Talk:Stock car racing/Archive 1

Stock cars in most classes
Stock cars in most classes in the US are not "highly modified", they are bespoke racing chassis with nothing in common with the street models at all. 8.48.249.0 (talk) 07:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Phrase
"... equality of the machinery makes the racing closer and results much more of a test of driver and pit crew ability than more technically-oriented motor racing series..."

Must chime in here, its my opinion this is inaccurate, stock car drivers may be talented and rigoursly tested, but only really at one or two things, getting into position without crashing when the race starts and tailing the leader's envelope before jumping into a higher rank. For one, they do not have to deal with the much more difficult tracks like those found in F1 (ex. Monaco GP). I'm not going to even get into WRC.

Its not so much that you're exaggerating driver talent in stock car racing, but this entry badly trivializes the role ability plays in "more technically-oriented motor racing".
 * First you seem to forget that a couple races are run on road courses in NASCAR. (The vast majority of races have simpler tracks, of course.) Second I think this comparison is mostly aimed at F1, not necessarily some of the other series. Do technical differences play a large role in, say, IndyCar or CART? Rmhermen 20:10, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * If it's aimed at F1 it should say that. The fact is technical differences are virutally a non-issue in Indy Car and Champ Car racing, and in fact IRL races tend to be as competitive as NASCAR races if not more so.--Mjj237 16:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Article
I feel this is an extremely inaccurate and misleading article. For one, the opening paragraph seems to describe NASCAR cup racing exclusively, although “stock car” racing usually refers to all NASCAR national and regional touring series, several other sanctioning bodies stock car racing series, as well as various local late-model, sportsman, dirt etc. classes. Secondly, the criticisms describes tactics that are almost exclusive to “restrictor plate” racing. It is a common misconception that all races play out like this, but this is far from the truth. NASCAR cup only runs four restrictor plate races a year, and many other series run less or none of these races.--RA64 03:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I however feel that stock car racing has its own challenges that some people seem to underestimate. Whether this is from ignorance or just another one of those things that F1 people think about NASCAR is not important. What is important is that driving a stock car requires a lot of skill unique to stock car racing. I see that most of these posts have been from 2005 or 2006. These people haven't seen the struggles of Juan Pablo Montoya or for that matter, the difficulty that A.J. Allmendinger and Scott Speed have had trying to adjust. If F1 does require more skill then these drivers should have entered the sport and dominated. The fact of the matter is that while NASCAR is run mostly on ovals, driving on ovals without the technological advances of F1 is difficult and therefore requires and different kind of skill. Also, NASCAR requires more endurance. Driving for 500 hundred miles with gs pressing on you at every corner is not something that can easily be done. So for all the people who say that NASCAR isn't as tough or skillful as F1 then those people need to open their eyes and watch an actual race without bias or prejudice and with the proper knowledge of the sport.hms88ampng 17:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.211.136 (talk)

Driving an open car over a more difficult course at faster speeds has to be more difficult. By your own arguement why haven't any NASCAR drivers gone on to F1? Being a fan of most motorsport I've seen many NASCAR races and it has to be less chalenging and theres deffinitly more margin for error (How often do open wheel cars survive even the lightest contact), Besides, A1GP is by far the best open wheel series to compare it too.(86.25.249.119 (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC))

Safety
This article is practically dead on safety features of racing cars. ¿What gives? 65.102.19.148 (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC) A REDDSON

Stock Car Racing in Britain
Is this section refering to the same thing as SCSA/DoT/ASCAR? Kurohone 00:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

if you could be so kind
Could someone with much more wikipedia knowledge than me edit the brazilian Stock car link, so it does not appear only as (1)?

Thanks in advance

Hednesford Race-way is mint! Look it up.

TC2000
Is this category, TC 2000, a stock car series? Though I don't understand the difference well, doubt it is a touring car series. --Morio 22:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Late model?
Aren't late models a form of stock car racing (World of Outlaws, etc)? It'd be nice to know the difference between late models and Nascar-type racing. --Bk0 (Talk) 02:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am having trouble finding their rules but from the few images, the cars externally look substantially non-stock (by which I mean unlike production versions of cars). Rmhermen 02:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There are many regional sanctioning bodies which run "late models". The ASA late models and the NASCAR local division Late Model Stock Cars are quite stock-appearing, while most dirt-track late models look very little like production cars.  The name appeared in the 1950s when "stock car racing" (as opposed to built-for-racing sprints, midgets, and champ cars) diverged into two types of cars:  "modifieds" (prewar coupes and coaches, with cut-down bodies and truck parts) and "late models" (modern sedans with full bodies).  In the 1970s, builders created purpose-built late models with extreme left-side weight distribution, wedgy noses, and high rear spoilers.  Since that period, most late models have used no production-car components.  World of Outlaws has a touring dirt late model series, but is mainly known for its sprint cars, which don't look at all like anything stock.  Barno 05:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Can this info be added to the article? Right now there is a lot of confusion in this regard.Vinay84 (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

BRISCA FORMULA ONE AND TWO
Prior to my edit, there was no mention of British Stock Cars being called either "The Seniors"/"Senior Stock Cars" ie now 'Formula One' and "The Juniors"/"Junior Stock Cars", but now called 'Formula Two'!

195.92.168.168mp195.92.168.168

Early history
I'm told the sport has origins in souped-up cars used to avoid authorities during Prohibition in the United States in the 1920s and 1930s? -- Beland 03:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not the origin of the sport (manufacturers used stock or near-stock cars at Indianapolis in the 1910s to showcase their products, for example), but bootlegging illicit liquor was the first fast-car activity of Junior Johnson and some other notable racers in NASCAR's early history. This got showcased in The Last American Hero, popularizing it as perhaps more important to the sport's roots than it really was.  Something probably should be added for this, but it isn't a crucial point.  It's more about lore than about the actual formation of any part of the sport.  Barno 15:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Indianapolis was built to be used as a test track. Manufacturers would go there to test cars (and sometimes do so in the public's eye), but the cars weren't in direct competition with each other.  It's like how German manufacturers advertise their "Nordschleife times".Mustang6172 (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The Golden Ages
In the portion after the ban on the 426 Hemi, it states that "Richard Petty's and David Pearson's Chargers dominated" in 1966. Incorrect. Richard Petty drove a Plymouth that year and up to 1969, when he switched to Ford. He stayed with Plymouth from 1970-1973. That was the first time he used a Dodge.

The article also states that Dodge could not compete in the Daytona in 1970. That's not right either. They did use the Daytona in 1970. Richard Petty did NOT win the 1970 season, as the article states. He lost to Bobby Isaac.--Alexrules43 15:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

homologation example
I removed the following from the "The Early Years" section: ''An excellent example of Homologation is when Lee Petty won the national championship in 1954, when he raced a Chrysler New Yorker with the largest factory brakes available, using a Dodge automotive Hemi V-8 engine with a heavy-duty Dodge truck transmission. Dodge was a division of Chrysler, and all of the parts he used were available to the general public.'' That isn't homologation at all. A far better example would be the (circa 1969) Dodge Charger Daytona / Plymouth Superbird or the Ford Torino Talladega equivalent, where the factories made 500 (or whatever number was set in the rulebook) examples. Another case would be the (circa 1987) Monte Carlo SS and Grand Prix "cockroach" where the factory put plexiglass rear windows behind the roof to turn aerodynamically-awful notchbacks into fastbacks. The Lee Petty mix-and-match example would be useful if described accurately, so maybe it can be edited back in with the first words replaced, and maybe a more appropriate homologation example can be edited in. Barno 19:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

NASCAR is not the be-all end-all of stock car racing
The article is way too focused on NASCAR. NASCAR is not the be-all end-all of stock car racing. Stock car racing happens in many countries in the world, with a wide range of vehicles and speeds, with competitors ranging from hobbyists to internationally known professionals. Djd sd (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree that NASCAR is not the "be-all end-all of stock car racing" and that this article does have a heavy bias toward NASCAR. However, the fact remains that NASCAR is the largest governing body for stock car racing and that makes the Sprint Cup Series the de facto premier series.Mustang6172 (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

NASCAR (etc) versus British Stock Cars
I agree with Djd sd. But, I think the types of racing around the world which have evolved from the original Stock Cars have become so diverse that it is impossible for a single article to cover them properly. May I suggest that the article Stock Car Racing should, effectively, be a disambiguation page with a single short paragraph of explanation about how it all started, together with links to the various sub categories such as British Stock Cars, NASCAR, etc. It should be noted that Britain's only large banked oval is Rockingham, where ASCAR has been an attempt to introduce American-style modern stock cars to the UK; this is very different to the classes of car raced at the remainder of UK's short oval tracks. Clearly, British and European racing should NOT be part of WikiProject NASCAR!Weydonian (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. A large section of this needs to be chopped out and moved to the NASCAR article. Rmhermen (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of NASCAR specific information (namely half of The Early Years and the entire Golden Age sections), and I would gladly relocate it to the Sprint Cup Series article, but so much of it is unsourced that I can't decide what should go and what should be deleted. I can't find any evidence that Ford built a 483 for racing, That NASCAR was concerned about the effects of speed on tires during the days of the Dodge Daytona, that a Mercury Monterey killed spectators in 1957, or that the post-Korean War economic boom created a demand for more powerful engines.  And to make matters worse, it's almost impossible to find any of this information on an accurate website because a lot of websites are copying this article and assuming it's accurate.  I would not support making this a disambiguation.  The only major hurdle is seperating a stock car from a touring car.Mustang6172 (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"In the United States"
The sentence The closest thing in the US to the original idea of stock car racing is the KONI Challenge Series, with very limited modifications. bothers me. While it is technically (though probably not gramatically) accurate, I'm sure there are locally operated strictly stock races. Frank Kimmel's Street Stock Series comes to mind. Is if fair to say we could just do without this whole section?Mustang6172 (talk) 05:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"Traditionally ...run on oval tracks"
Citation please! 'stock' cars can, and indeed are run on all kinds of circuits. There is not, that I'm aware of, any tradition for ovals....a source disproving this would be nice :) Thanks - Guinness (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it has been said earlier that the article is NASCAR oriented. And, I think the "oval tracks tradition" refers mostly to the American competitions. 82.141.67.208 (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge : Production car racing
I suggest that the above article be merged. They are dealing with the same concept in different terms. Vinay84 (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - Stock car racing is typified by NASCAR which has nothing what-so-ever to do with Production car racing. It's not even Touring car racing. NASCAR is a Silhouette racing car series. Very, very far removed from Production cars. By the way - could you please check the grammar of your most recent edit? Thank you. --Falcadore (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no mention of Silhouette racing cars in the whole article. If all Stock car racing is Silhouette, that should be mentioned. If NASCAR is an exception, then the presence of 'Stock car' in it's name should not mean that the article becomes confusing for Total Neophytes and useless for an encyclopedia Vinay84 (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Silhouette racing car is not an American term, so it's not mentioned in NASCAR's articles. You should however have noticed however that NASCAR is mentioned in the Silouhette article.
 * While not all Stock car racing is silhouette racing, it is certainly massively inaccurate to suggest it is Production car racing - which was the point of the merger discussion. --Falcadore (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Crossover: Danica Patrick
Danica Patrick is making a widely-reported crossover into NASCAR from IRL, but is not mentioned in (or has been removed from) the Crossover subtopic and this discussion page.

The driver's crossover to NASCAR is potentially significant for reference in the Stock Car Racing article because Patrick is the first woman to win an IndyCar race (Indy Japan 300, April 2008) and at time of crossover was a highly popular public figure and spokesperson exceptional among American race car drivers. On the other hand, the driver is certainly not the first crossover driver, and has only a single major-race win--in an overseas race with a limited history (1998 through 2011 with 2011 being the Japan 300's final running). The driver's career pales in comparison to the cited triple-threat winners Andretti (F1, Indy 500, NASCAR) and multiple-triple-threat Montoya, but is unfolding not so differently from that of other drivers referenced in the subtopic

The question is this: Is driver Patrick of sufficient regard and significance to be added to the Crossover subtopic? Her racing record pales in comparison to superstars cited in the article, but her role as a popular role model, breakthrough female driver, nominally successful driving career, and the first female crossover may present sufficient justification.

Discussion in this page appears warranted prior to adding (or maintaining) Patrick to the subtopic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.39.232.11 (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Vulgar out Link
Don't know much about wikipedia...but the link to "Speedcar Series" at the bottom of the page links to a vulgar web page--nothing at all to do with stock car racing.

Late models and super late models
I feel that late models and super late models should be differentiated, since they are not the same thing. Super late models generally are based on late models, but are more powerful, have more downforce, and drive a lot differently. Its unfair to always group super late models with late models.

Also, the article focuses too much on the top NASCAR series in my opinion, there's plenty of stock car racing to talk about in lower levels of stock car racing. FallRiverTyler (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stock car racing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304111606/http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?siteID=123112&id=10218693&linkID=14271591 to http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?siteID=123112&id=10218693&linkID=14271591

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Restructuring
I recently did a major refactoring of the page to make it more inline with the Formula Racing and Sports Car Racing pages. The way this article was — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlobFish420 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)