That’s it. They wouldn’t do it if it didn’t work - if fans didn’t make at least a subconscious association between a NASCAR “Mustang” and a Ford one, even if they’d laugh off the idea if they were asked directly.
The cars were, for a long time, strictly stock. Through the ‘60s and into the ‘70s the manufacturers were notorious for creating what were known as “homologation specials”. Even into the 1980s they were making cars for NASCAR, like the Thunderbird Super Coupe and the Aero-window Monte Carlo.
The problem, then as now, is balancing safety with competition. It’s far easier to make the cars as spec as possible than it is to balance their performance so that the racing is competitive, and if they’re all the same the race inspectors can confirm that everything is as it should be. They’ve gone from “stock” in the sense that they haven’t been altered to “stock” in the sense that they’re all alike.
The earliest racers brought their bootlegging cars which had been stripped out for weight savings and hopped up in performance. They were all well-known drivers and they had all attained considerable skill at driving fast.
As for the tracks, how else do you run a race? At some point every track comes back to the starting line, so they’re all closed circuits, some more direct than others. Bill France decided that his series would be about speed, and so he built Daytona to replace the race he had sponsored for years run half on the beach and half on Route A1A.
35 degree bank, left-hand turn.
But rally car racing would be more like what the bootleggers did, and it uses real cars.
I see you’re keen on continuing with this line of argument in spite of the explanation, so I will continue.
Racing in the United States has almost entirely been oval racing. The first purpose-built track, Indianapolis, is oval. The tracks NASCAR get their drivers from are typically dirt ovals between and quarter and a half-mile long. Tracks like Watkins Glen, Sonoma, Laguna Seca, and formerly Riverside have two major issues. The first is safety. When the cars are out in the distant part of the track, the response time is lengthened. That’s part of the reason NASCAR doesn’t even run the Boot when they go to the Glen. The other reason, one that F1 struggles with, is that the fans only get to see their heroes once a lap as they go by. F1 is much better on TV. So is NASCAR, but you get to see more of the race at speedways.
As for rally cars, they are every bit as purpose built as any other series. They simply stick more to the homologation model for engines and the like. That said, they are still tube frames covered with sheet metal, they just add lights and run in inclement weather, something that would be disastrous at the speeds NASCAR runs at.
I’ve seen Speed Racer cartoons - half the drivers would be dead by the end of the season.
As a NASCAR fan (and a liberal), you are right that no NASCAR fan actually thinks the cares are production cars. However, there is kind of an active cognitive dissonance at play - they aren’t production cars, but they should try to look as much as production cars as possible under the rules (and some want them to look even more stock by taking away the splitter, side skirts, etc). And there is this notion of a Mustang racing against a Camaro next year (current the Ford body is based on a Ford Fusion). So it’s partially both, I’d argue.
Thanks! I needed a good laugh today!
NASCAR evolved out of stock car racing, but the primary motivating factor was socialism: making sure everyone has the same resources to race with. They standardized the engines, weight, fuel, to level the playing field as much as possible. Maybe we should point that out to make their little heads explode.
Puh-lease. It’s David Allan Coe.
Covering a Steve Goodman song.
This thread is starting to crystallize my feelings. People are talking about the heritage of the sport from its roots as bootleggers in hopped up, stripped down production cars trying to outrun the law on back roads. But these days, it’s a bunch of purpose built cars racing on multi-million dollar tracks. The teams are backed by corporations which use the laws, which the old timers were rebelling against, to enforce their trademarks. To keep up this pretense they deliberately limit the functionality of the cars, tart them up with decals to make them look like production cars, and apply car model names that have nothing what so ever to do with what is actually on the track. Sad.
Would the sport be as popular if they just did away with the pretense instead of being the pro-wrestling of the racing world?
Jalopnik seems to agree.
Too drunk to link proper. Sorry.
I grew up and lived in the South for 20+ years. I never got into NASCAR but I can understand the appeal. The rivalries between individual drivers suck fans into the personality wars, kinda like those old 'rasslin shows back in the day.
I think you’re projecting quite a bit.
Every fan knows what’s under the hood - the common cars are there for safety and to reduce costs. The teams and drivers inspire fan loyalty, people have always rooted for their own tribe. You’re hung up on the way they pay homage to the traditions and history of the sport. If it wasn’t for car manufacturers involvement there would be no NASCAR. It would cease to exist. Remove that and you kill the sport.
Great, have a Ford team. But why a Ford Mustang team with a car tarted up to look vaguely Mustang-ish.
Tradition, marketing, fun.
NASCAR TV ratings and ticket sales are down lately. They are trying to find a way to reverse that trend. Some fans say it’s because too many races are outside of the south.
my family has a tradition of eating mincemeat tarts at Christmas. Maybe next year i’ll put a paste decal of mincemeat on a Twinkie
If I recall correctly, however dimly…a lot of the fun of stock car races was shade tree mechanics “souping up” pretty standard cars…Fords, Dodges, Frankencars… And, of course, they were local, Bubba to Bubba.
(We went to the rasslin’ matches. I remember how pleased I was that the World Championship was being held in Waco, TX…)