I know little of NASCAR, but this seems suspect:
- Restrictor plates have been used three times in NASCAR history.
Aren't they used regularly? —BenFrantzDale 23:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- As has been mentioned, its only used regulary at Daytona and Talladega. It was used at New Hampshire once after the deaths of two drivers, and would of been used at Charolette (Lowes) if it was the last possible thing they could of done. PYLrulz 02:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I was just on here looking for what tracks they use them on. Last time I checked, they use them regularly at certin tracks. I know Daytona is one. Talladaga is another. Anyone know the others?
- Thanks for bringing this to our attention. The article was misleading. There have been 3 periods for 3 reasons for using restrictor plates. Reason #2 is the only one that is currently applicable (currently used at all Daytona and Talladega races). Royalbroil 05:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The picture of the car driving restricted doesn't clearly show the plate. Anyway, I don't see the plate in use. Are you supposed to be able to see it? If you are supposed to see it, then the caption should be more informative or the picture should be better. If you're not supposed to see it, why is the picture there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
More Specifics Needed, Please
Think of it as a spacer, perhaps 1/2 inch thick, bolted just below the four barrel carburetor. Please, some NASCAR good ole boy--tell us the past and present allowed diameter of the passages. CFM flow isn't something I can calculate as it varies with barometric pressure, though I'm certain that they correct datum for 15 degrees Celsius and 29.92 inches of mercury barometric pressure.
As rules change from season to season and track to track, it would be useful to have someone quote the rulebook pertaining to CID restrictions as well as other matters of design, allowed modifications and mandated safety equipment.Homebuilding (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I second this. There must be a section explaining how the restrictor plate works, at least one explanation using words that people who don't know much about motors can understand, and possibly a more detailed explanation giving specific data as suggested by Homebuilding. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
"Enormity" vs. "Enormousness"
As I explained on your talk page, this all too common English usage error, has nothing at all to do with "local dialect." Given that you are evidently British and have displayed over your history of edits here a very marked preference for your own "local dialect," I refer you to the entry for "enormity" in the highly respected (British) Compact Oxford English Dictionary:
1 [mass noun] (the enormity of) the great or extreme scale , seriousness, or extent of something perceived as bad or morally wrong:a thorough search disclosed the full enormity of the crime
(in neutral use) large size or scale:I began to get a sense of the enormity of the task
2 a grave crime or sin:the enormities of war
late Middle English: via Old French from Latin enormitas, from enormis, from e- (variant of ex-) 'out of' + norma 'pattern, standard'. The word originally meant ‘deviation from legal or moral rectitude’ and ‘transgression’. Current senses have been influenced by enormous
Enormity traditionally means‘ the extreme scale or seriousness of something bad or morally wrong’, as in residents of the town were struggling to deal with the enormity of the crime. Today, however , a more neutral sense as a synonym for hugeness or immensity, as in he soon discovered the enormity of the task, is common. Some people regard this use as wrong, arguing that enormity in its original sense meant ‘a crime’ and should therefore continue to be used only of contexts in which a negative moral judgement is implied. Nevertheless, the sense is now broadly accepted in standard English, although it generally relates to something difficult, such as a task, challenge, or achievement
The sentence in the Restrictor plate entry that I'd edited by changing "enormity" to "enormousness," did not use "enormity" to relate "to something difficult, such as a task, challenge, or achievement," so its usage to apply to an object -- the packs of restrictor plates used on racecars -- was incorrect as a matter of standard English, even in its least prescriptive BRITISH application.:
A frequent criticism of restrictor plates is the enormousness of packs in the racing, with "Big One" wrecks as noted above singled out for condemnation despite the greater violence of "smaller" crashes on unrestricted tracks. In restrictor plate racing the packs have brought about an often-enormous increase in positional passing; at Talladega Superspeedway the Sprint Cup cars have broken 40 official lead changes sixteen times from 1988 onward, including both 2010 Sprint Cup races at Talladega, which had 87 official lead changes in the regulation 188 laps.
Restricting Air-Intake versus Restricting Fuel Intake
Maybe somebody could add a paragraph discussing the contradiction that exists: they use a restrictor plate to restrict air intake, yet according to the pre-race coverage on ABC on 2/27/12 of the 2012 Daytona 500, they said the fuel system uses a high-pressure fuel pump. So you have a high pressure fuel pump feeding your fuel intake, yet you're restricting air-flow. Doesnt the the effort of one, cancel out the end-result of the other? Why a restrictor plate? Why not just reduce fuel pressure? And correct me if Im wrong, but I understand NASCAR now uses fuel injectors? For a long while, they continued to use carburators. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Limiting top speed does not necessarily "thus increase safety" as reflected in this edit, and as received a lot of press coverage after Austin Dillon's crash (examples article here and here). WBTtheFROG (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)