Suzuki Samurai was Re: [geeks] SPARC proprietary (waaaay

[doctor obnox son of a bitch]

Mike F spoke in riddles, like the night...

> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:30:55 -0400
> Phil Stracchino <alaric at caerllewys.net> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 05:09:41AM -0400, Michael Schiller wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 20, 2003, at 08:44  PM, Phil Stracchino wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Whereas what they actually are is lookalike fiberglass bodies on
> > > >top of mechanically near-identical steel-tube rollng chassis with
> > > >mechanically near-identical powertrains and suspension.
> > > 
> > > I could be wrong, but when a driver is driving a 'Monte Carlo'
> > > doesn't that imply that the engine (at least the block) was
> > > originally made by GM, and when a driver is driving a Ford that the
> > > engine block came from Ford? Or am I showing my ignorance of NASCAR
> > > here?
> > 
> > Well, theoretically, yeah.  I'm not certain it necessarily follows
> > (don't a lot of the teams buy their engines from specialized engine
> > builders?), but in any case, my recollection is that they have to
> > comply with strict limitations on everything from power output to
> > inlet throat diameter, and by the time they're done complying with
> > tech restrictions, they might as well all be using the same engine.
> 
> Honestly, the fact that each team builds its own cars becomes almost
> a moot point. The regulations are so strict that the cars might as
> well be exactly identical, and any competitive advantages come either
> from slight production variations, bending the rules or driver skill.
> Obviously, driver skill is what racing is all about, but I'm interested
> in the cars, too, and it's really boring when the cars are all the same.
> In Formula 1, CART, World Rally, etc. the teams are always exploring
> new technologies and cars within a given series can often be radically
> different. This is *interesting*. Take the car out of the equation,
> a la NASCAR, and you might as well be watching any arbitrary sport.
> 
> Plus, NASCAR teams spend millions of dollars every year refining the
> ancient technologies their cars are based on. I don't care how much
> CFD, FEA, or wind tunnel work you do - you've still got a heavy, steel-
> tubed, sheet-metal-bodied car, albeit a highly-tweaked one.
> 

How can we get NASCAR to start refining new and possibly useful technologies?

Hydrogen? Fuel cells? Stirlings?
> > The other thing to consider is that the GM engine a NASCAR racer gets
> > bears about as much resemblance to the GM block you see when you open
> > your hood as the Chevy Monte Carlo you see going round and round at
> > the track bears to the Chevy Monte Carlo in the local dealer's
> > showroom.  It might share the same basic block casting and MAYBE the
> > same castings for the heads, but that's *it*.
> 
> It's worse than you think. I don't think any of the cars NASCAR cars are
> styled after are even _available_ with a V-8. Even then, I believe the
> blocks are unique to NASCAR - they're not production-based. Another
> thing that I find *really* funny is that the NASCAR cars are quite a bit
> _heavier_ than the production cars (!) I always thought the goal of
> production-based racing was to take street cars and make them lighter,
> not heavier. Anyone who knows anything about racing will say that weight
> is one of the most important factors in performance, and less is more.
> 
> OK, I'm done ranting - I just think that NASCAR is to the racing world
> what PeeCees are to real computing. - Mike
> _______________________________________________
> GEEKS:  http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/geeks

-- 
"We owe it to Sgt. Hulka to wind up           ........Eric J. Gustafson
 face-down in the gutter tonight!"            .........................
                                              .........drobnox at visi.com