prg

I've had an opportunity to drive an old Busch series car around a road course. Any one who can make one of those heavy pigs go that fast is a whole different species than me. Love it or hate it, nascar has the cream of the US driver talent pool.

shiners780

Most definitely not mine, with me driving, but I have the unique opportunity to drive the short course next week and I'll post my times just for kicks.

Brian P

I think that proves Jupe's point even more. I know my car can't reach 125+ by turn 2 and I'm certain Jupe's can't either. The mere fact that they can reach 125+ at turn 2 shows how much extra speed that they can build up with their extra horsepower.

I'm certain that the NASCAR guys are good drivers, but the short course at WG is one long straight from turn 1 to the bus stop, another long straight from the outer loop to turn 10, and then a long straight from turn 11 to turn 1. Even the long course at WG will highlight HP differences, and the short course should show it even more.

So, I think a car with 350+ extra horsepower should be a lot faster. I'm surprised that there's only 2 seconds of difference.

VaSteve

Funny how the TV makes that main (11 - 1) straight seem so short. I did my first ever event at Glen in June. It seemed like forever on that main straight . Well, I do drive a 944. I had some good sliding in Turn 1....It must have been total chaos in those big cars door to door.

ted munson

I have seen the quality of the bush north cars at Lime Rock, and they apear to be on a shoe string budget. Nothing current along with much less power than the cars at the Glen this weekend. The front row was in the 54 sec range, and these are drivers many have never heard of, on 15" wheels. If you watch from the uphill, on occasion you will see 3 wide. Made a believer out of me.
Anyone know how much power the bush north cars have? Is lime rock a handling track?

DrJupeman

You might note that I didn't start the comparison, so if you don't like it, beat up the OP. I was just disagreeing with his assessment of the comparison. Further, we're comparing a NASCAR to a CUP, not a RSR. I just pointed out that although a NASCAR may be 2 seconds faster than a Cup, the RSR would make up for that and still spot 300 hp to a NASCAR.

The drivers may rock in NASCAR as you guys are cheering, but the cars suck. No disagreement from me on that latter point, which is what I've been saying.

m73m95

But isn't that the point? I mean, they run nose to tail for 500 miles because they have no downforce, weigh 3x what any other race car weighs, and have great drivers....

Its a sport that its regular fanbase knows next to nothing about whats involved in the sport, and NASCAR caters to that with no apparent use of "technology", "planning" huge multi-car wrecks, and having tracks that have no loss of the cars at any point (circles), which makes it fun to watch....



(That may have been OT from the discussion you guys are having lol)

DrJupeman

A NASCAR weighs ~1.4x a Cup (not close to 3x) and NASCARs generate about 1500 lbs of downforce* (way more than "no downforce").




* source is the rather plebeian "How Stuff Works" website.

Mikelly

I don't know everyone's experience here, but I'm sure many of the more experienced drivers/ racers here will agree that adding more HP to the mix isn't always a good thing.

The fact that "ringers" like Boris S. are no longer looked to as "a sure bet for podium" is a testiment (I think anyway) to the evolution of the drivers in NASCAR, and why you see some of them involved in the 24hours of Daytona and other endurance races. It's also why tracks like VIR are rented for "practice" and "private" sessions on a regular basis. The new crop of NASCAR talent is truly, well, talented.

I agree with Dr. J., concerning the hate for the car, and one thing that drives me nuts is why NASCAR hasn't evolved into the 21st century with fuel injection and more modern suspension/brakes.

That said, You have to give those guys credit. 12.9 inch rotors and 16X10 slicks on a 3700# pig with that kind of power? And a live axle rear? Talk about a handful.

Mike Kelly

Brinkley

For what it's worth, my original post was based on a curiosity and in now way was presented to show how great the stock car is. As I watched some of the race at the Glen I was wondering how their times matched up and was genuinely surprised to learn their times were actually better than a Cup.

Yes they have 345 HP more but they also have 800-900 pounds of additional weight. I'm sure many of us have run a track by ourselves over many events and then added a passenger seat and a 200 pound student. You can really feel the difference in acceleration and your breaking points must be adjusted. It was this experience that caused me to be amazed at their speed even with the extra near half ton.

I also found a site describing the tire size, 225/60R16 on all corners, not the 255 (f) and 315 (r) at minimum the Cups are running. What are the Cups breaks, 14, 15 inches or more vs. the 12.5" on the NASCAR. Also consider the lower center of gravity of the Cup, if you watch the stockers their roof line is right at chest high.

Using the Formula Ford argument I would have thought that even with 345 less HP, the lower COG, much wider front and rear tire, larger brakes, and an amble 435HP the Cup should be faster.?. I guess not.

Fun Fact: wheel 16x9.5 all corners 26 POUNDS! That's stupid heavy for a 16" wheel. No wonder they way 3500-3700#.

Veloce Raptor

IMO, it's because they have atrocious braking, and have to brake so damned early...





Professional Racing and Driving Coach

m73m95

My statement was being used as an example. The numbers weren't supposed to be "facts".

Just saying that NASCAR racing is fun to watch because of what its made of. The cars ARE ****ty compared to other race cars, and the drivers ARE great to drive those cars as fast and as close as they do.

Thats where formula 1 loses a lot of people I think. Its a contest of "How fast can we possibly go" rather than "How exciting can we make the racing"

I LOVE F1 racing, but I use the analogy "F1 is the discovery channel, where NASCAR is The Family Guy". Both are great to watch, but for completely different reasons.

MUSSBERGER

They need to start being a little more considerate to the fans. Throw some rains and wipers on and have at it. Maybe Rainx will sponsor a car.

m73m95

I agree. NASCAR's excuse is "to protect the points", meaning if the top guys in points wreck because of the rain, its not really fair.

I say BS!! If you're a good driver, then you should be able to drive in all weather. Its 2 tracks a year, and with sanoma being almost a desert, its not going to rain there. The glen would be one rain race for these guys a year. RUN EM'

shiners780

Best I could muster today on the short course was a 1:29.8 with 220 hp 951 on R888's.