Mike T.
Apparently, you misunderstand modern racing. If available technology is given free rein, the inevitable result would be carnage. No one *wants* to die out there. The last essentially 'unlimited' series was Can Am, when there was a *maximum* weight limit (HUH?) and almost no other rules to worry about. Every racing series is now under a set of rules that at least *somewhat* limits the risk to the drivers. They *can* drive right up to an edge that might kill them, but the technnology of the cars and tracks is calculated not to *ensure* their rest with a crash.
NASCAR is no different. The 'restrictor plate' tracks are where the result of crashes at the speeds made possible by unrestricted engines is too deadly, so the speed of the cars is kept to a 'survivable' level by this measure. Still, it is fast enough to lose traction and crash (more softly), so you see this happen. Don't go thinking it's so slow it's 'hammer-down' racing the whole time. The crashes you *do* see are ample evidence of that. Your wife wouldn't stand a chance of keeping up with the slowest car in the field - unless she already races on big ovals.
Major NASCAR races always *were* endurance events. 500-milers. 400-milers. *600*-milers. Nothing's changed about that. The nature of many major racing series is that they are endurance type events, requiring pit stops and strategy to win. Drag racing isn't. Bonneville isn't. But almost all professional circuit racing is, whether it's NASCAR at Bristol or Formula 1 at Monaco. Further, all pro circuit racing series have performance-restricting devices to keep the races more even (entertaining?). Just because no one mentions it doesn't mean they aren't there.
Some feel that way about it, yes. I don't watch oval track or drag racing because I don't find either all that interesting. Not all race fans are alike any more than all wimpy stick-and-ball sports fans are alike. -- C.R. Krieger (Livin' at Road America summers ...)
