akirby Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Restrictor plate racing is not always about who has the best car or driver. There are too many variables that cannot be accounted for. Just the fact that they are forced to run in these huge packs makes the outcome extremely unpredictable. Look at how many times a driver who would typically have little chance elsewhere has won races at Daytona or Talladega. David Ragan, Trevor Bayne, hell, even Dale Jr could fall into that category. There are other ways to control top speed besides restrictor plates. They could reduce the engine displacement which would make the engines more responsive and the cars less dependent on aero and each other. Even better, they could reconfigure those tracks by reducing the banking or the length of the straightaways or they could add chicanes or run part of the race on an infield road course similar to the Rolex 24. Unfortunately, anything they would do to change the way they race would break up the big packs and also reduce the likelihood of wrecks and then they would loose more than half of their audience. There is a reason why Daytona and Talladega get the most media and, therefore, fan attention and it's not because it is the best form of racing. It's become gladiators on wheels, not racing. I think using the road course at Daytona would be a great idea but NASCAR would never go for it for the reasons you mentioned. I think the reason they went with restrictor plates was initially it was a way to keep costs down with teams using the same engines at all tracks. But of course that hasn't been the case for at least 2-3 decades with teams now building specific engines for daytona and talladega. So changing to a V6 with 400 hp shouldn't be that big of a deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 There's a rumor that NASCAR is considering running road courses inside some of the tracks already on the schedule in the coming seasons. AJ Allmendinger tested the road course at CMS over the winter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdegrand Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 (edited) Just goes to show you what a top tier team can do with good equipment, engineering, crew, and management. I don't know what is going on at Roush but it isn't good. They still are way behind Penske and now SHR.I think the top 2 Fords had Roush engines...and SHR also uses Yates/Roush engines. Right? Edited February 28, 2017 by bdegrand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted February 28, 2017 Author Share Posted February 28, 2017 Robert Yates toyed around with the idea of running a smaller V8 in the 5.0L range (think early Boss 302) in the late '80s or early '90s but NASCAR changed the rules so he couldn't do it. Before that, NASCAR first used restrictor plates in 1971 on the big-block engines in the winged Dodge Daytona and Plymouth Superbird (426 Hemi) and the Ford Torino Talladega and Mercury Cyclone II (Boss 429). Those cars could run without a plate but if they did they were limited to 305 ci (imagine that). This prompted Dick Brooks to run the '71 Daytona 500 with a 305 ci engine in a Dodge Daytona while everyone else ran more conventional bodies with unrestricted big-blocks. Brooks finished 6th. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted February 28, 2017 Author Share Posted February 28, 2017 I think the top 2 Fords had Roush engines...and SHR also uses Yates/Roush engines. Right? All Fords in all three NASCAR series use the FR9 Ford engine supplied by Roush Yates. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtisH Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 I think using the road course at Daytona would be a great idea but NASCAR would never go for it for the reasons you mentioned. I think the reason they went with restrictor plates was initially it was a way to keep costs down with teams using the same engines at all tracks. But of course that hasn't been the case for at least 2-3 decades with teams now building specific engines for daytona and talladega. So changing to a V6 with 400 hp shouldn't be that big of a deal. If you go back 3 decades, then they would have been building specific engines for daytona and talladega since restictor plates were mandated. I believe NASCAR started mandating restrictor plates sometime in the late 80's. I know they weren't using restrictor plates in 85. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 I wasn't sure when they started building restrictor plate specific engines for daytona and talladega but I was sure it wasn't long after they started mandating them which I believe was either 85 or 86. Point is since they're building different engines anyway switching to a completely different engine won't be that much of a hardship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coupe3w Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 I think the top 2 Fords had Roush engines...and SHR also uses Yates/Roush engines. Right? I wouldn't call them Roush engines. Doug Yates is CEO of the Roush / Yates organization. I really don't know what Roush brings to the organization, maybe some engineering help. I would say Doug does most of the R&D with help from Ford and Roush. Not taking anything away from Roush in the engine department, but they sure need help in chassis development. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Not taking anything away from Roush in the engine department, but they sure need help in chassis development. I thought all they needed was better drivers because the car doesn't really matter....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coupe3w Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 I thought all they needed was better drivers because the car doesn't really matter....... I didn't say that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 I didn't say that. Not you, Fuzzy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 (edited) Not you, Fuzzy. I didn't say that either. I said that a mediocre driver (Danica being my example) in top flight equipment doesn't equate to good results RFR's problem is both mediocre drivers and mediocre equipment. Edited March 1, 2017 by fuzzymoomoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted March 1, 2017 Author Share Posted March 1, 2017 The first use of restrictor plates in the "modern" era was the second race at Talladega in 1987. This came after Bobby Allison flew into the catch fence during the first race at the same track earlier that year. Ironically, Bobby's career came to an end the following year after a horrific crash at Pocono where NASCAR does not mandate restrictor plates. The first use of plates at the Daytona 500 was in 1988. That was the last race I saw in person at Daytona. That was also the race where Richard Petty flipped on his roof and spun like a child's top on the front stretch and the only race where a father and son (Bobby and Davey Allison) finished 1st and 2nd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted March 1, 2017 Author Share Posted March 1, 2017 (edited) I didn't say that either. I said that a mediocre driver (Danica being my example) in top flight equipment doesn't equate to good results RFR's problem is both mediocre drivers and mediocre equipment. I think RFR's biggest problem is Jack's unwillingness to spend cubic dollars on personnel and that includes both drivers and engineers. If you could look at their personnel records you would probably discover that most of their lead engineers were probably hired by other teams at about the same time Martin and Kenseth left. Lee White, who ran TRD until he retired at the end of 2013, was once general manager at Roush Racing. It would be interesting to count the total number of drivers who have driven for Jack in the cup series alone. I bet he holds the record. The most consistent winning teams, like Hendrick Racing, keep their top personnel in tact. Edit: Actually, Jack doesn't hold the all-time record for the largest number of different drivers. I'm not sure who does but the Wood Brothers have actually had more drivers than Jack. Then again, they have been in the sport since 1950 and Jack didn't start until 1988. I counted 17 different drivers for Jack since 1988 in the Cup series alone and 6 of those drivers are still active. Edited March 1, 2017 by blksn8k2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
351cid Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 It's safety. Without plates they'd be doing 220-230 or higher on the straights. Way too dangerous for the drivers and the fans and probably dictated by the track insurance companies. In 1992 or 93, Bill Elliot was testing at Talladega with a Junior Johnson car. He was clocked @ 243 on the back straight with the plate removed. I always thought a 275 cube engine with 9:1 compression would be a better answer than a restrictor plate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
351cid Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 Back to the restrictor plate issue, I thought the knock on restrictor plates was the cars were unresponsive at speed. Like you had to build momentum to get yourself out of a situation. True? If so I often wondered why they didn't control top speed with axle ratios? Cars would be responsive within the limits as determined by final drive ratio and max RPM. As always fine balance then between finishing the race and oiling the track half way through the race. Opinions?? And by the way, I guess I should softn my knock on Roush- two cars and while one wrecked in last big wreck, they were both there until that point-and the "6" car was in top ??5-10?? That would take innovation to get an engine to live at 11,000 rpm for 500 miles. Innovation has been discouraged in NA$CAR for decades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 That would take innovation to get an engine to live at 11,000 rpm for 500 miles. Innovation has been discouraged in NA$CAR for decades. I hear you-and that is my point- Rev limiters are a reality right? so either everyone is limited to xxxx rpms or they are free to gamble. I guess if you look at non-super speedway, what is the limiter? The track. So super speedway? Let the cars be responsive-to a point! Wild thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
351cid Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 I gave up on NA$CAR's integrity in 2005, so I can't speak to the current situation. Back "then", they run a rev-limiter to protect the engine. It was left up to the engine builder to specify where the topped out. RYR used to turn 9150, RR was 8900, HMS was 9000. These were prior to the current race design engines....there were Ford Clevors and Gen i SBC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted March 3, 2017 Author Share Posted March 3, 2017 I think the real issue is not whether or not there is a way to run these races without restrictor plates, but rather why is NASCAR trying so hard to promote "pack racing"? Both answers to that question relate directly to the fan base. First of all, Dale Jr is the perennial fan favorite and plate racing is the only form of racing where he has a better than average chance of winning. Second, plate racing = pack racing = wrecks. 'Nuff said. What happened when the teams took it on their own to reduce the odds of big crashes by running nose to tail or what became known as "tandem racing"? The result was that two cars hooked up could go faster than a single car which resulted in just as many lead changes as with pack racing but with fewer "big ones" that took out half the field in one crash. Yes, there were still wrecks but because the tandems acted like one car with double the horsepower and they could pull away from the field, the cars tended not to run in large packs so the wrecks usually involved fewer cars. The majority of fans hated it. Dale Jr didn't like it and basically couldn't do it so it was no good. And it was deemed to be less exciting. In other words, there were not enough "big ones". Oh, and let's not forget, the FR9's cooling system worked better for pushing which gave the Fords an advantage. So NASCAR changed the rules to effectively eliminate tandem racing and force the teams back into pack racing. I have to believe the team owners hate plate racing. Look how many cars the 48 team alone destroyed at Speedweeks this year. Rick Hendrick must have been saying "Oh no, not another one!" I also think stage racing contributed to the number of wrecks this time as well even though everyone is quick to tow the company line and say it had no effect. Just the fact that you had so many cars with different pit strategies and therefore different amounts of tire wear and fuel loads running so close together probably contributed to some of the melee as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.