol' boys" left in Winston Cup, which actually worries some of the old-school fans. Guys like Sterling Marlin are a dying breed in the sport. It's a stereotype that simply isn't true anymore.
2. "It's just going in circles, it's always turning left!"
First of all, no it's not. Many stockcar and Modified divisions, including Winston Cup, race on road courses. Winston Cup has a rich history at road courses, especially Watkins Glen.
Second of all, it's not "just turning left". People think because the track only has 4 corners and they're all left, that it's somehow boring or inferior. Since when does the direction or number of corners matter? Difficulty, challenge, and passing opportunities are what matter.
Every single oval track is different, and every corner on an oval is different (or pairs of corners), they just happen to go in the same direction. Saying that Rockingham is anything at all like Pocano is absurd. There are far far greater factors in the corners and how to take them. Banking, weather/temperature changes, surface type (concrete, asphalt, rough or smooth), transitions on an off the straights, corner radius, width of the track, where the groove is, etc etc ... It's understanding these differences and how the track is working that makes watching "cars just turning left" enjoyable. Picking your line through the turns on an oval track is just as difficult and important as a proper apex through a turn on a road course. Here's some examples of radically different tracks:
1. Daytona - 2.5 miles, very high banking, very wide track, asphalt, basically flat out the entire lap. Handling, despite what many think, is important here, but not overall car balance. The key to getting around the corners here is in, obviously, aerodynamics, but also the shock and spring package and how it works with the car bottoming out in relation to downforce and the banking.
2. Bristol - 0.5 Mile, very high banking, concrete. Incredibly small track with incredibly high speeds, very hard to get the setup right in terms of traction, tires very important here.
3. Pocano - 2.5 Mile tri-oval, and depending who you talk to, has either 3 or 5 turns. Relatively flat, asphalt. Many drivers treat it like a road course, as the chassis acts completely differently in each turn, and even requires shifting through one turn. On the North Straight they only hit about 150 mph, but on the Main Straight (longest straightaway in WC at 3740 ft) they hit over 200 mph. Very very hard track to set up for.
4. California - 2 mile flat oval, asphalt. Why is this different than, say, Daytona? Because it's essentially NASCAR's fastest top speed track (as opposed to average speed), hitting 204 mph on the front stretch, then careening into nearly flat corners and drifting wide. Braking not really required thanks to the width of the corners, but very drastic difference in speed into the corners.
5. Martinsville - 0.5 Mile, almost totally flat corners, mixture of concrete and asphalt, smallest track on WC circuit. Incredibly tight conditions, very small track with very thin corners and straights, very very hard to pass on. Hard on tires, hard to set up for, INCREDIBLY hard on brakes. A driver with the ability to conserve brakes will win here. Darrel Waltrip was a master at this.
Those are just a few examples of what I mean when I talk about the differences. Yes, they all turn left. Yes, it's mostly a round track.... but so what. AND they race on road courses.
3. "Stockcar racing sucks cuz it's low tech!"
Difficult to argue, but realise that in general, Winston Cup is low tech, not stockcars. Check out the ASA series if you want to see high tech, they run spec fuel injected LS1 engines--or any number of other series.
I understand some fans concerns for lack of technology, but stockcar racing has never been about technological breakthroughs, it's been about the racing. There are two schools of fans: those who watch racing to see drivers race against drivers, and those who watch to see cars race against cars. Fans of ALMS, 24 hrs LeMans, and Formula 1 watch cars race against cars. Fans of SPEED Touring Cars, stockcar racing, IRL (I suppose), etc etc watch it for drivers to race against drivers.
I happen to enjoy both, which is why I watch ALL forms of racing. But I PREFER driver vs driver, and Winston Cup is tops in the world for that without a doubt. Look around for the video clip of the finish to the spring Darlington race between Craven and Busch. That's what racing is about.
If NASCAR allowed "technological development" by the teams, it wouldn't be long before the big guns are building 30 billion dollar cars just like in Formula 1, and one or two drivers would win every single race in the season by lapping the entire field, just like Formula 1. Great for those interested in technology--boring as hell racing. The FIA has realised this, and that's why changes are happening in F1. It's boring, and they're working to fix that.
4. "Stockcars aren't even stock, therefore they suck!"
This has gotta be the worst argument of them all, as it has absolutely no effect on the quality of racing at all. You're right, they're not stock. SO WHAT. They haven't been since about 1971. The whole point to the word "stockcar" is not that it has to be 100% stock, but that it has to be based on a production car. Jeff Gordon's Monte Carlo may not be the kind you can buy at the dealer, but the body style is similar, and the car underneath is, essentially, a 70s a/g-body chassis and suspension, on a tube frame platform. And most importantly, it has a Chevy engine. Yes it's built by Hendrick Motorsports, but it's a Chevy engine with 95% off-the-shelf Chevy parts. You can go out right now and (for a ton of money) buy everything you need to build an SB2.2 for your street car. Prolly won't be tuned quite as nicely as his though :P ....
Seriously, I've heard some people actually say they'd LOVE to see cars CURRENTLY from the factory race on an oval track. Are you insane!? Nobody wants to see a wheezing 160 hp, front wheel drive v6 turd driving around a 2.5 mile oval. Not only that, but the racing would be pretty unbalanced.
So they say "well get the factory's back into it, and they'll build cars for stockcar racing!" Bull. Manufacturers today want to sell their family sedans and economy cars, and that means slow, front wheel drive econoboxes. If NASCAR went to GM today and said "we want you to build a rear wheel drive, carbureted v8 powered Monte Carlo" they'd laugh their asses off at them. That's not what stockcar racing is about. It's about basing it on cars you could build on the street. Tube frame was just a natural progression.
As it stands, stockcars are MORE stock than NON stock cars. They don't call Schumacher's Ferrari a stockcar because you literally cannot have any part of it in a street car, it doesn't resemble a street car, and you couldn't drive it on the street. They call Gordon's Monte Carlo a stockcar because it's based on a previous generation of the Monte Carlo, it's rwd, and you can buy every part off the shelf. Hell, Winston Cup cars even have steel bodies. Grow up. As with the previous point, not every race fan cares what KIND of car is being raced, only that the racing is good.
5. "How can you watch them go around in circles, it's so boring!"
The same reason lots of fans can appreciate a 4 second 1/4 mile run in drag racing, or rally fans can appreciate a minute and a half of footage of someone driving across the desert in the Paris-Dakaar. Because you don't give it a chance or understand what's actually happening, you can't enjoy what you see.
Being that I not only understand oval track racing but have done it myself for several years, I enjoy watching how the cars are reacting to the track surface, who is improving their chassis setup as the race progresses, what kind of pit strategy is involved, who's running what line around the track, etc etc... not just the close battles to the finish. The broadcasters know this as well and that's why Fox does such an excellent job of coverage, with DW often explaining things like lines through the corner, loose and tight conditions, what adjusting the trac bar does, etc etc... This is just as interesting and compelling as any other kind of racing, even if they are going in circles for 500 miles (or on the two road courses, I repeat yet again...)
6. "Stockcar drivers have no skill, it's not real racing"
This is the one that the real snobby, close-minded bastards use, and the one that insults me personally, being a racer myself. It's absolutely absurd to think that ANY racing in the world doesn't require skill. It's the same stupid argument that says drag racing doesn't require skill either. Fact is, different forms of racing require different forms of skill, but lots of skill nontheless. In terms of pure and simple car handling, stockcar drivers in general do suck, compared to WRC drivers. But Formula 1 drivers would suck compared to them to. Here's the way I see it:
Rally Racers - ultimate in car control, period, bar none, on any surface
Road Racers - ultimate in consistency, nailing your marks, hitting the apexes etc... since far less passing and side-by-side racing occurs, especially in Formula 1, god knows you rarely have another car to worry about when lapping.
Drag Racers - ultimate reflexes and timing, ability to handle ridiculous hp with their right foot in terms of traction
Oval Track Racers - we're the ultimate in traffic management, being able to go fast with 40 cars less than 5" away from you, unlike any other kind of racing. We also tend to be very good in fuel conservation (we can't "turn down the wick" like high tech cars), and also know how to deal with beating and banging and still come out with a car that can win.
Without a doubt too, stockcar racers in particular are the ultimate at dealing with shitty cars. You think it doesn't take skill to toss a 3600 pound, 9" tire car with 850 hp around on a knife edge at 190 mph? You're insane. We have a different skill, not a lack of skill. Put Micheal Schumacher in Jeff Gordon's car, and dump him in the middle of a race at Bristol. Guarenteed, he'd be in the wall in less than 20 laps, more than likely spinning himself out to get there, as he's never in his life even come close to driving a car that handles so poorly compared to OTHER cars.
Much the same, I feel most stockcar drivers would spin out in the first lap driving a Formula 1 car. That's why the true greats are those that can transcend a given type of racing for all of them. Mario Andretti, AJ Foyt, Dan Gurney, and the like proved this. And what a lot of people don't realise is that a lot of NASCAR drivers have proven it too. Dale Earnhardt was successful for years in IROC (the real IROC too, on road courses), and also successful racing in the ALMS series for a brief period. Mark Martin is a 4-time IROC champion, and has won class in IMSA GTP and the 24 Hours of Daytona driving Mustangs for Jack Roush. Jeff Gordon has proven he has what it takes, even winning last years Race of Champions rally race over the pond. Tony Stewart can literally drive anything with wheels, and still does. There's lots of great examples.
Well that's my rant, you can tell it's been a slow day at work. Comments welcome, provided they're intelligent. Otherwise, go to hell :p
Murco
05-31-2003, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by tigeraid
1. "They're a buncha rednecks"
Matt Kenseth, Kurt Busch, Jeff Gordon, Jeff Burton, Kevin Harvick, Ricky Craven... none of these guys chew tobacco, have southern accents or have trouble with the english language.
How about the "other" Burton brother? Ward is a different species!
Originally posted by tigeraid
There are very few "good ol' boys" left in Winston Cup, which actually worries some of the old-school fans. Guys like Sterling Marlin are a dying breed in the sport. It's a stereotype that simply isn't true anymore.
I don't want "rednecks" in those cars, just someone with some personality! The standard, "My team did a great job and thanks to XYZ company for supporting us, we'll get them next week" is so tired. Dale was a legend because he had charisma and driving talent... A few more Jimmy Spencers would spice things up!
Originally posted by tigeraid
2. "It's just going in circles, it's always turning left!"
First of all, no it's not. Many stockcar and Modified divisions, including Winston Cup, race on road courses. Winston Cup has a rich history at road courses, especially Watkins Glen.
They race 2 out of 30+ races at a road course per year. Hardly diverse! And every new track built in the past decade has been a copy of Charlotte/Atlanta. BORING!!!
Originally posted by tigeraid
3. "Stockcar racing sucks cuz it's low tech!"
If NASCAR allowed "technological development" by the teams, it wouldn't be long before the big guns are building 30 billion dollar cars just like in Formula 1.
You wanna guess at what Hendrick Racing's budget was last year?? :o
Originally posted by tigeraid
4. "Stockcars aren't even stock, therefore they suck!"
This has gotta be the worst argument of them all, as it has absolutely no effect on the quality of racing at all. The car underneath is, essentially, a 70s a/g-body chassis and suspension, on a tube frame platform. And most importantly, it has a Chevy engine.
Up until the late 80's a Winston Cup car was at least shaped like a stock Monte Carlo/Thunderbird/Grand Prix/etc.etc.... Today we have boring cars they are based on and boring "one-size-fits-all" bodywork more befitting a Hoover vacuum than a race car... The roof, hood, and deck are all "stock panels" but nothing else would identify the make...
Originally posted by tigeraid
5. "How can you watch them go around in circles, it's so boring!"
It's watching them go around the SAME circle... Charlotte/Atlanta/California/Chicago/Texas/Las Vegas/etc... BORING!!
Originally posted by tigeraid
6. "Stockcar drivers have no skill, it's not real racing"
This is the one that the real snobby, close-minded bastards use, and the one that insults me personally, being a racer myself.
Then, being a racer, you know the car is MUCH more responsible for the wins than the driver these days. This wasn't the case 20 years ago...
Winston Cup has become so boring I, a life-long-fan, don't even watch anymore unless they are at Bristol or Talladega...
1. "They're a buncha rednecks"
Matt Kenseth, Kurt Busch, Jeff Gordon, Jeff Burton, Kevin Harvick, Ricky Craven... none of these guys chew tobacco, have southern accents or have trouble with the english language.
How about the "other" Burton brother? Ward is a different species!
Originally posted by tigeraid
There are very few "good ol' boys" left in Winston Cup, which actually worries some of the old-school fans. Guys like Sterling Marlin are a dying breed in the sport. It's a stereotype that simply isn't true anymore.
I don't want "rednecks" in those cars, just someone with some personality! The standard, "My team did a great job and thanks to XYZ company for supporting us, we'll get them next week" is so tired. Dale was a legend because he had charisma and driving talent... A few more Jimmy Spencers would spice things up!
Originally posted by tigeraid
2. "It's just going in circles, it's always turning left!"
First of all, no it's not. Many stockcar and Modified divisions, including Winston Cup, race on road courses. Winston Cup has a rich history at road courses, especially Watkins Glen.
They race 2 out of 30+ races at a road course per year. Hardly diverse! And every new track built in the past decade has been a copy of Charlotte/Atlanta. BORING!!!
Originally posted by tigeraid
3. "Stockcar racing sucks cuz it's low tech!"
If NASCAR allowed "technological development" by the teams, it wouldn't be long before the big guns are building 30 billion dollar cars just like in Formula 1.
You wanna guess at what Hendrick Racing's budget was last year?? :o
Originally posted by tigeraid
4. "Stockcars aren't even stock, therefore they suck!"
This has gotta be the worst argument of them all, as it has absolutely no effect on the quality of racing at all. The car underneath is, essentially, a 70s a/g-body chassis and suspension, on a tube frame platform. And most importantly, it has a Chevy engine.
Up until the late 80's a Winston Cup car was at least shaped like a stock Monte Carlo/Thunderbird/Grand Prix/etc.etc.... Today we have boring cars they are based on and boring "one-size-fits-all" bodywork more befitting a Hoover vacuum than a race car... The roof, hood, and deck are all "stock panels" but nothing else would identify the make...
Originally posted by tigeraid
5. "How can you watch them go around in circles, it's so boring!"
It's watching them go around the SAME circle... Charlotte/Atlanta/California/Chicago/Texas/Las Vegas/etc... BORING!!
Originally posted by tigeraid
6. "Stockcar drivers have no skill, it's not real racing"
This is the one that the real snobby, close-minded bastards use, and the one that insults me personally, being a racer myself.
Then, being a racer, you know the car is MUCH more responsible for the wins than the driver these days. This wasn't the case 20 years ago...
Winston Cup has become so boring I, a life-long-fan, don't even watch anymore unless they are at Bristol or Talladega...
triplerc
06-02-2003, 05:14 PM
Murco:<- and he didnt mention he drives a jetta!:finger:
audi&benz
06-02-2003, 05:17 PM
i live in the south and i still hate those rednecks that race in circles. long live open wheeled racing.
Murco
06-03-2003, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by triplerc
Murco:<- and he didnt mention he drives a jetta!:finger:
:confused: My daily driver is a 1989 Camaro with a 350 who's short-block is built mostly of..... retired Winston Cup parts!!! The wife drives the Jetta.
Does it matter?
Murco:<- and he didnt mention he drives a jetta!:finger:
:confused: My daily driver is a 1989 Camaro with a 350 who's short-block is built mostly of..... retired Winston Cup parts!!! The wife drives the Jetta.
Does it matter?
Blue02R6
06-07-2003, 07:19 AM
MURCO: I couldn't agree with you more. I do have one more thing to add though. Road race car are 100 times more stock that a winston cup car. They have to keep drivetrain layout, suspention configuration, the general shape of the body, and much more to stock specs. I mean you can go to a Porsche dealership and buy a GT2 996 which is very close to the race cars, but I've never seen or heard of a 800hp V-8, four speed manual, RWD Ford Torus or Grand Prix driving around. To say they are the tiniest bit stock is obsurd. I love to watch the old races from the 60s on Speedvision but the new ones are boring, and outright dumb. LONG LIVE HOMOLOGATION!!
BlackMonteSS
06-28-2003, 12:17 PM
I have friends that cannot for the life of them comprehend why I can watch NASCAR. One of them happens to be a big fan of F1, WRC etc and he loves to start a "friendly debate." Anyway, I agree with pretty much all you said Tigeraid. I actually did watch some WRC yesterday and I did enjoy it, but I'd still rather watch NASCAR. WRC is defnitely the ultimite in car control and handling, but where was the racing? Seems to me they were racing the clock more than anything. I'm not trying to bash WRC and I have a lot of respect for what they can do with their cars. I tend to get mad when people trash NASCAR as somehow being inferior or not racing; not because it's true (despite what some of the "we're better than you" snobs say) but because I'm a diehard fan of NASCAR racing and specifically Kevin Harvick. I watch to see him race. If he wasn't racing (like last year at Martinsville) then I may or may not watch. Sure I want his car to do well, but if he's not in it, what's the point? I want to see Chevrolet win, but watching Busch's Ford batlle Craven's pontiac at Darlington was still awesome racing. That's why I watch NASCAR Winston Cup racing, to see my driver race and hopefully win. NASCAR isn't for everybody and that's fine, but to say it's not racing, please...invest in a dictionary and look up the word. And no I don't live in the South:tongue:
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025