# Nascar 2010



## 1976Cordoba (Sep 20, 2000)

So I got my Pattos decals applied to the Matchbox Dodge Charger . . . had to do a little squeeze here and there but overall the look is what I what I was going after.










This beats the snot out of the COT, in my humble opinion.


----------



## Crimnick (May 28, 2006)

That window is begging for a safety net...

Nice car!


----------



## 1976Cordoba (Sep 20, 2000)

Crimnick said:


> That window is begging for a safety net...
> 
> Nice car!


Safety, schmafety. :lol:


----------



## Pete McKay (Dec 20, 2006)

I'm a huge advocate of NASCAR going back to basing their race cars off of production models like they did in the 1960's. You'd HAVE to start with a unibody car, use the complete unibody (top, floor, rear fenders, deck lid) and build the cage into that. The front sheet metal would allow some aerodynamics but the rear spoiler would only be 4" high. And yes, we'd go back to a spolier unless the car was equipped with a wing on the lot, ala '69 Daytona and '70 Superbird. If the car was FWD, then so would be the racer. If the car was a 4 door, so is the race car. Engines would be a 300 cubic inch iron block and head pushrod with a single 650 carb. No more restrictor plates, no more roof flaps. Speedways would have to move all the grandstands 100 yards away from the fences, if a car gets through them, so be it. 

2010? Maybe.


----------



## bobhch (Apr 22, 2007)

doba,

Now that is what I call Smoooth....Nice work man!

Bob...zilla


----------



## roadrner (Jul 21, 1999)

Pete McKay said:


> I'm a huge advocate of NASCAR going back to basing their race cars off of production models like they did in the 1960's. You'd HAVE to start with a unibody car, use the complete unibody (top, floor, rear fenders, deck lid) and build the cage into that. The front sheet metal would allow some aerodynamics but the rear spoiler would only be 4" high. And yes, we'd go back to a spolier unless the car was equipped with a wing on the lot, ala '69 Daytona and '70 Superbird. If the car was FWD, then so would be the racer. If the car was a 4 door, so is the race car. Engines would be a 300 cubic inch iron block and head pushrod with a single 650 carb. No more restrictor plates, no more roof flaps. Speedways would have to move all the grandstands 100 yards away from the fences, if a car gets through them, so be it.
> 
> 2010? Maybe.


 
Fun to dream isn't it?  rr


----------



## SplitPoster (May 16, 2006)

Nice thoughts Pete, I think if they just readopted stock body profiles it would be a huge step. But if they did that, the manufacturers would be in control of which cars had advantages by the way they designed their cars. Unacceptable to everything Na"s" car has become.


----------



## BewstdGT (Jan 4, 2005)

Pete McKay said:


> I'm a huge advocate of NASCAR going back to basing their race cars off of production models like they did in the 1960's. You'd HAVE to start with a unibody car, use the complete unibody (top, floor, rear fenders, deck lid) and build the cage into that. The front sheet metal would allow some aerodynamics but the rear spoiler would only be 4" high. And yes, we'd go back to a spolier unless the car was equipped with a wing on the lot, ala '69 Daytona and '70 Superbird. If the car was FWD, then so would be the racer. If the car was a 4 door, so is the race car. Engines would be a 300 cubic inch iron block and head pushrod with a single 650 carb. No more restrictor plates, no more roof flaps. Speedways would have to move all the grandstands 100 yards away from the fences, if a car gets through them, so be it.
> 
> 2010? Maybe.


AMEN BROTHA!!

I get into this argument all the time with the uneducated nascar fans. How can they even say that they are racing a camry? For starters there was no V8 rwd camry ever made. The same argument goes for the grand prix, monte carlo and fusion/taurus. If they really want to make racing fair they should make a "nascar" block and force every team to use the same engine. We all know the parts they use on those small blocks arent the same parts we can buy from summit racing! So why try to commercialize it and pretend our fwd v6 sedans are mean racing machines. 

P.S. The charger body looks pretty cool. Im guessing thats on a tyco 440 chassis?


----------



## Pete McKay (Dec 20, 2006)

Bewstd, look at a few of the 1960's NASCAR super cars and what they fetch today at Barrett Jackson...

1969 Daytona - Well over half a million, some examples up to a million.

1970 Superbird - Same thing, a Hemi would be close to a million for a 100 point car.

1968 Mercury Cyclone Spoiler - Last one I saw brought a $750K purchasers bid.

1969 Ford Torino Talledega - My dad had a new one, wishes he still did. $660K was the last time I saw on for sale.

In SCCA the AAR 'Cuda's, Challengers and other homologated cars will bring over $100,000 easy. Just look at Shelby GT and COPO Z-28 prices. 

Now, you're going to tell me in 40 years of so the 2007 Monte Carlo SS, or Ford Fusion, or Dodge Charger R/T are going to bring that kind of prices to the table? IMHO racing history is what make the Daytona's, Superbirds, Talledega's and Spoilers what they are today. If NASCAR were to actually do what 'doba is showing us with his Charger, starting today, then maybe we could get back to a collectors car market with todays street cars. But like Poster says...NASCAR won't ever do anything like that, they'd lose too many guys wanting to see single file 200 MPH races with a "big one" near the end.


----------



## 1976Cordoba (Sep 20, 2000)

BewstdGT said:


> P.S. The charger body looks pretty cool. Im guessing thats on a tyco 440 chassis?


It's actually an HP7 -- plenty of giddy-up with a nice amount of slide for the diecast body. Try it sometime and you'll like it.


----------



## Martin Simone (Feb 21, 2007)

I imagine the diecast helps the handling. I wonder if it's possible to actually magnitize <sp> a body like that.

Pete, NASCAR didn't kill the muscle car, OPEC and the EPA did. That's why you won't ever see cars like that ever again from this country, and it's why you see such a premium for cars from Italy (Ferrari) and the rest of Europe.


----------



## SplitPoster (May 16, 2006)

NASCAR was pretty selective about what body style made it onto the track, even in the muscle car days. No "pony cars", even if what they allowed on track was very similar underneath. And for every top of the line muscle car made, how many more mundane versions were turned out and sold? The guys I knew in high school with Chevelles and camaros had two speed trannys and 283/301 v8's LOL. 

There are a lot of cars that go really fast - even without being modified - made right now. Lots of potential with what is produced here, stuff that when race prepped will go really fast too. It's a shame that whether in NASCAR or Grand Am, that organization likes those V8 spec cars. whoopie, not for me.


----------



## rudykizuty (Aug 16, 2007)

I agree with the argument that what NASCAR runs are anything but "stock", but you know, in general, production cars made today are better than those available in showrooms back in the day. And NASCAR is still using some "old tech" in it's cars. Although I also yearn for the old days in some ways, there are some things I wouldn't compromise today being where we've gotten. 

My list of things I would never buy off a showroom floor in 2007/2008.....

1) Big iron block performance motor under the hood.....sitting next to a FWD system
2) Anything that has a carb instead of fuel injection
3) Anything with a giant wing on the back...I'll leave that to the kids with the tuners
4) Pretty much anything that lacks the latest technology designed for safety, whether it be ABS, traction control, vehicle stability systems, etc. 

The world has moved forward, and in some ways, so have the manufacturers and NASCAR. They simply have different needs. Manufacturers need to build what sells to the every day Joe and NASCAR needs to build race cars. 

No doubt, the COT IS butt ugly, but personally, I'd rather see NASCAR racing a spec car like they've got today over a bunch of true family sedans. Nothing special about that. I see it every day out on I-95.

Doba.....nice job on the Charger!!


----------



## SplitPoster (May 16, 2006)

*Rudy!*

You won't buy _2) Anything that has a carb instead of fuel injection_

Oh man Rudy, that's going to be a problem when you need a new lawn mower LOL.

One problem with running a stock "unibody" car in race trim today is that it is very easy to go so fast as to overwhelm the chassis in an accident. It's not that the roll structure would fail necessarily, it's that it becomes stronger than all the stuff it's bolted too. Like building a ship in a bottle, in NASCAR's carefully chosen environment it makes sense to purpose build a car - it's just that they don't use any stock shapes/templates/components/pieces and parts at all any more. No bare shell to mount on, no difference in chassis dimensions, nothing. If there is a 2 door V8 Camry, there could just as easily be the same in a Saturn, Kia or Volkswagen.

Remember that force increases exponentially with speed and weight, not in a linear manner, so these overly heavy spec cars don't slow down very quickly, and transfer a lot of energy into a crash. NASCAR has determined that they want their cars to go at a certain top speed - maybe for how it looks on TV, I don't know. Some of the most exciting racing I've seen ever has been SCCA Formula Vees running in a pack, drafting, passing and repassing at speeds under 120 mph- ultimate speed isn't necessary to have exciting racing. Today's smaller performance cars would go plenty fast in race trim, well over 150 without much work at all - then you might have a series where some cars are hotter than others year to year, or on different tracks race to race, where innovation and development are kept under wraps, and the machinery matters. Now it's the driver/sponsor/brand and oh yeah, the engine builder too. Don't get me wrong, those guys work hard - the players are good, I just don't like the producers or the script. 

If professional road racing with IMSA/Grand Am wasn't divided in this country you might watch more of it in stock based series there- it's happening - but the France clan dividing the competition (IMSA/ALS) with Grand Am. That sweetens NASCAR's pot, doesn't it?


----------



## rudykizuty (Aug 16, 2007)

SplitPoster said:


> You won't buy _2) Anything that has a carb instead of fuel injection_
> 
> Oh man Rudy, that's going to be a problem when you need a new lawn mower LOL.


Heh heh........ya got me. But of course, I don't drive the old Lawn Boy to work either  

Anyway, there are exceptions to every rule, right?


----------



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

> Remember that force increases exponentially with speed and weight, not in a linear manner


To be more precise, force increases linearly with mass and exponentially with velocity. Thus the most effective safety measure is to slow the cars down if all other safety related factors are held constant. 

Here's a handy calculator that demonstrates some of the basic physics of a car crash. 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/carcr.html#cc1

Whether it's Newton's physics or your driver's ed teacher, the one fact remains: Speed Kills.


----------



## SplitPoster (May 16, 2006)

Sorry, I had a hard time passing physics.... and it shows. Never take an 8:00 class if you aren't a "morning person" LOL. That is a neat website, very enlightening. I still think using some materials lighter than steel, and reducing the weight of the car, especially rotating mass, would greatly benefit slowing any race car down when the center pedal is "mashed".


----------

