| 0 |
Subject: Restrictor Plates - What are your thoughts?
Posted by: KrazyKoalaBears
- Donor [266182910] Sat, Apr 20, 2002, 18:02
Anyone happen to catch that 3-car race earlier today? In case you missed it, the NASCAR Busch Series held the Aaron's 312 today at Talladega. Everything was going nice and smooth with all the cars bunched up together just like every other restrictor plate race until a bump and a tap and a swirve started what amounted to about a 30-car wreck on lap 14. By the time the race was over, there was all of 3 cars on the lead lap: 1. Jason Keller
2. Stacy Compton
3. Timothy Fedewa Not exactly the most exciting stuff in the world. Even right after the wreck, there were more cars out there racing without hoods and bumpers than there were cars on the lead lap and there was 103 of 117 laps of racing to go!!! So all this raises the constant question about restrictor plates. Those in favor of them (or at least not perturbed by them) say stuff like Jimmy Spencer: It was the drivers fault. Those not in favor say the opposite: It's the restrictor plate's fault. Personally, I think it's a combination, but I think most of the blame falls with the restrictor plates. With normal racing engines, we don't see these kinds of wrecks, yet it seems like we can't go through a single restrictor plate race without seeing "The Big One." 2 + 2 = 4 Restrictor plates and close-quarters racing + a small bump and turned car = 30-car wreck It's not the fault of the restrictor plates themselves, but what happens because of them. Because of restrictor plates, all the cars travel along in 2, sometimes 3, rows of drafting trains because everyones car is practically a duplicate of everyone elses. Get out of the draft and you go to the back. And just like a real train that hits something on the tracks, if something happens at the front, everything from that point back is going to be involved. I watched car after car enter the pile-up and then saw 3-4 cars still coming and just smash right into the wreckage, presumably because they a.) couldn't see through the smoke, b.) couldn't slow down enough to stop, and c.) couldn't get by anything anyhow because the pile-up went from the outside wall to the inside wall on the grass. So who else thinks this is ridiculous? I understand that NASCAR thinks restrictor plate racing is "exciting", but it's only exciting when there are 30+ cars finishing the race on the lead lap within 1 sec of each other. Something like today was just boring. Even NASCAR Happy Hour is more exciting than today's race. And I also don't buy the "we have to slow these cars down" argument. INDY, CART, and F1 all race above 200 anytime they hit a speedway and they're just as safe as NASCAR. And even slowing the cars down did nothing to save the likes of Dale Earnhardt, so what good is it? Some would even argue that the restrictor plate style killed Senior because of the "bunched up" racing. I'm not sure if that's the case, but I do know one thing: a wreck in a restrictor plate race is nothing like a wreck at any other race. What happened today would have taken out 3-4 cars on any other track. Maybe even 10 at most. But not nearly as many as were taken out today. Thoughts? |
| 1 | The Beezer
Leader
ID: 191202817
Sat, Apr 20, 2002, 18:29
|
Totally agree with you KKB. If NASCAR is that concerned about cars going too fast at the superspeedways, it should require a smaller cc engine be used in those races that can't deliver as much power. But creating a 43-way tie for most horsepower in a race is a prescription for trouble.
I personally find the qualifying for Talladega and Daytona more exciting than the race, because there's more skill involved. If I want to see a big group of cars travelling in a pack that close together, I'll go watch rush hour traffic. I'd prefer to see a race.
|
| 2 | Challenger
ID: 45341410
Sat, Apr 20, 2002, 19:02
|
I don't like restrictor plate racing, but I can't say that this wreck wouldn't have been any different if the plates wouldn't have been there.
They were only 13 laps into the race and the field would not have been stretch out enough to where we might not have had this big of a wreck.
Another thing, car after car drove into the smoke but found no way out. They were driving at 190 mph! It takes a few hundred feet to stop at those speeds. A few drivers managed to only to be hit from behind from other drivers who didn't react as fast. Now, if there was no restrictor plates and the cars were traveling 200, 205, 210 it would take even longer/further to stop the car, hence into the pile up we go since we can't honestly say the cars would be strung out enough not to have such a big pile up only 13 laps into the race.
Today's race, driver error. Who? Here's what I saw happened. Kenny Wallace saw the car #10 moving fast and would pass him, Kenny's words supported by the replays. Replays should Kenny moving up the track in order to get in front of #10 and either block his move (to early for this) or what I think as trying to take advantage of the momentum from #10 and have his car pushed passed the others in front of him. (A common move) However, #10 checked up, let off the gas and was whacked from behind by the car behind him who was in turn hit from behind also and the melee began. 27 cars wrecked and only 13 returned to the finish line on that lap.
Now, was it the veteran racer moving up in front of a fast moving lane to take advantage of it or the driver which lack as much speedway racing experience who let off the gas to avoid the driver which moved up in front of him? General rule of close speedway racing is keep your foot on the gas, because the driver directly behind you cannot possible react fast enough to not hit you, lest we not forget all the other drivers behind them.
Sorry, as much as I hate the plates and want them gone, I have to take other things into consideration and say this wreck was driver error that people are trying to blame this on the horsepower robbing bandits.
You don't let up on the gas, unless you're in last place.
|
| 3 | BackwoodsBum
ID: 393102023
Sat, Apr 20, 2002, 23:53
|
I've hated the plates from the beginning and wreck or no wreck I think that restrictor plate races are just plain boring. I started going to Talladega in 1971 and missed only one race until the late 80's. The races at Talladega in the late 70's and early 80's were some of the best races I've ever seen anywhere. The speeds were incredible and there were battles for position all over the track. Yes, there were some bad wrecks, but seldom were there more than a few cars involved. Phil Parsons wreck there in '81 or '82 (I think) was one of the wildest wrecks I've ever seen but even then there were only a few cars damaged. The best part about those races were that the guys with the best cars, best setups, and the nerve and skill to get the most out of the cars were the ones who ran up front. There were a few guys like Buddy Baker, Cale Yarborough, etc., who you could always count on being fast there but there would always be a few dark horses hanging around with a chance to win at the end.
I was at the race where Bobby Allison tore a large section of the fence down and I remember looking down and seeing the bottom of his car as it passed in front of the section I was sitting in. I honestly thought the fence was not going to be able to stop the car and that it was going to come into the stands. Thankfully it didn't, but had that happened there probably wouldn't be any Nascar at all today. I understand that Nascar was terrified that day and wanted to be sure that everything possible was done to see that a car never did fly into the grandstand, but in my opinion they took the wrong approach. By the time of Allison's wreck, the cars had gotten so far away from the relatively stock bodies that they ran only a few years earlier that the cars had become so sensitive to aerodynamics that any deviation from the perfect scenerio (the car moving straight forward) resulted in a car that was completely out of control. Look at footage from some of the earlier races and you see guys banging fenders at 190+ mph, getting nearly completely sideways, etc., and managing to keep the car under control. By the late 80's if a car got just a little sideways it began to get airborne and the driver had no chance at controlling the car. Nascar slapped the restrictor plates on the cars with the logic that slowing the cars down would keep them from getting airborne, but there have been more cars getting airborne since the plates were first used then there ever were before. To me it's obvious that the plates are not the answer, and actually make things worse by bunching the cars up so that wrecks are inevitible. Rather than use restrictor plates the better plan would have been to make the teams go back to running a body that was closer to the street versions. This would add a ton of drag to the cars and would slow them substantially, and would also get the racing back to the way it was in the 70's and early 80's when driver skill was a big factor. A lot of drivers say that at Talladega and Daytona all you do is put your foot to the floor and turn left. The skill of the driver is not much of a factor anymore. With Nascar moving closer to requiring that the cars all fit a common template they are actually moving in the wrong direction in my opinion and are just making things worse. What they will end up with is everybody driving cars that are so close to identical that the only way a pass can be made is by ganging up and hanging one or two cars out to dry while everyone else goes by. Kinda sounds like what the last few restrictor plate races have been anyway. With the drivers knowing that if they get hung out they are probably going to the back of the pack, guys will do whatever they can to keep everyone behind them. That's what causes the big wrecks. I've quit going to Talladega because I can stay home and see a better race at my local dirt track. If they ever get smart and throw the plates in the trash and put the race back in the drivers hands I'll be the first in line for tickets, but I don't expect that to happen. In fact, the plate races and the road course are the only races I don't watch on TV. Any other Sunday (or Saturday night for the night races) I'll be watching, but those races are about as exciting as watching grass grow.
|
| 4 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 266182910
Sun, Apr 21, 2002, 11:54
|
Challenger, it's true that driver error caused the wreck in a simple sense, but: 1. Why did K.Wallace move up the track so forcefully to block Scott Riggs? 2. Why was it bad that Riggs "checked up"? 3. Why couldn't (or didn't) Shane Hmiel "check up"? The answer to all 3 is: restrictor plates. Wallace moved up to protect his position because he knew that if he didn't, he would get stuck in the middle and would end up at the back of the pack just like what had happened to other drivers. This caused him to just barely get into Riggs' front left fender and caused him to check up for reasons that BackwoodsBum did a great job of explaining (aerodynamics and getting even the slightest bit off a straight line). Now any other race and a driver can check up with no problems. So why can't you do it with a restrictor plate? Because you lose all your horsepower and go straight to the back of the line and possibly even further back. So again, because of a restrictor plate, these guys are forced to keep the pedal to the metal and try to drive through things that they would normally let off the gas and/or have the ability to move around. This is the same reason that Hmiel couldn't (or didn't) check up. He had to keep the pedal down and just hope that Riggs would get moving again. Riggs couldn't get moving quite as fast as Hmiel and his car got just a touch out of straight and that's when "The Big One" happened. But every reasoning for everything points right back to restrictor plates. Ok, the driver should have done A or B or C, but the only reason they should have done those is because of restrictor plates. You said yourself, "You don't let up on the gas, unless you're in last place." Why? Because with restrictor plates, if you do let up on the gas you will be in last place. Again, the root of the problem is restrictor plates. I also understand that the field wouldn't have been fully thinned out after just 13 laps, but 13 laps at 'Dega is almost 35 miles, which is a fair amount of mileage to thin out a field. But despite that, one thing is certain: The field wouldn't have been as tightly bunched up as it was when the crash occurred. Could it have still been a bad wreck? Yes. Would it likely have involved a lot fewer cars? Yes. Sure it would have taken even longer to slow down cars going faster, but they also would have had a lot longer to slow down. You could easily figure on the field being spread out over 1/2 - 3/4 of the track by lap 13. A crash happens on the backstretch and everyone receives the call "Crash on the backstretch. Slow Down. Slow Down." and suddenly most everyone has a chance to at least slow down. And because the cars aren't bunched up, everyone would likely have more time to find a line (if a line is available) to pass by the wreck. The problem with yesterday's wreck was that the first 20-30 cars were in the wreck before they even knew there was a wreck. They just showed the "Fact of the Day" on NASCAR Today and it said that at last years WC race, the difference between 1st and 26th at the end of the race was just over 1.2 seconds. So even if yesterday's wreck couldn't have been avoided because of only being 14 laps into the race, it's clear that the same exact kind of wreck could have happened with 14 laps to go because not a heck of a lot would have changed about the positioning of the cars. All thanks to restrictor plates.
|
| 5 | rugg
ID: 341422511
Mon, Apr 22, 2002, 14:44
|
I agree totally with KKB here. The plates require you to go full bore the whole time or risk being sent to the back of the pack. If you notice, the things the drivers do at the plate races aren't any different. The same types of bumps happen at other tracks and we don't get the big wrecks. It happens because everyone is driving in everyone else's back pocket.
I think this problem is connected to BackwoodsBum's point about aerodynamics. What's the point of having four different manufacturers in a race if NASCAR feels the need to make evryone equal?? We have a set of rules. If Ford or Chevy finds a way to be faster than others within the rules, then they get to win. It's called hard work. It seems to me we've heard more in the last few seasons about complaints about some guys having an 'advantage' if they win too much for someone's liking. "OK", says NASCAR, we'll change the rules to even things out. Hell, we already have a race circuit with equal cars. It's called IROC. If NASCAR wants equal cars, I suggest they order a buttload of Trans Ams and get it over with! If all the cars perform alike, expect bigger bunches during races that require engines to be "equal" as well.
|
| 6 | The Beezer
Leader
ID: 191202817
Mon, Apr 22, 2002, 15:47
|
I agree with ya rugg, but one problem with not having the cars equal is that you'd likely see a situation like in F1 where it cost about a gazillion dollars to be a top-flight team. With costs already at about the breaking point, this could cause serious problems within the sport itself.
I think that with the current technology, it may not be feasible to have a situation at the longer tracks (2 miles or more) where:
- costs are somewhat under control
- cars can run without restrictions
- we have competitive racing
I think that's why the current crop of new tracks is being built in that 1.5-mile range. A new track in the 2+ mile range would have to be built with little banking in order to be non-restricted and interesting to watch IMO (witness Indy, for example).
Actually, banking the tracks at 1 mile or less and flattening the tracks 2+ miles would probably be a good situation. Never happen of course. To me, a long, flat track requires both the driver and the team to be good at what they do, as you simply cannot have a car that's good everywhere. Of course, I'd also like to see 4-5 more road courses a season, so I'm not exactly a traditionalist. :)
|
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|