Restrictor plates, why?
I'm pretty sure you're asking the same question. Yesterday's post re: the race at Talladega got me to thinking about the irony of "restrictor plate races." That is, the plates are mandated at certain super-speedways (ie, Daytona and 'dega) to improve driver and fan safety. But if that is the rationale, then why does "the big one" (ie, a grand-daddy, multi-car pileup) always seem to occur at these restrictor plate races? It is apparent that I'm not the first to mull this quandary. Excerpt from Wikipedia:
And another follow-up on yesterday's post: after reviewing the tape, Johnson has accepted responsibility for the crash. Seems the crazy sob caused a similar crash at last years race too. Link
The [restrictor plate] device limits the power output of the motor and hence slows both the acceleration and the overall top speeds obtainable on the tracks where the cars are so equipped. These restrictions are supposedly in the interest of driver and fan safety, although many members of both of those groups feel that the close packing of cars and their inability to achieve separation may actually make the racing at these tracks more dangerous, as there are often massive and frightening multi-car pile-ups during those races.I wonder how or if NASCAR has resolved this apparent conflict? Or whether the evidence, in fact, supports the claim that the incidence of crashes at restrictor plate races is higher (or the "intensity" of crashes greater) than they are at non-restrictor plate races? Link
And another follow-up on yesterday's post: after reviewing the tape, Johnson has accepted responsibility for the crash. Seems the crazy sob caused a similar crash at last years race too. Link
posted by david burnstein at 3:18 PM
3 Comments:
supposedly, aside from "safety" it was done so that all cars had the SAME maximum speed IN THEORY, so IN THEORY the best driver should win.. what happens is you have more "packs" than usual.. restrictor plate races are for the largest tracks.. you get 3 or 4 packs, and if just one car in one pack screws up, you ge the big one.. look at short tracks, like darlington, where the race leader is usually on the tail of the very last car, sometimes even laps him.. you get two camps of fans with restrictor plates.. some love'em, thinking that it leads to the best driver, with the best ability winning, most hate it, those who dont like the "pack" racing.. go ver to some nascar message boards you can see all sorts of opinions
Daniel, in the event you check back, a comment and a question. My wife in her younger days was a frequent visitor to Brazil. She was last down there when they last won the world cup. It sounds like a fun place to visit, let alone to set up residence. From your post, you say restrictor plates promote parity and their absence at smaller tracks results in lopsided races. If thats the case, and I doubt you not, then why not put plates on the cars at all tracks? also, what NASCAR boards do you recommend I peruse?
Brasil is an amazing country. A little bit of everything. There is even a city founded by Americans who were fleeing the south after the Civil War. The town is called Americana, and to this day, the surnames are Jackson, Davis, Jefferson. It has alot of interesting history.
As far as why they don't use restrictor plates on all the races, I think it has to do with the sizes of the tracks. A short track like Darlington would have practically no passing if everyone was going the same speed.
you can ask here, they probably have better answers than i do
http://themotorsportsforum.com
Post a Comment
<< Home