NASCAR banned OHC motors back in the 60's??
- Thread starter KenO
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: KenO
Yup. Leave it to stupid Americans to kill innovation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_FE_engine
Go easy... most Americans don't even know what a camshaft is
while I do find it amazing that any auto manufacturers still use OHV designs (Honda even uses SOHC on some lawn mowers), I will admit that they are incredibly compact, simple, and lightweight. They also make a lovely noise, and are easier to mod, i.e. a cam swap only involves one cam instead of 2 or 4, and a much smaller chain.
Yup. Leave it to stupid Americans to kill innovation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_FE_engine
Go easy... most Americans don't even know what a camshaft is
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Klutch9
Originally Posted By: KenO
Yup. Leave it to stupid Americans to kill innovation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_FE_engine
Go easy... most Americans don't even know what a camshaft is
while I do find it amazing that any auto manufacturers still use OHV designs (Honda even uses SOHC on some lawn mowers), I will admit that they are incredibly compact, simple, and lightweight. They also make a lovely noise, and are easier to mod, i.e. a cam swap only involves one cam instead of 2 or 4, and a much smaller chain.
Oh, OHV engines absolutely have their place. Look at what GM has done with the LS, or the 3800 series V6?? OHC engines can make a very, very similar sound. Listen to a BMW V8, any of them, they're all DOHC. Still has that nice, burly rumble. My point is, very rarely do you see automotive entities outside the US stifling innovation like you see in the US.
Originally Posted By: KenO
Yup. Leave it to stupid Americans to kill innovation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_FE_engine
Go easy... most Americans don't even know what a camshaft is
Oh, OHV engines absolutely have their place. Look at what GM has done with the LS, or the 3800 series V6?? OHC engines can make a very, very similar sound. Listen to a BMW V8, any of them, they're all DOHC. Still has that nice, burly rumble. My point is, very rarely do you see automotive entities outside the US stifling innovation like you see in the US.
Originally Posted By: KenO
Yup. Leave it to stupid Americans to kill innovation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_FE_engine
jee that's not offensive at all.
you ever think to manufacture and build a ohc vs a ohv is more expensive. which would be harder on the teams, especially the little guys!
besides that why does nascar need ohc? the ohv seems to be more than adequate for the job. I think its a good philosophy to stick with what works. why spends tons of money trying to improve something that doesn't need improving?
Yup. Leave it to stupid Americans to kill innovation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_FE_engine
jee that's not offensive at all.
you ever think to manufacture and build a ohc vs a ohv is more expensive. which would be harder on the teams, especially the little guys!
besides that why does nascar need ohc? the ohv seems to be more than adequate for the job. I think its a good philosophy to stick with what works. why spends tons of money trying to improve something that doesn't need improving?
Originally Posted By: ram_man
Originally Posted By: KenO
Yup. Leave it to stupid Americans to kill innovation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_FE_engine
jee that's not offensive at all.
you ever think to manufacture and build a ohc vs a ohv is more expensive. which would be harder on the teams, especially the little guys!
besides that why does nascar need ohc? the ohv seems to be more than adequate for the job. I think its a good philosophy to stick with what works. why spends tons of money trying to improve something that doesn't need improving?
Yeah, that's it. NASCAR is ALL about low cost racing... Yup, lets stick with what works. A fine attitude if you don't mind being stuck with stone age tech...
Originally Posted By: KenO
Yup. Leave it to stupid Americans to kill innovation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_FE_engine
jee that's not offensive at all.
you ever think to manufacture and build a ohc vs a ohv is more expensive. which would be harder on the teams, especially the little guys!
besides that why does nascar need ohc? the ohv seems to be more than adequate for the job. I think its a good philosophy to stick with what works. why spends tons of money trying to improve something that doesn't need improving?
Yeah, that's it. NASCAR is ALL about low cost racing... Yup, lets stick with what works. A fine attitude if you don't mind being stuck with stone age tech...
Originally Posted By: ram_man
Originally Posted By: KenO
Yup. Leave it to stupid Americans to kill innovation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_FE_engine
why spends tons of money trying to improve something that doesn't need improving?
I wish F1 followed that philosophy... then we'd still have violent, lovely sounding V12s from the early 90s... instead, we're going to have dremel-sounding v6s next year
Originally Posted By: KenO
Yup. Leave it to stupid Americans to kill innovation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_FE_engine
why spends tons of money trying to improve something that doesn't need improving?
I wish F1 followed that philosophy... then we'd still have violent, lovely sounding V12s from the early 90s... instead, we're going to have dremel-sounding v6s next year
Ford and Holden still use pushrod motors in Aussie V8 and beat up on Mercedes and Nissan who use DOHC V8s.
Back then NASCAR required that the engines used be available in production cars. Trying to order anything with a 427 SOHC in a street car was next to impossible. They still require that the engines be available, look in a FRPP catalog and they have an FR9 bare casting block and FR9 bare casting heads.
Back then NASCAR required that the engines used be available in production cars. Trying to order anything with a 427 SOHC in a street car was next to impossible. They still require that the engines be available, look in a FRPP catalog and they have an FR9 bare casting block and FR9 bare casting heads.
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Originally Posted By: ram_man
Originally Posted By: KenO
Yup. Leave it to stupid Americans to kill innovation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_FE_engine
jee that's not offensive at all.
you ever think to manufacture and build a ohc vs a ohv is more expensive. which would be harder on the teams, especially the little guys!
besides that why does nascar need ohc? the ohv seems to be more than adequate for the job. I think its a good philosophy to stick with what works. why spends tons of money trying to improve something that doesn't need improving?
Yeah, that's it. NASCAR is ALL about low cost racing... Yup, lets stick with what works. A fine attitude if you don't mind being stuck with stone age tech...
you completely missed the point. and stone age? what exactly is stone age about ohv? its cheaper, simpler and it functions.... why change? there isn't one good reason to do so. the ohc is every bit as old as the ohc so the stone age comment shows your ignorance profoundly.
Originally Posted By: ram_man
Originally Posted By: KenO
Yup. Leave it to stupid Americans to kill innovation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_FE_engine
jee that's not offensive at all.
you ever think to manufacture and build a ohc vs a ohv is more expensive. which would be harder on the teams, especially the little guys!
besides that why does nascar need ohc? the ohv seems to be more than adequate for the job. I think its a good philosophy to stick with what works. why spends tons of money trying to improve something that doesn't need improving?
Yeah, that's it. NASCAR is ALL about low cost racing... Yup, lets stick with what works. A fine attitude if you don't mind being stuck with stone age tech...
you completely missed the point. and stone age? what exactly is stone age about ohv? its cheaper, simpler and it functions.... why change? there isn't one good reason to do so. the ohc is every bit as old as the ohc so the stone age comment shows your ignorance profoundly.
I said what I did because if we stuck to what worked, then we'd never evolve. Carbs, points, poor suspensions. In the case of NASCAR, they (teams) are consistently at the forefront of technology (and always evolving) for virtually all of the systems that comprise one of their cars.
NASCAR is not a poor man's sport, so why stifle technological advances? Especially in the 60's or whenever it was they nixed the OHC motors. It's not the first time they've banned a certain configuration either. There are plenty of other racing venues that are meant to be low buck, so why not "stick with what works" there?
NASCAR is not a poor man's sport, so why stifle technological advances? Especially in the 60's or whenever it was they nixed the OHC motors. It's not the first time they've banned a certain configuration either. There are plenty of other racing venues that are meant to be low buck, so why not "stick with what works" there?
Originally Posted By: KenO
Yup. Leave it to stupid Americans to kill innovation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_FE_engine
Ford, or any other auto manufacturer, does not look to a sanctioning body for permission to innovate. They do adhere to that sanctioning body's rules for that particular style of racing, but that's it.
NASCAR has never been the fount of innovation, nor has any sanctioning body. Keep in mind the history of NASCAR or what that acronym stands for. The SC stands for Stock Car. NASCAR is a long, long way from stock cars these days, but when it was formed they were literally racing stock cars. As in cars driven from the street, and sometimes straight from a dealer's lot, right onto the track.
From the very beginning the evolution of "stock" bodied racecars, and racing, has been guided by three principles - safety, cost control and equalizing competition. While applying those principles, for the benefit of drivers, crews, track personnel and fans, NASCAR has "outlawed" tens of thousands of engine blocks, cylinder heads, manifolds, exhaust systems, hood scoops, spoilers, air dams, suspensions, steering systems, rear axles, transmissions, etc. of many different manufacturers. That's their job. To control the product that is on the racetrack, as well as every other aspect of a race event. For better or for worse.
Yup. Leave it to stupid Americans to kill innovation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_FE_engine
Ford, or any other auto manufacturer, does not look to a sanctioning body for permission to innovate. They do adhere to that sanctioning body's rules for that particular style of racing, but that's it.
NASCAR has never been the fount of innovation, nor has any sanctioning body. Keep in mind the history of NASCAR or what that acronym stands for. The SC stands for Stock Car. NASCAR is a long, long way from stock cars these days, but when it was formed they were literally racing stock cars. As in cars driven from the street, and sometimes straight from a dealer's lot, right onto the track.
From the very beginning the evolution of "stock" bodied racecars, and racing, has been guided by three principles - safety, cost control and equalizing competition. While applying those principles, for the benefit of drivers, crews, track personnel and fans, NASCAR has "outlawed" tens of thousands of engine blocks, cylinder heads, manifolds, exhaust systems, hood scoops, spoilers, air dams, suspensions, steering systems, rear axles, transmissions, etc. of many different manufacturers. That's their job. To control the product that is on the racetrack, as well as every other aspect of a race event. For better or for worse.
Originally Posted By: KB2008X
Originally Posted By: KenO
Yup. Leave it to stupid Americans to kill innovation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_FE_engine
Ford, or any other auto manufacturer, does not look to a sanctioning body for permission to innovate. They do adhere to that sanctioning body's rules for that particular style of racing, but that's it.
NASCAR has never been the fount of innovation, nor has any sanctioning body. Keep in mind the history of NASCAR or what that acronym stands for. The SC stands for Stock Car. NASCAR is a long, long way from stock cars these days, but when it was formed they were literally racing stock cars. As in cars driven from the street, and sometimes straight from a dealer's lot, right onto the track.
From the very beginning the evolution of "stock" bodied racecars, and racing, has been guided by three principles - safety, cost control and equalizing competition. While applying those principles, for the benefit of drivers, crews, track personnel and fans, NASCAR has "outlawed" tens of thousands of engine blocks, cylinder heads, manifolds, exhaust systems, hood scoops, spoilers, air dams, suspensions, steering systems, rear axles, transmissions, etc. of many different manufacturers. That's their job. To control the product that is on the racetrack, as well as every other aspect of a race event. For better or for worse.
What are you smoking man? Racing has ALWAYS driven innovation. Where do you think ABS came from? Ceramic brake technology? Electronic fuel injection? Traction Control? You know where a lot of the technology that GM used to design the LS GenIII engine family came from? ALL of it, derived from motor racing, particularly Formula One. Don't get me wrong, I grew up an Intimidator fan, but NASCRAP is just now, just last year, FINALLY adopting fuel injection! NASCAR has ALWAYS stifled innovation. I try to watch Grand Am & Continental Sports Car Challenge racing now. Thats REAL stock car racing.
They've not done a real good job of controlling costs too, as well as holding back teams or manufacturers from using NASCAR as a test bed for new technology as they could/should be. NASCAR ratings have dropped significantly in recent year, for a number of reasons. Lack of technological respect for the teams, as well as the fans. Too much manufactured drama, not enough real racing. Restricter plates have proven time and time again that they are NOT safe, but NASCAR would rather wreck cars and risk drivers lives thinking they're making fans happy than finding another, safer way to restrict power output for those tracks. NASCAR is like any other multi-million dollar racing organization - where there is a will, there is a massive bank account to provide a way. Teams spend tens of millions of dollars on engineering to see where and how much they can bend the rules. Great example of that is RCR doing testing with Motecs (which still blows my mind they're allowed to use data acquisition & telemetry for test days, but not the actual race), and figured out how to re-design the intake manifold so that during cornering, it was providing an even air-fuel distribution, and was running lean on one side in the straights (instead of the other way around, a symmetrical intake like everybody else has always ran runs fine down the straight,s but gravity forces the air/fuel mixture to the outside bank during corners). This allowed the RCR cars of those years to power out of the corners significantly faster than other teams cars.
Originally Posted By: KenO
Yup. Leave it to stupid Americans to kill innovation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_FE_engine
Ford, or any other auto manufacturer, does not look to a sanctioning body for permission to innovate. They do adhere to that sanctioning body's rules for that particular style of racing, but that's it.
NASCAR has never been the fount of innovation, nor has any sanctioning body. Keep in mind the history of NASCAR or what that acronym stands for. The SC stands for Stock Car. NASCAR is a long, long way from stock cars these days, but when it was formed they were literally racing stock cars. As in cars driven from the street, and sometimes straight from a dealer's lot, right onto the track.
From the very beginning the evolution of "stock" bodied racecars, and racing, has been guided by three principles - safety, cost control and equalizing competition. While applying those principles, for the benefit of drivers, crews, track personnel and fans, NASCAR has "outlawed" tens of thousands of engine blocks, cylinder heads, manifolds, exhaust systems, hood scoops, spoilers, air dams, suspensions, steering systems, rear axles, transmissions, etc. of many different manufacturers. That's their job. To control the product that is on the racetrack, as well as every other aspect of a race event. For better or for worse.
What are you smoking man? Racing has ALWAYS driven innovation. Where do you think ABS came from? Ceramic brake technology? Electronic fuel injection? Traction Control? You know where a lot of the technology that GM used to design the LS GenIII engine family came from? ALL of it, derived from motor racing, particularly Formula One. Don't get me wrong, I grew up an Intimidator fan, but NASCRAP is just now, just last year, FINALLY adopting fuel injection! NASCAR has ALWAYS stifled innovation. I try to watch Grand Am & Continental Sports Car Challenge racing now. Thats REAL stock car racing.
They've not done a real good job of controlling costs too, as well as holding back teams or manufacturers from using NASCAR as a test bed for new technology as they could/should be. NASCAR ratings have dropped significantly in recent year, for a number of reasons. Lack of technological respect for the teams, as well as the fans. Too much manufactured drama, not enough real racing. Restricter plates have proven time and time again that they are NOT safe, but NASCAR would rather wreck cars and risk drivers lives thinking they're making fans happy than finding another, safer way to restrict power output for those tracks. NASCAR is like any other multi-million dollar racing organization - where there is a will, there is a massive bank account to provide a way. Teams spend tens of millions of dollars on engineering to see where and how much they can bend the rules. Great example of that is RCR doing testing with Motecs (which still blows my mind they're allowed to use data acquisition & telemetry for test days, but not the actual race), and figured out how to re-design the intake manifold so that during cornering, it was providing an even air-fuel distribution, and was running lean on one side in the straights (instead of the other way around, a symmetrical intake like everybody else has always ran runs fine down the straight,s but gravity forces the air/fuel mixture to the outside bank during corners). This allowed the RCR cars of those years to power out of the corners significantly faster than other teams cars.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
I said what I did because if we stuck to what worked, then we'd never evolve. Carbs, points, poor suspensions. In the case of NASCAR, they (teams) are consistently at the forefront of technology (and always evolving) for virtually all of the systems that comprise one of their cars.
NASCAR is not a poor man's sport, so why stifle technological advances? Especially in the 60's or whenever it was they nixed the OHC motors. It's not the first time they've banned a certain configuration either. There are plenty of other racing venues that are meant to be low buck, so why not "stick with what works" there?
I have to disagree, NASCAR has never been at the forefront of technological innovations. USAC, and then CART, was the leader in that regard in America. Even IMSA or the CAN-AM series was more advanced than NASCAR. But that was OK. That's what fans liked about it, as well as those who paid the bills with an expectation of some kind of profit, or minimized losses at least.
As for why NASCAR still stifles technological innovations, (IndyCar & F1, too for that matter) what would they do with them ? By the late 1960's NASCAR's "stock cars" were already close to exceeding what the fastest NASCAR tracks, Atlanta, Michigan, Daytona, Talledega, etc., were designed to handle in terms of top speed. Instead of building new tracks that would allow higher speeds, NASCAR has been aggressively slowing down cars ever since. And the same for the other major racing groups.
What we need are all new racetracks designed for speeds up to 400 mph. Why 400 mph ? Because if all the stops were removed and race teams (they no longer really need the auto manufacturers for R&D) were allowed to develop cars and powertrains in a completely unfettered environment, and take advantage of currently unutilized technologies, they could build cars that would exceed 300 mph in a couple of years, if not immediately. 320, 340, 360 mph would not be far behind.
But where are you going to find enough land to build tracks large enough that could handle those kind of speeds, and with an adequate surrounding population ? You could keep Daytona and Talladega, with major renovations, for the short tracks, but every other track would need to be replaced.
It's not feasible, unfortunately. The reality is that auto racing is a mature product and has been for a long time. Something near 200 mph seems to be the cut-off point for top speed for the foreseeable future. Until a completely new form of competition comes along I'm afraid that true innovation has no place in auto racing.
I said what I did because if we stuck to what worked, then we'd never evolve. Carbs, points, poor suspensions. In the case of NASCAR, they (teams) are consistently at the forefront of technology (and always evolving) for virtually all of the systems that comprise one of their cars.
NASCAR is not a poor man's sport, so why stifle technological advances? Especially in the 60's or whenever it was they nixed the OHC motors. It's not the first time they've banned a certain configuration either. There are plenty of other racing venues that are meant to be low buck, so why not "stick with what works" there?
I have to disagree, NASCAR has never been at the forefront of technological innovations. USAC, and then CART, was the leader in that regard in America. Even IMSA or the CAN-AM series was more advanced than NASCAR. But that was OK. That's what fans liked about it, as well as those who paid the bills with an expectation of some kind of profit, or minimized losses at least.
As for why NASCAR still stifles technological innovations, (IndyCar & F1, too for that matter) what would they do with them ? By the late 1960's NASCAR's "stock cars" were already close to exceeding what the fastest NASCAR tracks, Atlanta, Michigan, Daytona, Talledega, etc., were designed to handle in terms of top speed. Instead of building new tracks that would allow higher speeds, NASCAR has been aggressively slowing down cars ever since. And the same for the other major racing groups.
What we need are all new racetracks designed for speeds up to 400 mph. Why 400 mph ? Because if all the stops were removed and race teams (they no longer really need the auto manufacturers for R&D) were allowed to develop cars and powertrains in a completely unfettered environment, and take advantage of currently unutilized technologies, they could build cars that would exceed 300 mph in a couple of years, if not immediately. 320, 340, 360 mph would not be far behind.
But where are you going to find enough land to build tracks large enough that could handle those kind of speeds, and with an adequate surrounding population ? You could keep Daytona and Talladega, with major renovations, for the short tracks, but every other track would need to be replaced.
It's not feasible, unfortunately. The reality is that auto racing is a mature product and has been for a long time. Something near 200 mph seems to be the cut-off point for top speed for the foreseeable future. Until a completely new form of competition comes along I'm afraid that true innovation has no place in auto racing.
Originally Posted By: KenO
Originally Posted By: KB2008X
Originally Posted By: KenO
Yup. Leave it to stupid Americans to kill innovation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_FE_engine
Ford, or any other auto manufacturer, does not look to a sanctioning body for permission to innovate. They do adhere to that sanctioning body's rules for that particular style of racing, but that's it.
NASCAR has never been the fount of innovation, nor has any sanctioning body. Keep in mind the history of NASCAR or what that acronym stands for. The SC stands for Stock Car. NASCAR is a long, long way from stock cars these days, but when it was formed they were literally racing stock cars. As in cars driven from the street, and sometimes straight from a dealer's lot, right onto the track.
From the very beginning the evolution of "stock" bodied racecars, and racing, has been guided by three principles - safety, cost control and equalizing competition. While applying those principles, for the benefit of drivers, crews, track personnel and fans, NASCAR has "outlawed" tens of thousands of engine blocks, cylinder heads, manifolds, exhaust systems, hood scoops, spoilers, air dams, suspensions, steering systems, rear axles, transmissions, etc. of many different manufacturers. That's their job. To control the product that is on the racetrack, as well as every other aspect of a race event. For better or for worse.
What are you smoking man? Racing has ALWAYS driven innovation. Where do you think ABS came from? Ceramic brake technology? Electronic fuel injection? Traction Control? You know where a lot of the technology that GM used to design the LS GenIII engine family came from? ALL of it, derived from motor racing, particularly Formula One. Don't get me wrong, I grew up an Intimidator fan, but NASCRAP is just now, just last year, FINALLY adopting fuel injection! NASCAR has ALWAYS stifled innovation. I try to watch Grand Am & Continental Sports Car Challenge racing now. Thats REAL stock car racing.
They've not done a real good job of controlling costs too, as well as holding back teams or manufacturers from using NASCAR as a test bed for new technology as they could/should be. NASCAR ratings have dropped significantly in recent year, for a number of reasons. Lack of technological respect for the teams, as well as the fans. Too much manufactured drama, not enough real racing. Restricter plates have proven time and time again that they are NOT safe, but NASCAR would rather wreck cars and risk drivers lives thinking they're making fans happy than finding another, safer way to restrict power output for those tracks. NASCAR is like any other multi-million dollar racing organization - where there is a will, there is a massive bank account to provide a way. Teams spend tens of millions of dollars on engineering to see where and how much they can bend the rules. Great example of that is RCR doing testing with Motecs (which still blows my mind they're allowed to use data acquisition & telemetry for test days, but not the actual race), and figured out how to re-design the intake manifold so that during cornering, it was providing an even air-fuel distribution, and was running lean on one side in the straights (instead of the other way around, a symmetrical intake like everybody else has always ran runs fine down the straight,s but gravity forces the air/fuel mixture to the outside bank during corners). This allowed the RCR cars of those years to power out of the corners significantly faster than other teams cars.
Dude. Take a breath. For the record I gave up smoking, of all sorts, many years ago. lol
I admire and share your passion for auto racing, KenO, but I don't believe any of the examples you provided came from racing. Racing is sometimes where those technologies are tested, and perhaps refined, but it is not the source of those technologies. Auto manufacturers, sometimes in conjunction with other companies or research consortiums, or even universities, develop that stuff themselves. It's true that there are racing technologies, or products, designed by racers for racing, but it stays on the track. Is there any specific part or technology in use on mainstream, modern cars that truly came directly from racing ? Well, anything is possible, but I wouldn't bet on it.
The idea that Ford or Chevy is using technology that was developed for racing and then adapted for use on their production cars is a myth. One that is eagerly perpetuated by their sales & marketing departments and has been for many decades.
Originally Posted By: KB2008X
Originally Posted By: KenO
Yup. Leave it to stupid Americans to kill innovation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_FE_engine
Ford, or any other auto manufacturer, does not look to a sanctioning body for permission to innovate. They do adhere to that sanctioning body's rules for that particular style of racing, but that's it.
NASCAR has never been the fount of innovation, nor has any sanctioning body. Keep in mind the history of NASCAR or what that acronym stands for. The SC stands for Stock Car. NASCAR is a long, long way from stock cars these days, but when it was formed they were literally racing stock cars. As in cars driven from the street, and sometimes straight from a dealer's lot, right onto the track.
From the very beginning the evolution of "stock" bodied racecars, and racing, has been guided by three principles - safety, cost control and equalizing competition. While applying those principles, for the benefit of drivers, crews, track personnel and fans, NASCAR has "outlawed" tens of thousands of engine blocks, cylinder heads, manifolds, exhaust systems, hood scoops, spoilers, air dams, suspensions, steering systems, rear axles, transmissions, etc. of many different manufacturers. That's their job. To control the product that is on the racetrack, as well as every other aspect of a race event. For better or for worse.
What are you smoking man? Racing has ALWAYS driven innovation. Where do you think ABS came from? Ceramic brake technology? Electronic fuel injection? Traction Control? You know where a lot of the technology that GM used to design the LS GenIII engine family came from? ALL of it, derived from motor racing, particularly Formula One. Don't get me wrong, I grew up an Intimidator fan, but NASCRAP is just now, just last year, FINALLY adopting fuel injection! NASCAR has ALWAYS stifled innovation. I try to watch Grand Am & Continental Sports Car Challenge racing now. Thats REAL stock car racing.
They've not done a real good job of controlling costs too, as well as holding back teams or manufacturers from using NASCAR as a test bed for new technology as they could/should be. NASCAR ratings have dropped significantly in recent year, for a number of reasons. Lack of technological respect for the teams, as well as the fans. Too much manufactured drama, not enough real racing. Restricter plates have proven time and time again that they are NOT safe, but NASCAR would rather wreck cars and risk drivers lives thinking they're making fans happy than finding another, safer way to restrict power output for those tracks. NASCAR is like any other multi-million dollar racing organization - where there is a will, there is a massive bank account to provide a way. Teams spend tens of millions of dollars on engineering to see where and how much they can bend the rules. Great example of that is RCR doing testing with Motecs (which still blows my mind they're allowed to use data acquisition & telemetry for test days, but not the actual race), and figured out how to re-design the intake manifold so that during cornering, it was providing an even air-fuel distribution, and was running lean on one side in the straights (instead of the other way around, a symmetrical intake like everybody else has always ran runs fine down the straight,s but gravity forces the air/fuel mixture to the outside bank during corners). This allowed the RCR cars of those years to power out of the corners significantly faster than other teams cars.
Dude. Take a breath. For the record I gave up smoking, of all sorts, many years ago. lol
I admire and share your passion for auto racing, KenO, but I don't believe any of the examples you provided came from racing. Racing is sometimes where those technologies are tested, and perhaps refined, but it is not the source of those technologies. Auto manufacturers, sometimes in conjunction with other companies or research consortiums, or even universities, develop that stuff themselves. It's true that there are racing technologies, or products, designed by racers for racing, but it stays on the track. Is there any specific part or technology in use on mainstream, modern cars that truly came directly from racing ? Well, anything is possible, but I wouldn't bet on it.
The idea that Ford or Chevy is using technology that was developed for racing and then adapted for use on their production cars is a myth. One that is eagerly perpetuated by their sales & marketing departments and has been for many decades.
Originally Posted By: Klutch9
I wish F1 followed that philosophy... then we'd still have violent, lovely sounding V12s from the early 90s... instead, we're going to have dremel-sounding v6s next year
There is a counterpoint to this, though. Are you paying engineers to think and to innovate, or are you paying them to use 50 year old technology?
NASCAR is nowhere near as expensive as F1, and I highly doubt it would bankrupt any teams to upgrade engine technology a couple decades, at least into the 1970s.
I wish F1 followed that philosophy... then we'd still have violent, lovely sounding V12s from the early 90s... instead, we're going to have dremel-sounding v6s next year
There is a counterpoint to this, though. Are you paying engineers to think and to innovate, or are you paying them to use 50 year old technology?
NASCAR is nowhere near as expensive as F1, and I highly doubt it would bankrupt any teams to upgrade engine technology a couple decades, at least into the 1970s.
I thought the Cammers and the aerobirds were ruled out to stop 200MPH exits into the crowd...Engine power and aero had out performed th safety systems of the day.
Restrictor plates later demonstrated, however that "simple" solutions are not necessarily the cheapest, and will always fuel (expensive) innovation
Restrictor plates later demonstrated, however that "simple" solutions are not necessarily the cheapest, and will always fuel (expensive) innovation
Originally Posted By: ram_man
what you guys are missing is that ohv isn't any less advanced than an ohc. its just different.
True. The other point, is NASCAR has never been about innovation. At this point, the only thing NASCAR is doing well, is marketing.
what you guys are missing is that ohv isn't any less advanced than an ohc. its just different.
True. The other point, is NASCAR has never been about innovation. At this point, the only thing NASCAR is doing well, is marketing.
Originally Posted By: whip
Originally Posted By: ram_man
what you guys are missing is that ohv isn't any less advanced than an ohc. its just different.
True. The other point, is NASCAR has never been about innovation. At this point, the only thing NASCAR is doing well, is marketing.
No idea how. Ratings have been on the decline for years now, 2 major networks (ESPN & Turner Broadcasting) both chose not to extend their contracts amid the ratings decline, but they somehow convinced NBC to cough up $4.4Bil.....
http://www.autoweek.com/article/20130730/nascar01/130739989
Originally Posted By: ram_man
what you guys are missing is that ohv isn't any less advanced than an ohc. its just different.
True. The other point, is NASCAR has never been about innovation. At this point, the only thing NASCAR is doing well, is marketing.
No idea how. Ratings have been on the decline for years now, 2 major networks (ESPN & Turner Broadcasting) both chose not to extend their contracts amid the ratings decline, but they somehow convinced NBC to cough up $4.4Bil.....
http://www.autoweek.com/article/20130730/nascar01/130739989
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: ram_man
what you guys are missing is that ohv isn't any less advanced than an ohc. its just different.
Being able to advance/retard the intake exhaust timing independent of one another is the first thing that springs to mind when thinking of an advancement OHC has over OHV.
what you guys are missing is that ohv isn't any less advanced than an ohc. its just different.
Being able to advance/retard the intake exhaust timing independent of one another is the first thing that springs to mind when thinking of an advancement OHC has over OHV.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: ram_man
what you guys are missing is that ohv isn't any less advanced than an ohc. its just different.
Being able to advance/retard the intake exhaust timing independent of one another is the first thing that springs to mind when thinking of an advancement OHC has over OHV.
Agreed.
Not to mention less drag and less moving parts to actuate the valves themselves.
And the intake ports aren't restricted by the pushrod tube running through it,allowing for more airflow.
A cam in head engine is able to rev better,and higher. Add to that as overkill mentioned variable valve timing and include sophisticated engine management and you've got a completely different animal than a pushrod motor.
But cam in head engines tend to make less low rpm torque and are a much bigger,and heavier package,so yes there's a trade off.
I swore off pushrods once I got my head wrapped around ford modulars and understood them however the hemi went and caused me to rethink that decision.
Originally Posted By: ram_man
what you guys are missing is that ohv isn't any less advanced than an ohc. its just different.
Being able to advance/retard the intake exhaust timing independent of one another is the first thing that springs to mind when thinking of an advancement OHC has over OHV.
Agreed.
Not to mention less drag and less moving parts to actuate the valves themselves.
And the intake ports aren't restricted by the pushrod tube running through it,allowing for more airflow.
A cam in head engine is able to rev better,and higher. Add to that as overkill mentioned variable valve timing and include sophisticated engine management and you've got a completely different animal than a pushrod motor.
But cam in head engines tend to make less low rpm torque and are a much bigger,and heavier package,so yes there's a trade off.
I swore off pushrods once I got my head wrapped around ford modulars and understood them however the hemi went and caused me to rethink that decision.
- Status
Similar threads
