Word on the street is that GTO will be used for the IROC series starting in 2004 (since Firebird is no longer).

 

IROC series is BO-RING.....

I'd love to see something more in keeping with production cars and keep mods to a minimum (safety, minor suspension).

 

Now this could be interesting if the IROC GTO's were set up like a V8 Supercar (Cammodore/Falcon) used in Austrailia. Now that would be interesting.
Let the cars compete on a superspeedways and road courses. Now that would be a true IROC.

http://www.holdenmotorsport.com/

 

First off let me say that I hate Nascar, but i'm not going to bash them. If you like that kind of "racing", then more power to you.

Pontiac should take the money from the Nascar program and build a GTO program to run in the Speed GT series. That way they can battle BMW and AUDI and PORSCHE. Isn't Cadillac going to run a CTS-V in that series, or is it ALMS?

GM should not take the money they save and invest it in another damn sport utility.

Maybe GM and Cadillac can launch a competitive F1 team, but that is just wishful thinking.

 

How much value would there b ein Pontiac using the GTO in the IROC series?

GTO is liimted production... and I doubt there will be a lot of trouble selling them all.

I supose you could use the Pontiac brand arguement, or maybe the idea that GTO wouldn not be limited production in a few years...

 

No there is no technology in NASCAR at all. Nothing new is developed there. THey use the same technology the Big Three used in 1975. Now its not to say NASCAR does not have any talent they certainly do. But lets be honest here NASCAR hasnt made it to fuel injection. They have yet to tackle the problems with the cars being too rigid. They have yet to get into computer telemetry. NASCAR wont even allow the use of fairly common race car meterials, carbon fiber, kevlar, or even aluminium. Heck Ryan Newman wins on fuel milegde because his team of engineers seem to have the best calculators to figure out miledge. (Typical Penske racing 101, get the best talent behind the wall first.)

Now let me say this. NASCAR has the best non-technical race cars out there. The teams and engine builders do some very impressive things for what they have to work with. The engines and suspension and craftmanship of the bodies and frame is very very good. But its still a low tech race car. This isn't there fault its just that NASCAR has soo many rules and regulations that there isn't much teams can do. IF any top team was given the ok to make a technical race car with computer controls, EFI, and maybe use different suspension setups into the cars they certainly could. But NASCAR has a cash cow here and they don't want to spoil anything. Fans seem to be happy so why change. Yet in the racing world NASCAR machines are not impressive. The competition and talent in the pits and drivers seat however is very impressive.

Your correct on one point the WilliamsBMW F1 team was very suprised when brought to Indy to do the face off with jeff Gordon and Juan Pablo Montoya. They were quite suprised at how low tech and simple the Winston Cup car was. And how few adjustments the car could actually have.

You see if Gordon says man I'd like some more suspension travel for Bristol next race to get me into the corner better and then earier to exit. Robby Lumas would probably say we'll adjust it all we can. If Montoya said to his WilliamsBMW engineer I need some more travel in the suspension for Monza, they would redesign and test a new suspension until Montoya was happy with it. The difference is this in NASCAR they work around their rules. In F1 what ever you need to win barring some rule breaking is allowed. If the tech isn't there they will create it.

 

Now you're talking!

 

..um who cares ..We're talking about cars that are a shell of its' former self.

 

and all that you mention means $$$ Look at the three series that uses high technology...F1, Cart, and IRL. If they get a field of 26, their lucky. and the compition is terrible. And to say that there is no technology is not true. They spend thousands of dollars designing and building their own shocks!!!!! It's not like they go down to the local Napa store. and if NASCAR hasn't made it to electronic telemetry, then I guess the telemetry that they show on tv is actually Benny Parsons driving EA sports 2004 just to fool the viewers on TV.

 

Perhaps autoextremist.com aren't too far off the mark when they say that Detroit is looking seriously at how much money they are pumping into NASCAR.

 

I can gaurantee you that NASCAR has much more technology in it than it did in 1975, to say that just shows how little you know about it.

Yes the engines are low tech in terms of their operation, pushrod, 2v per cylinder, carbuerators, but the technology is in the materials like bearings and in cnc design like combustion chambers...they've refined the hell out of the pushrod motor and we have NASCAR partially to thank for the technology that went into the LS1. Would you call the LS1 low-tech, or would you call it elegantly simple? Its a ricer argument to me to say since it doesn't have fuel injection and 6 cams that it is ancient tech. Take a look at a NASCAR SB2 cylinder head and tell me you don't see any resemblances to the LS1 head.

FYI... Ryan Newman was winning fuel mileage races because he was running a 670cfm carb instead of the max legal 750...gave them 12 more laps than everybody else at a cost of only 3 hp. That's just a savvy crew cheif and engine builder for you.

Keeping the actual car tech low keeps the cost down, although we've seen the costs in NASCAR skyrocket as it has gotten more competitive, the tech behind the scenes is incredibly expensive. If you don't think CAD and telemetry data isn't used in their wind tunnel sessions at the Lockheed facility then you're not paying attention.

Fact is, NASCAR is cheaper on a per team basis to exist and it pulls in many times the advertising dollars of F1 and INdycar combined, not to mention the TV ratings. Many want to call it "not real racing", and that is fine, but if you don't like it, don't like it for what it really is, not what you think it is.

NASCAR fans are THE most loyal in terms of product/sponsor purchases. If tide sponsors a car, their sales go up, If Exide sponsors a car, they sell more batteries. Marketing firms have shown a stronger correlation between sponsors and fan purchases in NASCAR than in any other sport. That is why I believe the manufacturers have a vested interest in the series even though it does not translate into direct sales of a specific model.

The way I see it, it may not help sell cars directly, but they cannot afford NOT to be in NASCAR...it is popular enough now it is a right of passage for these companies. Plus they learn some tech, not in the specific areas of an engine design, but in terms of component design, materials, and longevity/endurance of parts.

Take goodyear for example...their NASCAR program is not cheap, they sell the tires to the teams but suffice to say they do not profit from the program. But it allows them some incredible opportunities to test tire compounds and learn how to make a tire for a specific condition. Not to mention they get the publicity from the sponsorship and hard core fans are gonna go out and buy goodyears because of that.

 

Having said all the above, I also agree with you guys 100% that IROC should use production based GTOs...would breathe some much needed life into an otherwise fantastically boring series. Throw in a road course like they did in the 80s, some production based "supercars", and bang, instant showcase for Pontiac.

 

Chris 96 WS6, Donutboy 97; Your both proving my point. NASCAR is low tech not because it needs to be but because NASCAR the faction says so. There is no doubt in my mind that if NASCAR teams were allowed to increase technology they could and they would do it fast. The benefits to at least the American Car industry would be imense. Having said that NASCAR has chosen to keep things low tech for cost and competition. Again they don't want their cash cow dying. I'll say again NASCAR is as technical as NASCAR will allow it to be. They make the best racecars in the world for their price and within the rules. That doesn't mean there is a lot of tech in NASCAR nor does it mean those cars are considdered technical in the world of racing. They arn't!

My point is this. In racing since its inception the idea was competiton and winning. To do this there had to be innovation and technological advances. Look at how many things have come and been tested in racing first. Now that being said in racing there needs to be types that have no limits to cost and technological improvement. F1 is that sport. TO some extent NHRA offers some of that too. One one spectrum you have F1 whare cost to win is no object whare what ever is needed to win is done. On the other you have NASCAR. Whare competition is fostered under the idea that keeping things simple and cheap with lots of regulations will keep the competiton close. ANd NASCAR is correct so is F1. They both have their places. In between is the NHRA, CART, IRL. Who have a little of both sides mixed in. Higher costs more technology and slightly less competition. (Although the IRL seems to have hit a happy medium and the competition this year was flat out amazing!) But when you sit back and say I want the fastest, best handling, most accelration and best braking racecar in the world bar none... F1 has to be it. I know the cost is high but thats tech to go out and do something thats never been done before and do it faster than the other guys.
SO I know there is some tech in NASCAR but for every arguement you come up with I'll say F1 has more.

I see you all love NASCAR and I like it too but its more WWF for racing held back from its true level for a good show. I say open up the rules and let these teams really use what they have!

 

I don't think that ever in my wildest fits of insanity would I claim NASCAR has more "tech" than F1. That's not what I'm arguing about here.

I was simply disputing your implication that NASCAR has zero tech and that nothing has changed technologically in the sport since 1975.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself