OT: racing budgets, history Options

[lapuwali]

While discussing a topic on another board, I recalled a dramatic comparison done in a car mag 20 years ago.

It was possible to build a championship winning NASCAR stock car for only $25,000 in 1985. This car, unfettered by the restrictor plate rules introduced shortly after, could do 240mph on a really big oval.

A competitive sports racer with full Le Mans bodywork (a 962, in fact), cost around $250,000 then, and could only do 220mph on the same big oval.

Some proof that cubic inches really do win in the end, and those brick-like stock cars weren't actually so brick-like, after all.

A wag at the time stated that the $25K car would get $250K for a race win, while the $250K car would only get $25K for a race win. This test also prompted the snide comment that "A race car is just like the family car, only it doesn't go as fast."

All that aside, the difference in budgets over the years really has been startling. Many of the NASCAR types are just now making the same "money has ruined the sport" noises the F1 types started to make 20 years ago. And back then, F1 budgets were still far from the $300-400M a season they are now. I have no numbers, but I'd not be at all surprised if NASCAR team budgets aren't 20-30x what they were in 1985.

[xitspd]

QUOTE (TimT @ Mar 15 2005, 05:58 PM)

It was either Road&Track, or Car&Driver, but they actually had a shoot out at Talledega I believe.. The stock car schooled the Porsche. There was a quip in the article where the stock car basically just showed up and drove, The Porsche team was changing tails ( long tail, short tail) etc..to try and get more speed yet the Nascar boys still won.. I remember the article well, It opened my eyes a bit

I saw the article as well, however the fastest lap time at Talledega is still Mark Donahue in a 917....