What do you think of my proposed changes to NASCAR?

Question

I think its time for NASCAR to get more with 21st (or at least late 20th) century technology. This is what I would change

-4.0L 32 valve OHC engines with fuel injection. FI systems would have a standard code but crews could change parameters but could not alter the base code. This would prevent any form of traction control.
-No restrictor plates, instead have rev limiters at Talladega and Daytona. (Similar to IRL) I say 12,000 RPM to start with.
-6 speed sequential gear boxes for road courses. No paddle shifting, no semi-auto gearboxes.
-Ethanol powered for safety and "green-ness" Indy has done that since the 70's

Race changes
- No more "competition yellows" might as well call them TV time outs
- Most races are 400 miles, except major events. 400 is a good distance and doesn't bore you to death.
-2 more road courses. Imagine them at Laguna Seca! haa haa..

I think my technical ideas are reasonable, and keep the spirit of competition and the cost still low, hell the IRL guys use most of this with WAY lower budgets than NASCAR does. Its time to bring NASCAR from the 50's in to the 2000's.

Answer 1

4.0 liter engines. I think not enough horsepower, and ever heard of a hacker?



I like the rev-limiter idea



Might as well have an automatic from the dealer.



NO ethanol, too many sparks, etc on pit road. Ethanol burns quicker (ignites quicker) and is invisible when burning. Pit crews drop the lug nuts all the time as a routine pit stop. And they generally spill a pint or so of gas on every stop. TOO dangerous.



I agree with the competition yellows. If they need a tire change the driver will know it.



400 miles, but only if the track is a mile or more. Imagine 800 laps at Dover.(;)(:)



I personally don't mind the road courses. But if they add two more, they should ADD them. Make it a 38 race season.



There, I said it.

Answer 2

A rev limiter would not be able to replace the restricter plate. They do not work in the same fashion. Restrictor plates reduce the amount of air going into the engine, thus the amount of horsepower is reduced and depending on the gear used the engine can only turn so many RPMs due to the restricted airflow even at full throttle. A rev limiter, however, works by skipping cylinders in the firing sequence of the ignition, it does not restrict horsepower. At Daytona and Talladega, where the cars run wide open for essentially the entire track, they would be constantly on the rev limiter which will damage the engine in a short amount of time.



A rev limiter would not be needed in that fashion for Daytona or Talladega in your scenario anyways. By using FI, NASCAR would simply mandate the parameters for an air/fuel mixture that would restrict the horsepower in much the same way a restrictor plate does. The rev limiter would only used as a safety device to prevent turning too many RPMs should a driver miss a shift.



Other than that, the ideas are certainly reasonable. NASCAR would just have to design and implement a very well rounded process for controlling the use of FI. Probably a scenario where the computer is issued at the race track, and as you said, only certain parameters could be adjusted by the teams. NASCAR is already looking into using Ethanol, and I wouldnt be surprised if the switch is made within the next 5 years. My only problem is that the use of a multi-intake valve, DOHC engine would greatly change the engine note of the cars. And for me there is nothing like a sound of a good 'ol fashioned carburated V8.



And IRL has lower budgets than NASCAR because they have one engine manufacturer that leases the engines, where as NASCAR teams build their own or get them from teams that do. Also, the chassis are purchased from manufacturers, not made by the teams themselves. Those are the technical ingenuity aspects that made NASCAR great, and they dont need to be restricted any more then they currently are.

Answer 3

Congratulations, You've completely ruined Nascar.



--Fuel injection has no place in stock car racing. What good would F.I. do? Seriously. So people can say they have F.I.? Nascar isn't into pushing envelope's, the speed is already there. They would just slow them down anyway. There budgets would sky rocket. You can't tell me it would be cheaper.

They currently run only one piece of electronics and that's the MSD ignition box.......and they run TWO of them incase one goes out!! So.....



--NO lease or spec motors please! 4.0 OHC? This isn't tuner car racing. This is stock car racing. Even new Chargers have 5.7 and 6.2 liter V8's. Impala's have 5.3's. There all push rod engines. So a 4.0 OHC motor would be further away from stock IMO.

How much TORQUE does an F1 2.4 have? Torque pushes the car and F1 cars weigh half as much as a Cup car.

And your not going to sell anybody on the sound. I personally can't stand the sound of IRL cars. THEY AREN'T EVEN CLOSE! That's like putting a Yamaha engine on a Harley Davidson and saying they sound the same or better. Pleease.

I'll stick to the 358CI "Military Grade" push rod engine and sound.



--Rev limiters would never work at Daytona and Talladega. They run wide open all the way around. An engine would NEVER last running wide open bouncing off the rev limiter all day. Period.



--Competition yellow's are a safety necessity.



--Most races are 400 miles, laps, or kilometers. I thought ALL Nascar races were a major event!?



I could handle 1 or 2 more road courses I suppose.

Answer 4

Race changes

- If there is no practice then I think you need to keep competition cautions. You cant put 43 cars on the track with no practice and expect them all to race well. This basically gives you some laps to practice without automatically losing the race.

- I like the shorter races except for big ones except make 3-4 hours instead of a set miles. 400 miles at Bristol would be an all day race.

- I'd love to see 4 road courses. How about running the Daytona road course and Laguna Seca?



Car changes

- No reason to change the engines. Its just going to cost millions for everybody to completely start over with 100% new engines. If you put computers in the car someone will use it to cheat unless you hand them out at the track and take them back after the race like with restrictor plates. OHC engines came before OHV engines so don't tell me its more modern.

- Once again why? I like seeing who can drive a real manual trans and this just adds cost.

- Its not really any greener. Doesn't Indy use methanol not ethanol?



#14 Chevrolet - The larger 3.0L V10 engines only made about 300-350 lb-ft of torque. Great in a 1,200 lb car but not so much in a 3,500 lb car. Don't forget you have to rev it to over 20k RPM to make usable power. That's also not ideal for anything but a very light car.

Answer 5

how about not the only change i would like to see is standard engines if you get bored by a race than dont watch it i would like most races to be longer and competition yellow are necessary most of the time if they didint throw it a car going into the wall would bring one out and 4 road tracks would b better everything eles you said sucks the teams alredy can change to many things and making stuff more complicated would onley cause more problems during a race especialy if the alternator cuts out



ethanol so safe it burns clear it would also mean they would have to change the way the put the gas iun the car there has been no problems with gas tanks in awile last one i remember was homestead a couple yrs ago when i think it was the 55 tank fell out but didint hurt anyone

Answer 6

though interesting, I would not like to see that for NASCAR. A part of the attraction of NASCAR to me is the sound of the cars. Those changes would make them sound like IRL cars...buzzing bees...lol



The IRL keeps costs down because teams lease engines from Honda and there is only one chassis teams can run.



With your suggested changes NASCAR teams spending would hit the roof. Each manufacturer/NASCAR team would still spend boatloads of money on R&D of new engine development.



I would not object to a couple more road courses, Watkins Glen full course! not the short one would be nice if they added a second date there...lol. I know there are other road courses that would be a great fit for the Cup cars as well. I would also like more short tracks. Other than body work, that would help control spending since teams would work on torque out of the corners than top speed. Since NASCAR already governs the gear ratios there is only so much teams could do on that front.



EDIT: Oh, NASCAR teams already do run a rev limiter chip in the ignition box. You will hear teams talking about pulling the chip late in a race to gain added horsepower. This is not mandated by NASCAR, the teams do it to protect the engine and over revving.

Answer 7

I agree with the 400 mile limit except at the Daytona 500. Competition yellows are for safety not commercials.



The engine changes will cost millions of dollars to the teams and ruin the parody that exists now. The only benefit would be geeks could say the word "fuel injection" over coffee.



2 road courses are enough.

Answer 8

It seems like all the teams are given a level playing field so no car is really much faster than any other. Take away the horsepower restrictions and let the teams that can get the most out of their car/driver will win. Throw in a few right hands turns. I like your idea of a few more road races. See how they fair racing in NYC or LA at rush hour.

Answer 9

I would rather see them go to a smaller engine and then go back to the older body's aerodynamics but using the COT chassis while losing the restrictor plate

Answer 10

NASCAR is NOT the IRL.I do not watch the IRL and if NASCAR changed it to that way,I would NOT watch NASCAR either.The only thing I don't have a problem with is the ethanol ;)

Answer 11

it's almost as if this forum is a whine zone.