NASCRAP TMS

it's for "the show".

of course, on a rain delayed race on Monday afternoon, not sure who was watching "the show"....

that was a BS call. they should have let Logano take the white flag and then throw the yellow (which would have ended the race).

 

probably could have gotten in for $10

I generally pay moderate attention to NASCAR until the last 25-50 laps. a few weeks ago I tried to watch a whole race flag to flag and couldn't do it

shame, it used to be a great sport.

 

Did they even race yesterday? The rain delay pushed them to play a full episode Duck Dynasty on the big screen. Pic from friend who attended.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

You need more beer, a twelve pack at the least.
Maybe in the internet age, my attention span just doesn't last that long.

 

crappy attention span plus crappy racing = don't bother.

and btw they didn't start the race yesterday, they delayed it to this morning.

 

To answer your question, no, it is not required for everyone to pit and get tires.

The Texas track is abrasive so tire wear is very important and as the finished showed, four tires are better than two and two are better than none. At some other tracks it doesn't matter as much.

I believe the leader #22 got four tires but came out third because the #24 and #55 had a faster pit taking only two.

With a slight advantage of leading the restart the #24 was able to hold on to second place while the #55 got passed by others with four tires. Even in just two laps four tires have a much greater advantage over two.

Lets say the first fifteen cars come in for tires. Sixteenth place or so could stay out and hope they can improve that position as the cars that took tires behind them come flying by. Usually what happens in that case is they become rolling road blocks, spinning their tires on the restart holding everyone up and cars fan out around them similar to the #18 on the last turn today.

Sometimes two tires will prevail over four so the #24 made a good call and took the gamble and actually improved their position about five places.

The leader at the yellow could've stayed out and everyone behind him could've came in for tires and then he would've been a sitting duck. Or he could've stayed out with the next ten or so cars coming in for tires but then six or seven after them could've stayed out giving the #22 a buffer between him and the cars that got tires which he could then hold off for two laps. That happens too. It all boils down to a judgement call by the crew chief and it can make them a hero or zero depending on what the other teams do.

With that said, the last yellow was a total BS call and they should've let him take the white to end the race. I'm happy the #22 won anyway otherwise he would've been robbed. If the #24 had won I wouldn't have been too upset because he did get robbed at California the same way.

Now that I think about it there seems to be a trend

 

3500 pounds with 850+ horsepower pulling 3+ g's on abrasive tarmac uses tires fast

 

It really depends on the track and how long they've been running.

Tracks like Texas and Atlanta - have sever tire degration kicking in before even completing an at speed lap. The track design, corner forces, and age of the pavement contribute to cooking the tires very quickly. I've never watched Texas qualifying - but at Atlanta, under the old system with an out lap, and green, white, checkered, all the teams just do the out lap, take the green, and kill at the white - the tires are falling off pace after just an out lap and a quali lap - the final lap would be about 1/2 second slower if they chose to keep going.

 

Well think about it this way, in most series I've road raced in, the tires have a golden lap followed by a really good lap in them in their 1st and second laps. Like a second or more at some tracks. I can easily see it making that much difference.

 

but your RX7 was what, 2400 pounds with you in it, and had 150 bhp (and zero torque)?

"stock" cars are ridiculously heavy and chew through tires.

 

3+g's lateral? I can't imagine that is true. Including the banking maybe, but no way in a flat corner. Do those things make any appreciable downforce?

I admit I don't know jack. I don't even know what the underside of one looks like.

 

I've heard that number multiple times for tracks like Charlotte, Texas, etc; not sure if that's just lateral force or includes the banking force too.

I can't find specific downforce numbers but it's substantial, at least relative to other race cars, if not the actual weight of the vehicle.

edit: this link says up to 1750 pounds of downforce, for the previous generation car. http://m.livescience.com/4367-daytona-500-flying-leaving-ground.html

 

Heavy G forces around TMS. Remember this? Firestone Firehawk 600 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Yep. I was on my way there & in the parking lot when my cousin called me from the suite to let me know the race had been cancelled.

 

Yup, I was working out of a hotel in Dallas, making my way to see family that day in FW. Traffic billboards everywhere: RACE CANCELLED!

 

In grand am (conti) the conti's (cough Hoosiers cough) were a LOT more than .5 on an average track. Similar in concept to stock cars the GS cars were very heavy, and had small contact patches.

Also remember that what the guy in 1st does dictates a lot of other strategy. 2 laps on a high bank track! I'll take tires please!

 

Earlier in the race the commentator said the cars ran 3 Sec a lap slower on old tires...So, 2 laps at 190mph, 6 sec equals alot of real estate.

 

Cars look WAAAAAY slower on TV than in person. Aero is huge with these cars. Even in a tight rule book, teams find very creative ways to increase downforce. Super super $$$ on materials and design to get things to flex just right and pivot the car to maximize downforce.

I believe the 3G number does include banking.

 

The 3 g number has to include banking. Way too much weight and way too little tire compared to weight otherwise.