Sideways Cars: The Fault of
the Tracks, the Car, the Tire, NASCAR, or the Drivers?
March 13, 2008
Jay Staton - SCR
Atlanta
has come and gone, and while there has been closer racing, we are talking about a (yawn) mile and a half track. As a rule
they have been boring, and they will continue to be boring.
At the short track level,
as a rule, half mile tracks have closer racing than 5/8 or ¾ mile tracks, and quarter milers are more exciting than those
a half mile in length. Why? The reason is that the longer the track, the more any advantage in motor or handling is exaggerated,
and the less a good driver can compensate for a not so good car.
At one time, NASCAR was
predominately short tracks, even dirt tracks in the sixties. Daytona and Darlington were the exceptions,
not the rule. The longer tracks were interesting because of the sheer speed. When Junior Johnson brought out his “yellow
banana” ’67 Ford Galaxie, or Richard Petty was within inches of the wall at Daytona, the speed was evident—they
were on the ragged edge.
But as NASCAR grew, and
Bruton Smith turned Charlotte and Atlanta
into speed palaces, new tracks became “cookie cutters” -- tracks with a similar layout that is a mile and a half
or so--large enough to have a big infield and plenty of room for grandstands, but the racing has suffered.
Old school fans have
become disillusioned, and the racing is not close enough to keep the interest of an “instant-gratification” general
public. There are many reasons why the fan count is dropping, but the boring racing is the main culprit.
That said it will have
to be assumed that nothing will change for the immediate future. Daytona and Talladega will remain steeply banked, and the mile and half and two mile tracks
will remain boring. Bristol and Darlington are the obvious
exceptions, on any other given weekend there is a good possibility of a yawner, whatever car is being raced. Remember that
the revenue began to fall off last year...
As a counter measure,
NASCAR developed the 2008 Car. Certainly it is safer, as can be proven by it’s ability to withstand both rough racing
and incredibly hard impacts with the wall, but there is no question that NASCAR also fully intended the quality of the competition
to improve. A blunter nose and more upright windshield along with a wing instead of a spoiler should lead to less aero push
and make it easier for the cars to run closer together. Although I believe that eventually that will be the result, it is
not yet the result. The 2008 Car will be revisited when we get to NASCAR’s part of the dilemma.
Many were vocal about
the tires at Atlanta, Tony Stewart being the most outspoken (no surprise, but
hey, Tony and I are more alike than I would like to admit…). However, Goodyear has a dilemma, and that is if the tire
is too soft it will grip, but typically right front tires wear prematurely and blow out with predictable—and dangerous—results.
As I recall, Stewart also wasn’t too happy about the tire the week before that hurt him, and justifiably so. If the
tire is too hard, grip is low, the cars become even more difficult to manage, and again, Goodyear is condemned.
The reality of the tire
situation is that the tires that worked, really worked, were “belted” tires as opposed to “radials”.
Belted tires have “belts” or layers of material under the rubber that cross each other in an “x” pattern,
and radials simply run side to side. Radials are popular on the street, and provide a softer ride. Most drivers can remember
nothing else, but belted tires have an inherently stronger and more predictable sidewall. Watch any “back in the day”
event with Dale Earnhardt Jr. and it can clearly be seen that all of the cars are sideways—drifting if you will—all
of the time, in a predictable pattern through the turn, each and every lap, and it is thrilling. Those cars have belted tires.
Belted technology is something that is well known and could be reinstated in a matter of months.
Goodyear developed the
radial “racing” tire to sell it’s street radials. Like the longer tracks, it may have been good for business
for a while, but like the demise of the short track, the tire is inherently flawed, and a compromise--and that compromise
is most apparent on… the longer tracks.
NASCAR is always an easy
target, and certainly they must have some culpability here, right? Actually, the 2008 car was a huge undertaking with huge
risks, and they are feeling some of that risk right now, but the car was developed to be safer, and it has done just that.
It is intended to lead to closer racing, and while the jury is currently out on that, I believe that it will happen.
But there is something NASCAR
can, and should, take care of and that is… coil bind. Back in the day race cars mostly rolled over on the right front
tire—and spring. The more weight jacked onto the corner of that car, the better the right front would stick and the
“looser” the rear would become. Conversely speaking, the more weight jacked onto the diagonally opposite corner—the
left rear, the better that corner would stick and the more the front would “push” or become “tighter”.
The differential is what is referred to as “wedge.”
Advertise on StockCar Review, SCR
has advertising rates starting as low as $12.00 per month. Email us at scr@stockcarreview.com for more information.
All of that changed somewhere
in the mid-90’s with the “old” car. The hot ticket became hinging pretty much the entire car off the right
rear corner. There is enough motor to ratchet the car up on that spring and blast off a turn and then drop the front end at
the end of the straightaway and “coil bind” the front spring. It sounds ludicrous—and it pretty much is,
but it allowed the front end to drop, and the aero advantage outweighed the negatives. Find this hard to believe? If a Carl
Edwards loose oil tank lid can add 150 pounds of down force, imagine what putting a car 3 or so inches closer to the track
will do.
It worked until now,
of course. The wide, flat, shelf-like splitter plants itself on the track and there is no weight transfer, and ultimately,
reduced tire contact with the track. This leads to immediate and serious pushing. The attempt to overcome the push has been
to loosen up the car radically. Hence the complaints of “It’s loose going in, tight in the middle, and loose coming
off”. The car is chassis loose with hard rear springs, settles on the splitter and goes extremely tight, and then is
loose as soon as it comes up off the splitter. This is certainly part of what occurred at Atlanta—the cars literally
wiggled like fish.
Teams are experimenting
with the shock rubber stop and looking for the answer there. Once the front end goes into coil bind, that shock rubber becomes
the entire suspension on the front of the car. That is not a solution; it is only masking the problem of effectively not having
a right front spring in the car.
I am no advocate of more
rules. In fact, if we lost about two thirds of the rules and consistently enforced the rest, it would be fine with me. The
logical reason, ironically, that NASCAR has done nothing in this department is that they are desperate for the car and the
competition to improve, and have given the Teams free rein in this area. It has proven to work in just the opposite fashion.
The teams chassis setup has become their own worst enemy.
This is a case of a need
for a rule. Either add a couple of vertical inches below the splitter to grind off—like the old car, or better yet legislate
a right front coil spring rate. There are plenty of engineers within NASCAR’s development team that can calculate a
spring rate appropriate for each type of track that will not result in coil bind.
After that the teams
will learn to work within that box, just as they are with the aero package, and in the end it will work just as it did in
the 80’s, and just as it will this Saturday night on a late model at a track near you.
Finally, are the drivers to
blame? Clearly, no one should have to drive an out of shape race car on a big track, and there were some scary moments last
Sunday. On the other hand, while the second and third place finishers criticized the tires, and a championship crew chief
criticized the car, Michael Waltrip, a guy that finished 30th and hit the wall and is fighting to stay in the top 35 did not,
and in fact indicated that it was kind of fun out there.
There is no doubt that today’s
drivers were spoiled with the old car. There is no question that the largely young and photogenic current crowd is finding
the going difficult with the 2008 Car.
SCR is looking for writers in all the series we cover, if interested
email us at scr@stockcarreview.comto receive further
information.
Drivers like Dale Earnhardt
Sr., Cale Yarborough, Curtis Turner, and Junior Johnson were all drivers with arms like Popeye’s, and they did not complain—actually
they climbed in knowing the job at hand was to manhandle that race car, regardless of the springs or the on track damage that
was inevitable. Each would no doubt praise the 2008 Car as a joy to drive compared to what they ENJOYED during their careers.
Yes, there is fault to
be found with all of the guilty parties. The tracks, the car, the tire, NASCAR, and the drivers all have room to improve,
and yet each of the parties involved are trying hard in their own way to make the 2008 car succeed.
Ironically, there are
many things in life that are like that, everyone is trying hard and everyone is simultaneously to blame. It somehow doesn’t
seem fair—to all parties involved for various reasons. Maybe, just maybe, this has been your experience along the way;
maybe it is right now…
But there is always an
Answer, and often comes through teamwork. Improvement can and will come whether it is concerning the tires and NASCAR or relationships
in our lives—if we listen to the small voice of reason that is always there.
And make no mistake,
race fans, that relationship is the ultimate in Teamwork, with results that simply cannot fail.
2006 StockCar Review.
