Subscribe to this blog's feed« Im NASCAR Thankful for | Main | Ominous events in Asia and Europe »
November 29, 2008
The Big Picture
By DAVID GREEN
A week ago, Racecar Graphic Ltd. hosted the fourth annual World Motorsport Symposium at world-famous Oxford University in England. The two men who presided over the symposium were aerodynamicist John Iley of Ferrari and engine guru Dr. Andy Randolph of Earnhardt Childress Racing. Kurt Romberg of Hendrick Motorsports was also a speaker.
NASCAR engines have gotten a considerable amount of respect at this event, with Chevrolet's new R07 engine and its development team, led by Jim Covey, honored last year.
So it shouldn't come as a shock, I suppose, that Randolph was chosen as one of the leaders of the two-day session or that Romberg talked aero with the international racing crowd. But it raised my eyebrows.
I mean, in recent years, the Brits have to a considerable extent gotten over our snit about the taxation without representation thing and our subsequent departure from their Empire. For more than a century now, we have been fast allies. And there has been more than a little crossover, of personnel and ideas, between NASCAR and various international forms of racing, up to and including Formula One.
I guess I'm more thin-skinned than I like to admit about the condescension that was prevalent on the part of the global racing community toward NASCAR for so long.
It goes both ways, of course. Some NASCAR fans are pretty arrogant in their dismissal of road racing in general and F1 in particular. But at the end of the day, the average Englishman can be so much better at arrogance and condescension than most Americans.
Getting past all that, it's interesting to note that in the session overseen by the Ferrari aero specialist, NASCAR's new car was a topic of great interest.
I have to re-read the promotional line from the British Web site F1 Fanatic to believe it:
In the final part of his look at the future of aerodynamics in motor racing, John Beamer looks at how F1 is following NASCAR in using aerodynamics restrictions in a bid to improve racing - although NASCAR’s efforts have not been entirely successful.
"How F1 is following NASCAR..." Wow.
For those who don't know, F1 will adopt radical aero modifications for its cars next year. There's much anxiety about whether or how well the changes will work to improve the product. As Beamer notes (and Mike Daly will surely agree), NASCAR's new aero package did not work out all that well in 2008.
What does it all mean? I don't know. But I think the symposium is a great thing for auto racing and I'm glad American racing is involved in it. It constitutes a big-picture look at the sport and its future, and it does not have one genre, manufacturer or sanctioning body's undue influence.
In a tenuous time, it's a reason to be optimistic.
November 29, 2008 | Permalink
Comments
My earliest recollections of motorsports and Open Wheel the cars still had the engine in the front!...and The name USAC seems to ring a bell...Daly needs to come loosen some of the cobwebs! and in 65 I really started to take a shine to "The Taxi Cabs"...and finally getting to be in the Pits in the late 70's and seeing the likes of Rusty Wallace, Mark Martin, Dave Marcis, Ted Smokstadt, and of course Dick Trickle, Nascar had me...I guess my alienation from F1 and Indy the cars morphed into "Techo-Marvels" if a canard got Knocked off by a seagull the car was done for the day...OR Heaven for bid you scuffed a wall! Now I'm not sayin I don't appreciate what they do, But they could learn what NOT to do from Nascar...Auto racing in general has gotten too far out of touch with its roots...even at the grass roots level...and I may be nitpicking here but at Hickory there are guys in the running in the 4cylinder class with a Monte Carlo!...F1, Indy and Nascar are commiting slow suicide...Like my Uncle said if you wanna earn a Million in racing...ya gotta start with a couple Thirteen, Fourteen million my boy!
Posted by: Fan #5 | Nov 30, 2008 12:17:54 AM
If I'm Nascar King for a day I would have to say that its nice to see cooperation amongst the different forms of racing. BUT looking at the technological side of racing to improve racing is in my mind the polar oposite of where the sanctioning bodies should be looking. It's a show people come to be entertained by. Its what they see for themselves that makes the difference. Lifting the front right corner of a splitter by one one hundreth of an inch does not help the fan enjoy the show. Yes it may assist in the handling of a car and improve chances for a win but it doesnt help the view from the stands. F1 and Nascar (in my limited experience) attracted their fans in different ways. Open wheelers have always had a huge emphasis on technology and money to drive it. Their prestige was determined by both. Nascar however was started with beer budgets and impressed the fans with ingenuity. The product sold to the public was simple enough for a an average person to pursue it. Of the two, Nascar certainly is the one that strayed away from its roots and transformed the sport into something less believable than from where it started. Yes track activities need to be somewhat controlled for competition. But when your total focus has changed to track technologies in an attemt to satisfy fans its a losing proposition. While cooperation amongst sanctioning bodies in and of itself may be a good thing, spending on technology beyond what the fan base is willing and able to pay will always as proven here reduce the the enjoyment of the fans.
Posted by: Bob | Nov 30, 2008 9:52:58 AM
David, why would I agree with what Beamer said?
;-)
Seriously, it seems clear that motorsports in general has finally figured out that the technology arms race is no longer a workable business model, and restrictions will be the name of the game from now on. NASCAR showed that for years and IRL showed it as well with retro-tech racecars.
What should also be kept in mind is precisely why the COT aero change hasn't worked - the long-made argument that cutting downforce will make better racing because making less downforce means losing less downforce is a nonsensical argument, proven such by the entirety of racing history. Combining this absurd concept with a car model where the nose is opened up in the airdam, the roof is top-heavy, and a wing is used on a fendered racecar, and you get the COT and why it doesn't work.
Fan #5 mentions USAC - my earliest racing memories were of NASCAR's 1970s era and of that same era's Indycars when they had huge noses and rear wings and the car owners were sportsmen instead of business tyes - if you can, get Chris Economaki's autobiography (obvious pun!) for a good look back at those days and before.
Sticking with Indycars, I'm puzzled about talk that IRL may go back to turbochargers and different chassis - there's no need for either.
Posted by: Mike Daly | Nov 30, 2008 3:02:33 PM
#5 -- My own earliest memories are of 1950s-vintage Indy cars. I loved those things, but they sure were dangerous.
Bob -- I absolutely concur with you about aero. However, that genie is out of the bottle. I don't know that it can be done successfully, but I like the fact that people are trying to dumb it down. Auto racing at its best is a balance of good entertainment and pure competition. That's a very difficult balance to maintain. Finally, as for the economics of racing, it never has made good business sense except for a very select few. I expect it will always be that way.
Mike -- Chris's book is, indeed, a great read. As for your pun, it reminds me of my first writing assignment as a high school journalist -- a regular feature on cars. My first subject was Mike Flood's '55 Chevy. The title of the feature? "Auto-Biography," of course.
Posted by: David Green | Nov 30, 2008 10:18:34 PM
Hey David,
If only F1 would also consider a wider track, and some progressive banking. ha
Pretty sure that Jim Hurtibise was the last roadster at Indy. He went out in "he gave it his all, fashion" spinning out of turn 4 for a qualifying attempt. That may have been where I became fond of the "Miller High-Life Special".
The turbo charged cars were part of the compromise with Cart, right? Oh, and they will sound like race cars instead of jets.
Posted by: Larry | Dec 2, 2008 7:58:57 PM
Larry, not sure about turbos being part of a compromise with CART - especially as it was CART in effect surrendering.
--------------------
The big picture as far as racing goes is summed up in two words -
LEAD
CHANGES
Posted by: Mike Daly | Dec 3, 2008 11:29:12 AM
Mike the only objection I might have for the quality of racing being determined by the number of lead changes is that through out the field their are lead changes all race long. If the quality of coverage were to cover them it would have a better affect on the perspective of the viewer. When the total focus is popular drivers and the only the top five drivers you leave a lot of good driving hidden from public view. Only when they crash is it covered. Part of being a fan of an individual driver gives you the ability to follow their talents through the field. Unfortunatley broadcaster dont show that. In person track viewing gives you that and tv doesnt. To me the undetermined factor is the literal definition of "quality passing" as with most thigs it can be a very subjective thing.
Posted by: Bob | Dec 3, 2008 11:52:51 PM
Good point, Bob. In replying to Keith's frequent unkind words about Fontana, I have often said that seeing a race at the track is a different experience from seeing it on TV. I am NOT saying that one is necessarily better than the other, just that they're different. You don't get to see much of the midpack racing on TV. You don't get to watch a guy move up from a crappy starting position into the top ten on TV by watching him lap after lap after lap. TV just can't do that. At the same time, being at the track means you miss lots of interviews, explanations, replays, and the like.
Did I mention that watching it on TV costs a tick less?
Posted by: Doug in CA | Dec 4, 2008 5:07:29 PM
Sie haben eine schöne Seite!
Posted by: liebe | Feb 28, 2009 5:13:23 AM
Post a comment
Advertisements
