| bknblk | 03-19-2006 04:22 PM |
Why rally>nascar...
�
�
I was sort of watching the F1 race and flipped past Fox just in time to see Carl Edwards (nice guy from Missouri) do a smokey burnout and a back flip. Then it dawned on me...that's last years tape!! So I know it's not a new idea but it's be bugging me for along time: Reasons why Rally is much better than Nascar.
1) No rain delay! I mean come on, it's barely sprinkling in Atlanta and they'll try to run tommorrow :rolleyes:
2) I've seen caution flags thrown for a 12 inch piece of duct tape on the ground, off the track, literally below the yellow line.
3) absolutely nothing stock on these stock cars. AFAIK they are all the same, the stickers and maybe the nose plastic being the only difference between a Ford, chevy, dodge etc.
4) 5 left into 5 left into straight. 5 left into 5 left into straight... repeat :huh:
5) the look on Jeff gordon's (right?) face whe Marcus fliped him in a rally car. I bet Marcus would sleep throw a right seat drive in Jeff's car.
6) The biggest thing I've never been able to figure: Nascar claims this near holy bloodline from Junior Johston etc. and their good old boy, 'shine running days.
Ok fine, I'll describe this mythical Moonshine running... take a stock looking car, make it as fast as possible, drive it as fast as possible threw the woods, no matter the weather conditions, and get from point A to point B faster than the other guy....Did I describe rally or Nascar???
Any red blooded american boy that grew up in a rual area took whatever car they could get there hands on and blasted down the back county roads whenever they could. I did. I KNOW street racing bad, ok, but it's a fact. I and everybody I grew up with have been rallying since we got our drivers permits :D I just didn't know it untill I happened apon it on speedtv 4 years ago!
1) No rain delay! I mean come on, it's barely sprinkling in Atlanta and they'll try to run tommorrow :rolleyes:
2) I've seen caution flags thrown for a 12 inch piece of duct tape on the ground, off the track, literally below the yellow line.
3) absolutely nothing stock on these stock cars. AFAIK they are all the same, the stickers and maybe the nose plastic being the only difference between a Ford, chevy, dodge etc.
4) 5 left into 5 left into straight. 5 left into 5 left into straight... repeat :huh:
5) the look on Jeff gordon's (right?) face whe Marcus fliped him in a rally car. I bet Marcus would sleep throw a right seat drive in Jeff's car.
6) The biggest thing I've never been able to figure: Nascar claims this near holy bloodline from Junior Johston etc. and their good old boy, 'shine running days.
Ok fine, I'll describe this mythical Moonshine running... take a stock looking car, make it as fast as possible, drive it as fast as possible threw the woods, no matter the weather conditions, and get from point A to point B faster than the other guy....Did I describe rally or Nascar???
Any red blooded american boy that grew up in a rual area took whatever car they could get there hands on and blasted down the back county roads whenever they could. I did. I KNOW street racing bad, ok, but it's a fact. I and everybody I grew up with have been rallying since we got our drivers permits :D I just didn't know it untill I happened apon it on speedtv 4 years ago!
| Shavenyak | 03-19-2006 04:38 PM |
[QUOTE=bknblk]I was sort of watching the F1 race and flipped past Fox just in time to see Carl Edwards (nice guy from Missouri) do a smokey burnout and a back flip. Then it dawned on me...that's last years tape!! So I know it's not a new idea but it's be bugging me for along time: Reasons why Rally is much better than Nascar.
1) No rain delay! I mean come on, it's barely sprinkling in Atlanta and they'll try to run tommorrow :rolleyes:
2) I've seen caution flags thrown for a 12 inch piece of duct tape on the ground, off the track, literally below the yellow line.
3) absolutely nothing stock on these stock cars. AFAIK they are all the same, the stickers and maybe the nose plastic being the only difference between a Ford, chevy, dodge etc.
4) 5 left into 5 left into straight. 5 left into 5 left into straight... repeat :huh:
5) the look on Jeff gordon's (right?) face whe Marcus fliped him in a rally car. I bet Marcus would sleep throw a right seat drive in Jeff's car.
6) The biggest thing I've never been able to figure: Nascar claims this near holy bloodline from Junior Johston etc. and their good old boy, 'shine running days.
Ok fine, I'll describe this mythical Moonshine running... take a stock looking car, make it as fast as possible, drive it as fast as possible threw the woods, no matter the weather conditions, and get from point A to point B faster than the other guy....Did I describe rally or Nascar???
Any red blooded american boy that grew up in a rual area took whatever car they could get there hands on and blasted down the back county roads whenever they could. I did. I KNOW street racing bad, ok, but it's a fact. I and everybody I grew up with have been rallying since we got our drivers permits :D I just didn't know it untill I happened apon it on speedtv 4 years ago![/QUOTE]
Good points! Nice Rubi!
My first experince with Rally was watching The Dukes of Hazzard. :lol:
--Roman
1) No rain delay! I mean come on, it's barely sprinkling in Atlanta and they'll try to run tommorrow :rolleyes:
2) I've seen caution flags thrown for a 12 inch piece of duct tape on the ground, off the track, literally below the yellow line.
3) absolutely nothing stock on these stock cars. AFAIK they are all the same, the stickers and maybe the nose plastic being the only difference between a Ford, chevy, dodge etc.
4) 5 left into 5 left into straight. 5 left into 5 left into straight... repeat :huh:
5) the look on Jeff gordon's (right?) face whe Marcus fliped him in a rally car. I bet Marcus would sleep throw a right seat drive in Jeff's car.
6) The biggest thing I've never been able to figure: Nascar claims this near holy bloodline from Junior Johston etc. and their good old boy, 'shine running days.
Ok fine, I'll describe this mythical Moonshine running... take a stock looking car, make it as fast as possible, drive it as fast as possible threw the woods, no matter the weather conditions, and get from point A to point B faster than the other guy....Did I describe rally or Nascar???
Any red blooded american boy that grew up in a rual area took whatever car they could get there hands on and blasted down the back county roads whenever they could. I did. I KNOW street racing bad, ok, but it's a fact. I and everybody I grew up with have been rallying since we got our drivers permits :D I just didn't know it untill I happened apon it on speedtv 4 years ago![/QUOTE]
Good points! Nice Rubi!
My first experince with Rally was watching The Dukes of Hazzard. :lol:
--Roman
| DrBiggly | 03-19-2006 04:54 PM |
With all of the dozens upon dozens of threads of this type here, nobody has ever actually pointed out the concept that the Dukes of Hazzard (and other similar off-road hooliganisms and shenanigans) was actually rallying and not NASCAR. Good point, good point indeed. :)
-Biggly
-Biggly
| artkevin | 03-19-2006 05:18 PM |
[QUOTE=DrBiggly]With all of the dozens upon dozens of threads of this type here, nobody has ever actually pointed out the concept that the Dukes of Hazzard (and other similar off-road hooliganisms and shenanigans) was actually rallying and not NASCAR. Good point, good point indeed. :)
-Biggly[/QUOTE]
+1
I guess most people skip right not running in circles down on the beach for their NASCAR history. Rally does make more sense.
-Biggly[/QUOTE]
+1
I guess most people skip right not running in circles down on the beach for their NASCAR history. Rally does make more sense.
| pittspilot | 03-19-2006 06:01 PM |
So did you miss the lurid slide Edwards had trying to catch JJ in the last 5 laps?
I estimate less then .00005% of the posters here would have even reacted before the car backed into the wall, irrespective of how untalented Neckcar drivers are.
Then did you catch how he gathered a car that had almost no tread and caught JJ for the win?
No arguing that Marcus Gronholm, MS and others can't drive, just sick of the constant, put me in one of those cars, and I would show those rednecks bull**** that passes without comment here.
I estimate less then .00005% of the posters here would have even reacted before the car backed into the wall, irrespective of how untalented Neckcar drivers are.
Then did you catch how he gathered a car that had almost no tread and caught JJ for the win?
No arguing that Marcus Gronholm, MS and others can't drive, just sick of the constant, put me in one of those cars, and I would show those rednecks bull**** that passes without comment here.
| fliz | 03-19-2006 06:08 PM |
[QUOTE=pittspilot]So did you miss the lurid slide Edwards had trying to catch JJ in the last 5 laps?
I estimate less then .00005% of the posters here would have even reacted before the car backed into the wall, irrespective of how untalented Neckcar drivers are.
Then did you catch how he gathered a car that had almost no tread and caught JJ for the win?
No arguing that Marcus Gronholm, MS and others can't drive, just sick of the constant, put me in one of those cars, and I would show those rednecks bull**** that passes without comment here.[/QUOTE]
I didn't see any comment like that in the original post.
I think that given the sheer numbers of feeder series, Nascar has the best drivers available more than any other US motorsports. Certainly US Rally drivers are not the best drivers in the country, as it's all about who can afford to race.
I estimate less then .00005% of the posters here would have even reacted before the car backed into the wall, irrespective of how untalented Neckcar drivers are.
Then did you catch how he gathered a car that had almost no tread and caught JJ for the win?
No arguing that Marcus Gronholm, MS and others can't drive, just sick of the constant, put me in one of those cars, and I would show those rednecks bull**** that passes without comment here.[/QUOTE]
I didn't see any comment like that in the original post.
I think that given the sheer numbers of feeder series, Nascar has the best drivers available more than any other US motorsports. Certainly US Rally drivers are not the best drivers in the country, as it's all about who can afford to race.
| Patrick Olsen | 03-19-2006 07:16 PM |
[QUOTE=bknblk]I was sort of watching the F1 race and flipped past Fox just in time to see Carl Edwards (nice guy from Missouri) do a smokey burnout and a back flip. Then it dawned on me...that's last years tape!! So I know it's not a new idea but it's be bugging me for along time: Reasons why Rally is much better than Nascar.
1) No rain delay! I mean come on, it's barely sprinkling in Atlanta and they'll try to run tommorrow :rolleyes:
2) I've seen caution flags thrown for a 12 inch piece of duct tape on the ground, off the track, literally below the yellow line.
3) absolutely nothing stock on these stock cars. AFAIK they are all the same, the stickers and maybe the nose plastic being the only difference between a Ford, chevy, dodge etc.
4) 5 left into 5 left into straight. 5 left into 5 left into straight... repeat :huh:
5) the look on Jeff gordon's (right?) face whe Marcus fliped him in a rally car. I bet Marcus would sleep throw a right seat drive in Jeff's car.
6) The biggest thing I've never been able to figure: Nascar claims this near holy bloodline from Junior Johston etc. and their good old boy, 'shine running days.
Ok fine, I'll describe this mythical Moonshine running... take a stock looking car, make it as fast as possible, drive it as fast as possible threw the woods, no matter the weather conditions, and get from point A to point B faster than the other guy....Did I describe rally or Nascar???
Any red blooded american boy that grew up in a rual area took whatever car they could get there hands on and blasted down the back county roads whenever they could. I did. I KNOW street racing bad, ok, but it's a fact. I and everybody I grew up with have been rallying since we got our drivers permits :D I just didn't know it untill I happened apon it on speedtv 4 years ago![/QUOTE]
Man, what a totally original, thought-provoking post! Thank goodness you posted this, otherwise I wouldn't have realized there were people on this forum that don't like NASCAR.
Hey, can you do another one that tells us all why imports are better than domestics?! That would be sweet!
:rolleyes:
Pat Olsen
'97 Legacy 2.5GT sedan
[i]Doesn't watch NASCAR, and wonders why it is there are soooooo many people on this forum who feel the need to point out how much NASCAR sucks/F1 is better than NASCAR/WRC is better than NASCAR/etc etc...[/i]
1) No rain delay! I mean come on, it's barely sprinkling in Atlanta and they'll try to run tommorrow :rolleyes:
2) I've seen caution flags thrown for a 12 inch piece of duct tape on the ground, off the track, literally below the yellow line.
3) absolutely nothing stock on these stock cars. AFAIK they are all the same, the stickers and maybe the nose plastic being the only difference between a Ford, chevy, dodge etc.
4) 5 left into 5 left into straight. 5 left into 5 left into straight... repeat :huh:
5) the look on Jeff gordon's (right?) face whe Marcus fliped him in a rally car. I bet Marcus would sleep throw a right seat drive in Jeff's car.
6) The biggest thing I've never been able to figure: Nascar claims this near holy bloodline from Junior Johston etc. and their good old boy, 'shine running days.
Ok fine, I'll describe this mythical Moonshine running... take a stock looking car, make it as fast as possible, drive it as fast as possible threw the woods, no matter the weather conditions, and get from point A to point B faster than the other guy....Did I describe rally or Nascar???
Any red blooded american boy that grew up in a rual area took whatever car they could get there hands on and blasted down the back county roads whenever they could. I did. I KNOW street racing bad, ok, but it's a fact. I and everybody I grew up with have been rallying since we got our drivers permits :D I just didn't know it untill I happened apon it on speedtv 4 years ago![/QUOTE]
Man, what a totally original, thought-provoking post! Thank goodness you posted this, otherwise I wouldn't have realized there were people on this forum that don't like NASCAR.
Hey, can you do another one that tells us all why imports are better than domestics?! That would be sweet!
:rolleyes:
Pat Olsen
'97 Legacy 2.5GT sedan
[i]Doesn't watch NASCAR, and wonders why it is there are soooooo many people on this forum who feel the need to point out how much NASCAR sucks/F1 is better than NASCAR/WRC is better than NASCAR/etc etc...[/i]
| Hondaslayer | 03-19-2006 07:30 PM |
[QUOTE=bknblk]I was sort of watching the F1 race and flipped past Fox just in time to see Carl Edwards (nice guy from Missouri) do a smokey burnout and a back flip. Then it dawned on me...that's last years tape!! So I know it's not a new idea but it's be bugging me for along time: Reasons why Rally is much better than Nascar.
1) No rain delay! I mean come on, it's barely sprinkling in Atlanta and they'll try to run tommorrow :rolleyes:
2) I've seen caution flags thrown for a 12 inch piece of duct tape on the ground, off the track, literally below the yellow line.
3) absolutely nothing stock on these stock cars. AFAIK they are all the same, the stickers and maybe the nose plastic being the only difference between a Ford, chevy, dodge etc.
4) 5 left into 5 left into straight. 5 left into 5 left into straight... repeat :huh:
5) the look on Jeff gordon's (right?) face whe Marcus fliped him in a rally car. I bet Marcus would sleep throw a right seat drive in Jeff's car.
6) The biggest thing I've never been able to figure: Nascar claims this near holy bloodline from Junior Johston etc. and their good old boy, 'shine running days.
Ok fine, I'll describe this mythical Moonshine running... take a stock looking car, make it as fast as possible, drive it as fast as possible threw the woods, no matter the weather conditions, and get from point A to point B faster than the other guy....Did I describe rally or Nascar???
Any red blooded american boy that grew up in a rual area took whatever car they could get there hands on and blasted down the back county roads whenever they could. I did. I KNOW street racing bad, ok, but it's a fact. I and everybody I grew up with have been rallying since we got our drivers permits :D I just didn't know it untill I happened apon it on speedtv 4 years ago![/QUOTE]
****, did I just agree with you on something? :lol:
Another to point out is the trickle down from motorsports to street cars.
Subies and mitsu's are damned easy to work on. The race cars have to be production based ( or even stock or homologated, pgt/GrpN) when you have minimal time to swap out damaged components between stages every minute counts.
1) No rain delay! I mean come on, it's barely sprinkling in Atlanta and they'll try to run tommorrow :rolleyes:
2) I've seen caution flags thrown for a 12 inch piece of duct tape on the ground, off the track, literally below the yellow line.
3) absolutely nothing stock on these stock cars. AFAIK they are all the same, the stickers and maybe the nose plastic being the only difference between a Ford, chevy, dodge etc.
4) 5 left into 5 left into straight. 5 left into 5 left into straight... repeat :huh:
5) the look on Jeff gordon's (right?) face whe Marcus fliped him in a rally car. I bet Marcus would sleep throw a right seat drive in Jeff's car.
6) The biggest thing I've never been able to figure: Nascar claims this near holy bloodline from Junior Johston etc. and their good old boy, 'shine running days.
Ok fine, I'll describe this mythical Moonshine running... take a stock looking car, make it as fast as possible, drive it as fast as possible threw the woods, no matter the weather conditions, and get from point A to point B faster than the other guy....Did I describe rally or Nascar???
Any red blooded american boy that grew up in a rual area took whatever car they could get there hands on and blasted down the back county roads whenever they could. I did. I KNOW street racing bad, ok, but it's a fact. I and everybody I grew up with have been rallying since we got our drivers permits :D I just didn't know it untill I happened apon it on speedtv 4 years ago![/QUOTE]
****, did I just agree with you on something? :lol:
Another to point out is the trickle down from motorsports to street cars.
Subies and mitsu's are damned easy to work on. The race cars have to be production based ( or even stock or homologated, pgt/GrpN) when you have minimal time to swap out damaged components between stages every minute counts.
| bknblk | 03-19-2006 08:35 PM |
[QUOTE=Patrick Olsen]Man, what a totally original, thought-provoking post! Thank goodness you posted this, otherwise I wouldn't have realized there were people on this forum that don't like NASCAR.
Hey, can you do another one that tells us all why imports are better than domestics?! That would be sweet!
:rolleyes:
Pat Olsen
'97 Legacy 2.5GT sedan
[i]Doesn't watch NASCAR, and wonders why it is there are soooooo many people on this forum who feel the need to point out how much NASCAR sucks/F1 is better than NASCAR/WRC is better than NASCAR/etc etc...[/i][/QUOTE]
You have no idea how truly honored I am to get flamed by someone with such a low member#!! The day Hondaslayer and I are on the same page... I must be doing something right :banana: But seriously, I'm not a hater, I've met Carl and Jamie McMurry when they were local Missouri drivers. I honestly have less time for F1 than Nascar. Nascar, IMHO is all about the marketing. They sell the hell out of the drivers personalities, and work very very hard at keeping the fan happy. It's paid off for them. I guess I'm just bemoaning how much better performance rallying is as racing...The direct connection of real cars on real roads is powerful to me as a fan. Am i really off base that these "great race drivers" aught to be allowed to put some damn rain tires on and race??
Oh and I prefer my sports cars domestic.... :D
Hey, can you do another one that tells us all why imports are better than domestics?! That would be sweet!
:rolleyes:
Pat Olsen
'97 Legacy 2.5GT sedan
[i]Doesn't watch NASCAR, and wonders why it is there are soooooo many people on this forum who feel the need to point out how much NASCAR sucks/F1 is better than NASCAR/WRC is better than NASCAR/etc etc...[/i][/QUOTE]
You have no idea how truly honored I am to get flamed by someone with such a low member#!! The day Hondaslayer and I are on the same page... I must be doing something right :banana: But seriously, I'm not a hater, I've met Carl and Jamie McMurry when they were local Missouri drivers. I honestly have less time for F1 than Nascar. Nascar, IMHO is all about the marketing. They sell the hell out of the drivers personalities, and work very very hard at keeping the fan happy. It's paid off for them. I guess I'm just bemoaning how much better performance rallying is as racing...The direct connection of real cars on real roads is powerful to me as a fan. Am i really off base that these "great race drivers" aught to be allowed to put some damn rain tires on and race??
Oh and I prefer my sports cars domestic.... :D
| jayj713 | 03-19-2006 09:08 PM |
I personally like rally a lot better than F1 but, I have to give respect to F1 drivers. Through the turns they can experience up to 6Gs, so that means their hearts have to work a LOT harder than normal. I was reading this article and these drivers lose up to 11 pounds in sweat during 1 race.
| DrBiggly | 03-19-2006 09:49 PM |
[QUOTE=Patrick Olsen]Man, what a totally original, thought-provoking post! Thank goodness you posted this, otherwise I wouldn't have realized there were people on this forum that don't like NASCAR.
Hey, can you do another one that tells us all why imports are better than domestics?! That would be sweet!
:rolleyes:
Pat Olsen
'97 Legacy 2.5GT sedan
[/QUOTE]
Oh come now Pat, did you just read the title and skip right to flaming? I covered this exact thing in post #3, albeit with no sarcasm. Yes, this has been discussed many times before. However, instead of flaming I actually took the time to read it and guess what? He brought up something nobody has yet before in the many dozens of seemingly similar threads before it. There is no way that you can claim that the original poster is entirely unoriginal. Perhaps with thread title and concept, but not the supporting statements therein. :)
-Biggly
Hey, can you do another one that tells us all why imports are better than domestics?! That would be sweet!
:rolleyes:
Pat Olsen
'97 Legacy 2.5GT sedan
[/QUOTE]
Oh come now Pat, did you just read the title and skip right to flaming? I covered this exact thing in post #3, albeit with no sarcasm. Yes, this has been discussed many times before. However, instead of flaming I actually took the time to read it and guess what? He brought up something nobody has yet before in the many dozens of seemingly similar threads before it. There is no way that you can claim that the original poster is entirely unoriginal. Perhaps with thread title and concept, but not the supporting statements therein. :)
-Biggly
| STiMULi | 03-19-2006 10:33 PM |
[QUOTE=Patrick Olsen]Pat Olsen
'97 Legacy 2.5GT sedan
[i]Doesn't watch NASCAR, and wonders why it is there are soooooo many people on this forum who feel the need to point out how much NASCAR sucks/F1 is better than NASCAR/WRC is better than NASCAR/etc etc...[/i][/QUOTE]Because you just haven't taken the time to tell us yourself.
Now back to the topic of the thread...
Rally is better because, well, it's Rally.
It lasts all day, 2 days, 3 days, all week or almost a month.
You can own a "Rally" car
You can participate as a worker, organizer, driver, co-driver, photographer, or just help roll a car over on it's wheels!
'97 Legacy 2.5GT sedan
[i]Doesn't watch NASCAR, and wonders why it is there are soooooo many people on this forum who feel the need to point out how much NASCAR sucks/F1 is better than NASCAR/WRC is better than NASCAR/etc etc...[/i][/QUOTE]Because you just haven't taken the time to tell us yourself.
Now back to the topic of the thread...
Rally is better because, well, it's Rally.
It lasts all day, 2 days, 3 days, all week or almost a month.
You can own a "Rally" car
You can participate as a worker, organizer, driver, co-driver, photographer, or just help roll a car over on it's wheels!
| pittspilot | 03-19-2006 10:35 PM |
[QUOTE=DrBiggly]Oh come now Pat, did you just read the title and skip right to flaming? I covered this exact thing in post #3, albeit with no sarcasm. Yes, this has been discussed many times before. However, instead of flaming I actually took the time to read it and guess what? He brought up something nobody has yet before in the many dozens of seemingly similar threads before it. There is no way that you can claim that the original poster is entirely unoriginal. Perhaps with thread title and concept, but not the supporting statements therein. :)
-Biggly[/QUOTE]
Okay, let's analyze
[QUOTE] 1) No rain delay! I mean come on, it's barely sprinkling in Atlanta and they'll try to run tommorrow [/QUOTE]
Looked pretty wet to me, but I'll grant you that I would like to see stockcars in the rain. Think some of those drivers would have no problem given enough traction. Think Silver Crown cars.
[QUOTE] I've seen caution flags thrown for a 12 inch piece of duct tape on the ground, off the track, literally below the yellow line. [/QUOTE]
Those cars don't do well with debris on the track. My understanding is that F1 and Champ Car with throw yellows for debris on the surface as well, because open wheelers definitely don't like debris at all. Think, Ralf hitting the wall at Indy a couple of years ago.
On the other hand, I do think Nascar is reaching for the yellow a little too often to close the field. Does make for some interesting racing though.
[QUOTE] absolutely nothing stock on these stock cars. AFAIK they are all the same, the stickers and maybe the nose plastic being the only difference between a Ford, chevy, dodge etc. [/QUOTE]
I can agree about that, but why is that a problem? Watched the Audi R10 yesterday, and that wasn't close to stock.
Let me give my take. I think that NASCAR does a good job of keeping the manufacturers in check. Make no mistake, if you let the manufacturers gain control they screw the series. Example, Champ Car. This way, NASCAR keeps it about the drivers.
[QUOTE] 4) 5 left into 5 left into straight. 5 left into 5 left into straight... repeat [/QUOTE]
Tired lame refrain that fails to take into account changing air and track temperature changes, tire wear, areodynamics, and weight change as the fuel burns off. Not even F1 has as much ontrack adjustment of vehicles as NASCAR.
[QUOTE]the look on Jeff gordon's (right?) face whe Marcus fliped him in a rally car. I bet Marcus would sleep throw a right seat drive in Jeff's car.[/QUOTE]
A ride with Marcus would stain my shorts. As would running in the pack at Talledaga, or sliding to the wall at 190 at Atlanta.
Know a couple of racers, and they tell me that the modern stock car is a beast.
And I'll pass on the Moonshine crack. NASCAR is trying to work away from those roots. eg the Mexico Busch race.
-Biggly[/QUOTE]
Okay, let's analyze
[QUOTE] 1) No rain delay! I mean come on, it's barely sprinkling in Atlanta and they'll try to run tommorrow [/QUOTE]
Looked pretty wet to me, but I'll grant you that I would like to see stockcars in the rain. Think some of those drivers would have no problem given enough traction. Think Silver Crown cars.
[QUOTE] I've seen caution flags thrown for a 12 inch piece of duct tape on the ground, off the track, literally below the yellow line. [/QUOTE]
Those cars don't do well with debris on the track. My understanding is that F1 and Champ Car with throw yellows for debris on the surface as well, because open wheelers definitely don't like debris at all. Think, Ralf hitting the wall at Indy a couple of years ago.
On the other hand, I do think Nascar is reaching for the yellow a little too often to close the field. Does make for some interesting racing though.
[QUOTE] absolutely nothing stock on these stock cars. AFAIK they are all the same, the stickers and maybe the nose plastic being the only difference between a Ford, chevy, dodge etc. [/QUOTE]
I can agree about that, but why is that a problem? Watched the Audi R10 yesterday, and that wasn't close to stock.
Let me give my take. I think that NASCAR does a good job of keeping the manufacturers in check. Make no mistake, if you let the manufacturers gain control they screw the series. Example, Champ Car. This way, NASCAR keeps it about the drivers.
[QUOTE] 4) 5 left into 5 left into straight. 5 left into 5 left into straight... repeat [/QUOTE]
Tired lame refrain that fails to take into account changing air and track temperature changes, tire wear, areodynamics, and weight change as the fuel burns off. Not even F1 has as much ontrack adjustment of vehicles as NASCAR.
[QUOTE]the look on Jeff gordon's (right?) face whe Marcus fliped him in a rally car. I bet Marcus would sleep throw a right seat drive in Jeff's car.[/QUOTE]
A ride with Marcus would stain my shorts. As would running in the pack at Talledaga, or sliding to the wall at 190 at Atlanta.
Know a couple of racers, and they tell me that the modern stock car is a beast.
And I'll pass on the Moonshine crack. NASCAR is trying to work away from those roots. eg the Mexico Busch race.
| Calamity Jesus | 03-19-2006 10:48 PM |
[QUOTE=pittspilot]And I'll pass on the Moonshine crack. NASCAR is trying to work away from those roots. eg the Mexico Busch race.[/QUOTE]
You nor NASCAR can deny that Daytona started out with a sprint down a narrow paved road, a 90deg turn onto some sand, another 90deg turn onto a beach where they'd race back only to turn back onto the pavement and do it all over again. That's more rally than circle track. This high-banked roundy-round is just a good way to pack people into an arena.
You nor NASCAR can deny that Daytona started out with a sprint down a narrow paved road, a 90deg turn onto some sand, another 90deg turn onto a beach where they'd race back only to turn back onto the pavement and do it all over again. That's more rally than circle track. This high-banked roundy-round is just a good way to pack people into an arena.
| jeisen | 03-19-2006 11:24 PM |
While Nascar makes the entire field drive basically the same car, and it might not be fun to watch 43 of the same cars having a close race, how exciting was it when no one could touch ferrari in F1? I must say i find racing to be more exciting and interesting when not just 1-2 drivers have a chance at winning.
[QUOTE=Beaverboy]You nor NASCAR can deny that Daytona started out with a sprint down a narrow paved road, a 90deg turn onto some sand, another 90deg turn onto a beach where they'd race back only to turn back onto the pavement and do it all over again. That's more rally than circle track. This high-banked roundy-round is just a good way to pack people into an arena.[/QUOTE]
It is an effective way of packing people in to see a race. And they dont seem to be having too much trouble selling tickets, so obviously some people think it is good racing. While I too wish there was more rally coverage in the states, I must applaud Nascar for what they do because it is working.
Now if they would just let them run a decent sized tire instead of just restricting an 800hp V8 to less than 300hp on superspeedways, we might have something...
[QUOTE=Beaverboy]You nor NASCAR can deny that Daytona started out with a sprint down a narrow paved road, a 90deg turn onto some sand, another 90deg turn onto a beach where they'd race back only to turn back onto the pavement and do it all over again. That's more rally than circle track. This high-banked roundy-round is just a good way to pack people into an arena.[/QUOTE]
It is an effective way of packing people in to see a race. And they dont seem to be having too much trouble selling tickets, so obviously some people think it is good racing. While I too wish there was more rally coverage in the states, I must applaud Nascar for what they do because it is working.
Now if they would just let them run a decent sized tire instead of just restricting an 800hp V8 to less than 300hp on superspeedways, we might have something...
| Protege Menace | 03-20-2006 07:34 AM |
[QUOTE=pittspilot]
Tired lame refrain that fails to take into account changing air and track temperature changes, tire wear, areodynamics, and weight change as the fuel burns off. Not even F1 has as much ontrack adjustment of vehicles as NASCAR.
.[/QUOTE]
but to someone watching they dont do any of that, all they see is straight, left, straight, left repeat..
almost every other racing sport does those same things though too.
except other sports don't say its one of the big exciting things about that sport ;)
Tired lame refrain that fails to take into account changing air and track temperature changes, tire wear, areodynamics, and weight change as the fuel burns off. Not even F1 has as much ontrack adjustment of vehicles as NASCAR.
.[/QUOTE]
but to someone watching they dont do any of that, all they see is straight, left, straight, left repeat..
almost every other racing sport does those same things though too.
except other sports don't say its one of the big exciting things about that sport ;)
| Calamity Jesus | 03-20-2006 08:37 AM |
[QUOTE=jeisen]It is an effective way of packing people in to see a race. And they dont seem to be having too much trouble selling tickets, so obviously some people think it is good racing.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying that it isn't, I'm just lamenting that NASCAR's true roots are in some serious cross-country racing but that it's turned into a one dimensional sport of roundy-rounds (with the exception of Watkins Glen & Infineon).
I'm not saying that it isn't, I'm just lamenting that NASCAR's true roots are in some serious cross-country racing but that it's turned into a one dimensional sport of roundy-rounds (with the exception of Watkins Glen & Infineon).
| jeisen | 03-20-2006 09:16 AM |
I am wondering what all of your opinions are of say, the world of outlaws, where cars are sliding on dirt, mud, etc. most of the time, yet still only turn in one direction. Is it more like nascar or rally? And since many a nascar driver got there start sliding on dirt, who am I to say that rally drivers>nascar drivers. I wish we had a back to back type test in both nascar and rally cars so we could see who really are more adaptable drivers.
| Calamity Jesus | 03-20-2006 09:50 AM |
Dirt tracking is completely different than concrete tracking.. and WoO sprint cars are twice the beasts that Nextel Cup cars are.
[img]http://www.fansview.com/racing/0515c113.jpg[/img]
750-815hp
1200lbs
and a power steering pump where the transmission would normally be (no transmission or starter motor)
Yeah, it would be interesting to see.. it's too bad one of the only races where drivers from different backgrounds all race together is the lowest common denominator.. roundy-round IROC.
[img]http://www.fansview.com/racing/0515c113.jpg[/img]
750-815hp
1200lbs
and a power steering pump where the transmission would normally be (no transmission or starter motor)
Yeah, it would be interesting to see.. it's too bad one of the only races where drivers from different backgrounds all race together is the lowest common denominator.. roundy-round IROC.
| the mike | 03-20-2006 10:06 AM |
NASCAR is fine and all, but I am tired of having it jammed down my throat by SPEED. Every show during the weekend(OK an exaggeration, but not too far from the truth) is NASCAR themed. There are Busch shows, truck shows, Nextel Cup shows...far too much coverage in my opinion. I can see that most Americans see NASCAR as "our national motorsport", but just like everyting else television neglects the smaller racing types. C'est la vie, I guess.
It would be nice to see WRC or Trans Am or SCCA get coverage. Even a 3 in the morning slot I could record and watch later.
(Ironically in my HS yearbook my future plans were to be a NASCAR pit chief ;))
It would be nice to see WRC or Trans Am or SCCA get coverage. Even a 3 in the morning slot I could record and watch later.
(Ironically in my HS yearbook my future plans were to be a NASCAR pit chief ;))
| erikkellison | 03-20-2006 11:59 AM |
Putting rain tires on Nascar cars would require the drivers to adapt, and apparently that's just not done. Those drivers only know how to drive in a very specific set of conditions. That's not to say that given the circumstances they're not good at what they do. Heck, you can refine almost anything to an art if you work at it long enough. In this aspect, Nascar reminds me of curling and shuffleboard. Sure, you can compete in these games, but why? Why not compete in something that has merit? Variety is the spice of life, my grandma always says...
| Howl | 03-20-2006 12:06 PM |
Well we all argee that rallying is better than Nascar, but then why is Nascar so popular?
I'll tell you why - it's spectator friendly, both for people who come out to watch the action and for TV, and therefore you can make money selling tickets and TV rights.
With rallying usually you hike out into the wood, stand in the rain, snow or sleet for hours, watch each car come past once, maybe twice, and then hike back out. You don't know who won until you get back to the HQ. Even with TV it's nearly impossible to catch all the action - there just aren't enough cameras and cameramen to cover every corner (the proliferation of in-car cameras is a real boon here).
With Nascar it's all right there in front of you. You can usually tell who's winning and you see all the crashes.
Nascar is for fans. Rallying is for drivers.
I'll tell you why - it's spectator friendly, both for people who come out to watch the action and for TV, and therefore you can make money selling tickets and TV rights.
With rallying usually you hike out into the wood, stand in the rain, snow or sleet for hours, watch each car come past once, maybe twice, and then hike back out. You don't know who won until you get back to the HQ. Even with TV it's nearly impossible to catch all the action - there just aren't enough cameras and cameramen to cover every corner (the proliferation of in-car cameras is a real boon here).
With Nascar it's all right there in front of you. You can usually tell who's winning and you see all the crashes.
Nascar is for fans. Rallying is for drivers.
| FaastLegacy | 03-20-2006 12:18 PM |
[QUOTE=Beaverboy]Dirt tracking is completely different than concrete tracking.. and WoO sprint cars are twice the beasts that Nextel Cup cars are.
[img]http://www.fansview.com/racing/0515c113.jpg[/img]
750-815hp
1200lbs
and a power steering pump where the transmission would normally be (no transmission or starter motor)
Yeah, it would be interesting to see.. it's too bad one of the only races where drivers from different backgrounds all race together is the lowest common denominator.. roundy-round IROC.[/QUOTE]
Ironic you say that considering a lot of the better NASCAR drivers came from USAC and WoO. Tony Stewart, Jeff Gordon, JJ Yeley, Ken Schrader, etc.
Many of the up and comers who don't have a famous name came from the sprint car ranks too. Erin Crocker, Kraig Kinser, so on and so forth.
[img]http://www.fansview.com/racing/0515c113.jpg[/img]
750-815hp
1200lbs
and a power steering pump where the transmission would normally be (no transmission or starter motor)
Yeah, it would be interesting to see.. it's too bad one of the only races where drivers from different backgrounds all race together is the lowest common denominator.. roundy-round IROC.[/QUOTE]
Ironic you say that considering a lot of the better NASCAR drivers came from USAC and WoO. Tony Stewart, Jeff Gordon, JJ Yeley, Ken Schrader, etc.
Many of the up and comers who don't have a famous name came from the sprint car ranks too. Erin Crocker, Kraig Kinser, so on and so forth.
| jayj713 | 03-20-2006 01:52 PM |
[QUOTE=Howl]Well we all argee that rallying is better than Nascar, but then why is Nascar so popular?
I'll tell you why - it's spectator friendly, both for people who come out to watch the action and for TV, and therefore you can make money selling tickets and TV rights.
With rallying usually you hike out into the wood, stand in the rain, snow or sleet for hours, watch each car come past once, maybe twice, and then hike back out. You don't know who won until you get back to the HQ. Even with TV it's nearly impossible to catch all the action - there just aren't enough cameras and cameramen to cover every corner (the proliferation of in-car cameras is a real boon here).
With Nascar it's all right there in front of you. You can usually tell who's winning and you see all the crashes.
Nascar is for fans. Rallying is for drivers.[/QUOTE]
+1 good one :banana:
I'll tell you why - it's spectator friendly, both for people who come out to watch the action and for TV, and therefore you can make money selling tickets and TV rights.
With rallying usually you hike out into the wood, stand in the rain, snow or sleet for hours, watch each car come past once, maybe twice, and then hike back out. You don't know who won until you get back to the HQ. Even with TV it's nearly impossible to catch all the action - there just aren't enough cameras and cameramen to cover every corner (the proliferation of in-car cameras is a real boon here).
With Nascar it's all right there in front of you. You can usually tell who's winning and you see all the crashes.
Nascar is for fans. Rallying is for drivers.[/QUOTE]
+1 good one :banana:
| Bonzo | 03-20-2006 02:11 PM |
A whole lotta ignorance going on in this theard.
I say ship this waste back to OT. It'll fit right in there.
I say ship this waste back to OT. It'll fit right in there.
| Calamity Jesus | 03-20-2006 02:54 PM |
[QUOTE=FaastLegacy]Ironic you say that considering a lot of the better NASCAR drivers came from USAC and WoO. Tony Stewart, Jeff Gordon, JJ Yeley, Ken Schrader, etc.[/QUOTE]
It's not funny that I say that.. because I didn't say that the drivers couldn't handle it.. just that the racing is completely different between paved circle, dirt circle and rally. You're reading a bias into my post that just isn't there.
It's not funny that I say that.. because I didn't say that the drivers couldn't handle it.. just that the racing is completely different between paved circle, dirt circle and rally. You're reading a bias into my post that just isn't there.
| CirrusWRX | 03-20-2006 02:54 PM |
[img]http://www.artechnik.com/subaru/orally.jpg[/img]
| LastResort | 03-20-2006 02:55 PM |
[QUOTE=CirrusWRX][img]http://www.artechnik.com/subaru/orally.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
bwaaahhh.......
bwaaahhh.......
| STiMULi | 03-20-2006 04:40 PM |
[QUOTE=Howl]Nascar is for fans. Rallying is for drivers.[/QUOTE]
BS...
I guess that we will have to kill off all of the fan sites then...
And the fact that WRC is second only to F1 in worldwide motorsports in spectators, well that is a lie too.
BTW there was no WMD :)
BS...
I guess that we will have to kill off all of the fan sites then...
And the fact that WRC is second only to F1 in worldwide motorsports in spectators, well that is a lie too.
BTW there was no WMD :)
| GarySheehan | 03-20-2006 04:50 PM |
I'm not a fan of NASCAR myself, but, if you've never driven a car at speed through the banking of an oval and you're saying that there is no skill involved, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
| Calamity Jesus | 03-20-2006 05:18 PM |
[QUOTE=GarySheehan]I'm not a fan of NASCAR myself, but, if you've never driven a car at speed through the banking of an oval and you're saying that there is no skill involved, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url][/QUOTE]
Again.. nobody said it was easy.. nobody said there was no skill involved. This isn't your average canned [I]NASCAR Hate Thread[/I].
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url][/QUOTE]
Again.. nobody said it was easy.. nobody said there was no skill involved. This isn't your average canned [I]NASCAR Hate Thread[/I].
| GarySheehan | 03-20-2006 05:39 PM |
[QUOTE=bknblk]
4) 5 left into 5 left into straight. 5 left into 5 left into straight... repeat
5) the look on Jeff gordon's (right?) face whe Marcus fliped him in a rally car. I bet Marcus would sleep throw a right seat drive in Jeff's car.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=erikkellison]Putting rain tires on Nascar cars would require the drivers to adapt, and apparently that's just not done. Those drivers only know how to drive in a very specific set of conditions. That's not to say that given the circumstances they're not good at what they do. Heck, you can refine almost anything to an art if you work at it long enough. In this aspect, Nascar reminds me of curling and shuffleboard. Sure, you can compete in these games, but why? Why not compete in something that has merit? Variety is the spice of life, my grandma always says...[/quote]
Statements like the above are why I posted what I did.
Marcus would not fall asleep at nearly 200mph into a corner.
NO ONE (NASCAR, Champ Car, IRL, Atlantics, etc.) races in the rain on an oval because of [U]safety[/U]. It's got nothing to do with drivers being able to adapt.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
4) 5 left into 5 left into straight. 5 left into 5 left into straight... repeat
5) the look on Jeff gordon's (right?) face whe Marcus fliped him in a rally car. I bet Marcus would sleep throw a right seat drive in Jeff's car.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=erikkellison]Putting rain tires on Nascar cars would require the drivers to adapt, and apparently that's just not done. Those drivers only know how to drive in a very specific set of conditions. That's not to say that given the circumstances they're not good at what they do. Heck, you can refine almost anything to an art if you work at it long enough. In this aspect, Nascar reminds me of curling and shuffleboard. Sure, you can compete in these games, but why? Why not compete in something that has merit? Variety is the spice of life, my grandma always says...[/quote]
Statements like the above are why I posted what I did.
Marcus would not fall asleep at nearly 200mph into a corner.
NO ONE (NASCAR, Champ Car, IRL, Atlantics, etc.) races in the rain on an oval because of [U]safety[/U]. It's got nothing to do with drivers being able to adapt.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
| wvallwheeldrive | 03-20-2006 05:55 PM |
I want to know why so many people hate NASCAR. I watch all forms of racing from AMA supercross to F-1. I raced go-carts in a circle when i was younger and there was so many things that need to be changed just because of 10 degree weather differance from one weekend to the next on the same track. And i was only doing 60-65 mph. Now i autocross and i see what it takes to get a car to handle in both directions not just one. NASCAR takes as much skill driving 190 mph 1 inch from each other as rallying does doing 140 mph in the wood sideways on dirt a few feet from the trees and rocks.
Rant off
Rant off
| erikkellison | 03-20-2006 10:58 PM |
Gary,
From what I've seen, you seem like a pretty smart guy. So I'm surprised that you don't understand my statement. Maybe I should be a bit clearer though. The drivers/teams choose not to adapt to the varying conditions, and prefer to just call/postpone the race. I wish Nascar wasn't such a narrow-scoped sport. I wish there were DIFFERENT cars and DIFFERENT tracks and DIFFERENT SURFACES, heck, even DIFFERENT turns. I didn't mind when Ferrari dominated. Good for them, the other teams should learn to be better.
I personally don't like Nascar because it's all so predictable and similar. I think it is within the abilities of the teams to change the car to run on rainy tracks and within the abilities of the drivers to drive slower to account for the less grip, but they don't do it. Why? Because of safety? No. That is a roundabout way of saying that they want everything to stay the same so they're not required to adapt. They want to take turn 1 at nearly the same speed every time. If there was rain, they would be required to change things drastically. It is not impossible, but they don't do it. Not because it's unsafe (though it's unsafe if you were driving the same turn as if it was dry - that's what's unsafe), but because they don't want to adapt. Why not? If it's raining, less crowds will show up, TV coverage doesn't look as good, and the sponsors don't get the exposure that they want. It also requires teams and drivers to work harder.
But hey, that's just how I see it. The fact that Nascar supports lame America doesn't help my opinion of it either. ED drugs, fast food, buy buy buy. Since when should racing be about non-related sponsorship? Well, I guess Viagra is related, because a large portion of Nascar fans probably have ED. I would just rather support something that was more about the racing and less about the publicity and advertising.
From what I've seen, you seem like a pretty smart guy. So I'm surprised that you don't understand my statement. Maybe I should be a bit clearer though. The drivers/teams choose not to adapt to the varying conditions, and prefer to just call/postpone the race. I wish Nascar wasn't such a narrow-scoped sport. I wish there were DIFFERENT cars and DIFFERENT tracks and DIFFERENT SURFACES, heck, even DIFFERENT turns. I didn't mind when Ferrari dominated. Good for them, the other teams should learn to be better.
I personally don't like Nascar because it's all so predictable and similar. I think it is within the abilities of the teams to change the car to run on rainy tracks and within the abilities of the drivers to drive slower to account for the less grip, but they don't do it. Why? Because of safety? No. That is a roundabout way of saying that they want everything to stay the same so they're not required to adapt. They want to take turn 1 at nearly the same speed every time. If there was rain, they would be required to change things drastically. It is not impossible, but they don't do it. Not because it's unsafe (though it's unsafe if you were driving the same turn as if it was dry - that's what's unsafe), but because they don't want to adapt. Why not? If it's raining, less crowds will show up, TV coverage doesn't look as good, and the sponsors don't get the exposure that they want. It also requires teams and drivers to work harder.
But hey, that's just how I see it. The fact that Nascar supports lame America doesn't help my opinion of it either. ED drugs, fast food, buy buy buy. Since when should racing be about non-related sponsorship? Well, I guess Viagra is related, because a large portion of Nascar fans probably have ED. I would just rather support something that was more about the racing and less about the publicity and advertising.
| WRXMaster | 03-20-2006 11:05 PM |
[QUOTE=wvallwheeldrive]I want to know why so many people hate NASCAR. I watch all forms of racing from AMA supercross to F-1. I raced go-carts in a circle when i was younger and there was so many things that need to be changed just because of 10 degree weather differance from one weekend to the next on the same track. And i was only doing 60-65 mph. Now i autocross and i see what it takes to get a car to handle in both directions not just one. NASCAR takes as much skill driving 190 mph 1 inch from each other as rallying does doing 140 mph in the wood sideways on dirt a few feet from the trees and rocks.
Rant off[/QUOTE]
What? Nascars are specifically setup to run in circles... camber/tow ect On straight aways they have yo turn the wheel to the right to keep it straight. If you watch a nascar after a spin.. they have to turn left because its difficult to turn right to get back on the track...At daytona they never lift... That means they are never using the brake "one less input" Never shifting gears "one less imput"All the cars are equal so that means that the cars are all traveling at almost identical speeds... so while they are inches apart at 190mph they are only really racing at about 1-4 mph.... yes they have a screw up at 180mph they are going to wreck hard "but at least its not into a tree!".. .. comparing nascar as hard as rally isnt a good comparison! I am not saying racing nascar is easy just dont compare it to the difficulty of rally!
now lets talk about rally...
100's of miles of roads they have never raced on before.... thosands of different braking points... different surface changes... thosands of gear changes ... race in any weather.... and the cars are all street legal!
Rant off[/QUOTE]
What? Nascars are specifically setup to run in circles... camber/tow ect On straight aways they have yo turn the wheel to the right to keep it straight. If you watch a nascar after a spin.. they have to turn left because its difficult to turn right to get back on the track...At daytona they never lift... That means they are never using the brake "one less input" Never shifting gears "one less imput"All the cars are equal so that means that the cars are all traveling at almost identical speeds... so while they are inches apart at 190mph they are only really racing at about 1-4 mph.... yes they have a screw up at 180mph they are going to wreck hard "but at least its not into a tree!".. .. comparing nascar as hard as rally isnt a good comparison! I am not saying racing nascar is easy just dont compare it to the difficulty of rally!
now lets talk about rally...
100's of miles of roads they have never raced on before.... thosands of different braking points... different surface changes... thosands of gear changes ... race in any weather.... and the cars are all street legal!
| davis10 | 03-20-2006 11:13 PM |
[QUOTE=bknblk]
4) 5 left into 5 left into straight. 5 left into 5 left into straight... repeat :huh:
5) the look on Jeff gordon's (right?) face whe Marcus fliped him in a rally car. I bet Marcus would sleep throw a right seat drive in Jeff's car.
Any red blooded american boy that grew up in a rual area took whatever car they could get there hands on and blasted down the back county roads whenever they could. I did. I KNOW street racing bad, ok, but it's a fact. I and everybody I grew up with have been rallying since we got our drivers permits :D I just didn't know it untill I happened apon it on speedtv 4 years ago![/QUOTE]
:lol: haha soo true. right on man.
4) 5 left into 5 left into straight. 5 left into 5 left into straight... repeat :huh:
5) the look on Jeff gordon's (right?) face whe Marcus fliped him in a rally car. I bet Marcus would sleep throw a right seat drive in Jeff's car.
Any red blooded american boy that grew up in a rual area took whatever car they could get there hands on and blasted down the back county roads whenever they could. I did. I KNOW street racing bad, ok, but it's a fact. I and everybody I grew up with have been rallying since we got our drivers permits :D I just didn't know it untill I happened apon it on speedtv 4 years ago![/QUOTE]
:lol: haha soo true. right on man.
| davis10 | 03-20-2006 11:16 PM |
[QUOTE=wvallwheeldrive]NASCAR takes as much skill driving 190 mph 1 inch from each other as rallying does doing 140 mph in the wood sideways on dirt a few feet from the trees and rocks.
Rant off[/QUOTE]
I have respect for NASCAR since it is a motorsport and does take a good deal of skill, but I disagree with this statement, Rallying has more variables then NASCAR and requires more driver imput.
Rant off[/QUOTE]
I have respect for NASCAR since it is a motorsport and does take a good deal of skill, but I disagree with this statement, Rallying has more variables then NASCAR and requires more driver imput.
| CirrusWRX | 03-20-2006 11:18 PM |
I'm going to play devil's advocate on one thing just to stir the embers:
Remember when Rally Deutschland stages were cancelled en masse a few years ago? They cancelled the stages because the course was so hazardous- between the wet leaves and henklsteins (sp?) and Solberg's spectacular crash, they cancelled it for safety reasons.
Why? If the drivers just slowed the hell down and drove more cautiously, there wouldn't be a safety issue. Just like with NASCAR - there is no safety issue if everybody just drives at 60%
again, just throwing fuel on the fire. I've tried MANY times to watch a NASCAR event with an open mind. I can think of 3 distinct times I said, "OK - I'm going to watch the race the whole way through..." I couldn't do it. It's just not interesting to me. I'd do the exact same thing if golf came on.
I am but a small voice, yadda yadda...
Remember when Rally Deutschland stages were cancelled en masse a few years ago? They cancelled the stages because the course was so hazardous- between the wet leaves and henklsteins (sp?) and Solberg's spectacular crash, they cancelled it for safety reasons.
Why? If the drivers just slowed the hell down and drove more cautiously, there wouldn't be a safety issue. Just like with NASCAR - there is no safety issue if everybody just drives at 60%
again, just throwing fuel on the fire. I've tried MANY times to watch a NASCAR event with an open mind. I can think of 3 distinct times I said, "OK - I'm going to watch the race the whole way through..." I couldn't do it. It's just not interesting to me. I'd do the exact same thing if golf came on.
I am but a small voice, yadda yadda...
| erikkellison | 03-20-2006 11:39 PM |
Good point on the relative driving speeds, but then again, it's not the same as driving dry versus driving wet. Yeah, Petter was going too fast that time, but not nearly too fast as if it was wet pavement versus dry pavement. There's a fine line between fast and too fast, and the difference is most often a couple miles per hour. The difference between driving in dry on an oval and driving wet on an oval is many miles per hour, and if everyone were driving under the same circumstances, then the whole crowd would be challenged to slow down. They wouldn't drive as if it was still dry.
While rally stages get cancelled, it's mostly due to unruly spectators. It seems that most other countries get how much cooler rally is than Nascar, but then again, they don't have to put up with Nascar.
I'm with you on the attempts to watch Nascar (I usually find that I have long-forgotten tasks to do), but the funny thing is, I actually enjoy watching golf. I guess that just goes to show just how lame Nascar is in my mind.
While rally stages get cancelled, it's mostly due to unruly spectators. It seems that most other countries get how much cooler rally is than Nascar, but then again, they don't have to put up with Nascar.
I'm with you on the attempts to watch Nascar (I usually find that I have long-forgotten tasks to do), but the funny thing is, I actually enjoy watching golf. I guess that just goes to show just how lame Nascar is in my mind.
| GarySheehan | 03-20-2006 11:42 PM |
[QUOTE=erikkellison]Gary,
From what I've seen, you seem like a pretty smart guy.[/quote]
You're right. I AM a pretty smart guy. :p Now, I really don't like NASCAR, so I'm not going to put very much argument into this.
[QUOTE=erikkellison]So I'm surprised that you don't understand my statement. Maybe I should be a bit clearer though. The drivers/teams choose not to adapt to the varying conditions, and prefer to just call/postpone the race.[/quote]
Not true. NASCAR chooses not to run ovals in the rain. Nothing to do with the teams. NASCAR is not run by committee. The teams follow orders from NASCAR.
Driving ovals is different than driving roadcourses. Ovals are inherently more dangerous than roadcourses because there is no runoff room. You slip and you crash, hard. There would be a LOT of crashes in NASCAR in the rain.
IRL and Champ Car don't run ovals in the rain either. But Champ Car runs road and street courses in the rain. Doesn't that tell you that running ovals in the rain is dangerous? After all, the Champ Car drivers are great at adapting, but don't run ovals in the rain.
[QUOTE=erikkellison]I wish Nascar wasn't such a narrow-scoped sport. I wish there were DIFFERENT cars and DIFFERENT tracks and DIFFERENT SURFACES, heck, even DIFFERENT turns.[/Quote]
I agree.
[QUOTE=erikkellison]I didn't mind when Ferrari dominated. Good for them, the other teams should learn to be better.[/quote]
Crap. If I knew Ferrari was racing in NASCAR, I probably would've watched!
[QUOTE=erikkellison]I personally don't like Nascar because it's all so predictable and similar. I think it is within the abilities of the teams to change the car to run on rainy tracks and within the abilities of the drivers to drive slower to account for the less grip, but they don't do it. Why? Because of safety? No. That is a roundabout way of saying that they want everything to stay the same so they're not required to adapt. They want to take turn 1 at nearly the same speed every time. If there was rain, they would be required to change things drastically. It is not impossible, but they don't do it. Not because it's unsafe (though it's unsafe if you were driving the same turn as if it was dry - that's what's unsafe), but because they don't want to adapt. Why not? If it's raining, less crowds will show up, TV coverage doesn't look as good, and the sponsors don't get the exposure that they want. It also requires teams and drivers to work harder.
But hey, that's just how I see it. The fact that Nascar supports lame America doesn't help my opinion of it either. ED drugs, fast food, buy buy buy. Since when should racing be about non-related sponsorship? Well, I guess Viagra is related, because a large portion of Nascar fans probably have ED. I would just rather support something that was more about the racing and less about the publicity and advertising.[/QUOTE]
Wow. Um, I'll try to pick out a few points. I do think it's safety related for ovals. You can't see crap in the rain. Seriously. Almost nothing. An oval is designed for close running and drafting. Combine that with not being able to see a damned thing and the slipperyness of the track (because there is no wet line), AND that cars that crash stay on track and not go off into a sand trap and you have a recipe for disaster.
That's why no one races on ovals in the rain.
There are exceptions, though. Several races are held on rovals, which are the roadcourses inside the ovals and a few of the turns of the oval. 24 Hours of Daytona is a great example. Especially in 2004 :eek: However, because of the road course element, cars are widely spaced out. AND, they have the tires to race in the rain because most of the races they run are on road courses and they always race in the rain.
You said you thought I was a smart guy. I feel that I am. And I sure as hell wouldn't want to be racing on an oval in the rain. Not because I don't want to adapt, but because I think it's insane!
I would love to see NASCAR be more like the Australian V8 Super Touring series. Hell, mix it up and do half ovals and half road courses. Unfortunately, that's never going to happen, because the France family has found a recipe that works, and works phenominally well. Why sacrifice that by trying to attract the much smaller road racing fan demographic?
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
From what I've seen, you seem like a pretty smart guy.[/quote]
You're right. I AM a pretty smart guy. :p Now, I really don't like NASCAR, so I'm not going to put very much argument into this.
[QUOTE=erikkellison]So I'm surprised that you don't understand my statement. Maybe I should be a bit clearer though. The drivers/teams choose not to adapt to the varying conditions, and prefer to just call/postpone the race.[/quote]
Not true. NASCAR chooses not to run ovals in the rain. Nothing to do with the teams. NASCAR is not run by committee. The teams follow orders from NASCAR.
Driving ovals is different than driving roadcourses. Ovals are inherently more dangerous than roadcourses because there is no runoff room. You slip and you crash, hard. There would be a LOT of crashes in NASCAR in the rain.
IRL and Champ Car don't run ovals in the rain either. But Champ Car runs road and street courses in the rain. Doesn't that tell you that running ovals in the rain is dangerous? After all, the Champ Car drivers are great at adapting, but don't run ovals in the rain.
[QUOTE=erikkellison]I wish Nascar wasn't such a narrow-scoped sport. I wish there were DIFFERENT cars and DIFFERENT tracks and DIFFERENT SURFACES, heck, even DIFFERENT turns.[/Quote]
I agree.
[QUOTE=erikkellison]I didn't mind when Ferrari dominated. Good for them, the other teams should learn to be better.[/quote]
Crap. If I knew Ferrari was racing in NASCAR, I probably would've watched!
[QUOTE=erikkellison]I personally don't like Nascar because it's all so predictable and similar. I think it is within the abilities of the teams to change the car to run on rainy tracks and within the abilities of the drivers to drive slower to account for the less grip, but they don't do it. Why? Because of safety? No. That is a roundabout way of saying that they want everything to stay the same so they're not required to adapt. They want to take turn 1 at nearly the same speed every time. If there was rain, they would be required to change things drastically. It is not impossible, but they don't do it. Not because it's unsafe (though it's unsafe if you were driving the same turn as if it was dry - that's what's unsafe), but because they don't want to adapt. Why not? If it's raining, less crowds will show up, TV coverage doesn't look as good, and the sponsors don't get the exposure that they want. It also requires teams and drivers to work harder.
But hey, that's just how I see it. The fact that Nascar supports lame America doesn't help my opinion of it either. ED drugs, fast food, buy buy buy. Since when should racing be about non-related sponsorship? Well, I guess Viagra is related, because a large portion of Nascar fans probably have ED. I would just rather support something that was more about the racing and less about the publicity and advertising.[/QUOTE]
Wow. Um, I'll try to pick out a few points. I do think it's safety related for ovals. You can't see crap in the rain. Seriously. Almost nothing. An oval is designed for close running and drafting. Combine that with not being able to see a damned thing and the slipperyness of the track (because there is no wet line), AND that cars that crash stay on track and not go off into a sand trap and you have a recipe for disaster.
That's why no one races on ovals in the rain.
There are exceptions, though. Several races are held on rovals, which are the roadcourses inside the ovals and a few of the turns of the oval. 24 Hours of Daytona is a great example. Especially in 2004 :eek: However, because of the road course element, cars are widely spaced out. AND, they have the tires to race in the rain because most of the races they run are on road courses and they always race in the rain.
You said you thought I was a smart guy. I feel that I am. And I sure as hell wouldn't want to be racing on an oval in the rain. Not because I don't want to adapt, but because I think it's insane!
I would love to see NASCAR be more like the Australian V8 Super Touring series. Hell, mix it up and do half ovals and half road courses. Unfortunately, that's never going to happen, because the France family has found a recipe that works, and works phenominally well. Why sacrifice that by trying to attract the much smaller road racing fan demographic?
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
| flyboymike | 03-21-2006 12:02 AM |
[QUOTE=erikkellison]
I wish Nascar wasn't such a narrow-scoped sport. I wish there were DIFFERENT cars and DIFFERENT tracks and DIFFERENT SURFACES, heck, even DIFFERENT turns.[/QUOTE]
I also agree with this sentiment.
My other gripe with NASCAR is their utter technological irrelevance. I know the reasoning behind it. They want close racing that's all about the drivers. Well, I want more.
F1 and sports car racing slowly bring trickle-down technology to cars we buy. The Audi R10 is a perfect example. They're trying to make diesel relevant to consumers through their racing program, expanding technological boundaries and public perception. (Also, it's kind of cool that the Audi could probably tow its own race trailer.)
Touring cars and rallying bring something different. The grassroot enthusiast gets some of the trickle-down technology from these venues, such as Group N homologated parts from Subaru. Stop Tech will sell you the brakes from their racecar so you can take your rig out on track. Shops like Turner Motorsports use touring car racing to do R and D for suspension products to sell to enthusiasts.
I watch these things, then I watch cookie-cutter carbureted V-8 tubeframe monsters going in a circle. Maybe it's sort of selfish, but all I can think is "what does this mean to me as a car consumer and a car enthusiast?" Of course, maybe I was just caught up in the semantics of it and expected something different when they told me it was "stock car" racing.
I wish Nascar wasn't such a narrow-scoped sport. I wish there were DIFFERENT cars and DIFFERENT tracks and DIFFERENT SURFACES, heck, even DIFFERENT turns.[/QUOTE]
I also agree with this sentiment.
My other gripe with NASCAR is their utter technological irrelevance. I know the reasoning behind it. They want close racing that's all about the drivers. Well, I want more.
F1 and sports car racing slowly bring trickle-down technology to cars we buy. The Audi R10 is a perfect example. They're trying to make diesel relevant to consumers through their racing program, expanding technological boundaries and public perception. (Also, it's kind of cool that the Audi could probably tow its own race trailer.)
Touring cars and rallying bring something different. The grassroot enthusiast gets some of the trickle-down technology from these venues, such as Group N homologated parts from Subaru. Stop Tech will sell you the brakes from their racecar so you can take your rig out on track. Shops like Turner Motorsports use touring car racing to do R and D for suspension products to sell to enthusiasts.
I watch these things, then I watch cookie-cutter carbureted V-8 tubeframe monsters going in a circle. Maybe it's sort of selfish, but all I can think is "what does this mean to me as a car consumer and a car enthusiast?" Of course, maybe I was just caught up in the semantics of it and expected something different when they told me it was "stock car" racing.
| FaastLegacy | 03-21-2006 01:51 AM |
Interesting point:
NASCAR was prepared to run the road courses in the wet a few years ago. They had detachable brake lights and windshield wipers to mount on the cars in case it rained along with tires with actual treads on them. I don't think they ever actually did run in the rain though.
NASCAR was prepared to run the road courses in the wet a few years ago. They had detachable brake lights and windshield wipers to mount on the cars in case it rained along with tires with actual treads on them. I don't think they ever actually did run in the rain though.
| Pakin | 03-21-2006 02:06 AM |
Both have respectful driver. Only one is a little harder to watch if you have a low tolerance for similar motion for an hour or so.
-paK +4
-paK +4
| Chromer | 03-21-2006 08:37 AM |
I suspect that a lot of the hate for NASCAR comes from it's position of utter dominance on Speed, where it has pushed a lot of other programming either off the channel, or into the wee hours of the morning.
Sounds like the time is ripe for another motorsports channel to start up...
Sounds like the time is ripe for another motorsports channel to start up...
| jeisen | 03-21-2006 08:53 AM |
Nascar racecars still have to adapt for the conditions, just look at how track temperature changes the strongest cars into some of the weakest. Nascar still forces teams to adapt just as much as other forms of racing. The difference is that the rules the car must fall under are much more specific. Therefore it is much more difficult to gain any kind of advantage over another car. That is not to say that they can't or don't do everything they can to get a leg up. If the rules are more strict, does that mean that the engineers and/or strategies to win are more or less involved?
| Bonzo | 03-21-2006 09:43 AM |
nascar has and will always say its series is all about:
1. Close racing. They will do whatever is needed rules wise to keep it equal. Basically a spec sereis. Not good or bad just how they decied to run their series.
2. Driver Safety. Again extremely strict rules both for the cars and the tracks. Nothiong wrong here as we've seen many now standard safety procedures and products come from nascar.
3. Giving the huge number of fans a good SHOW. See number one.
Technology does trickly down. For one I would be willing to bet nascar spends as much time in the wind tunnels as does F1. But in nascar what is learned here goes directly into making street cars more efficient. Another is materials and more specifically spring technology. The piston speed of a long stroke v8 at 9500 rpm is prolly pretty damn close to an f1 car at their max rpm. You then have con-rods, rocker arms, valves that are pushed to the physical limit using material we find in everyday cars. No unobtaniums used in F1.
Close Competition
This past w/e at ATL the top 30 cars qualified with 1/2 second of each other. If you don't think averaging 192mph around a 1.5 mile oval in a 3500 pound car with an 850 plus hp motor is at best difficult or in reality ****ing scary then I dare you to strap in for a lap at 160. One blink in qualifying and your packing it up going home.
Restrictor plate tracks like Daytona etc are not drivers tracks. They are team and strategy tracks. Engineers and savy racing wins these races.
For the record I am not a big fan of nascar and don't watch many races. But I have spent considerable time behind the scenes to know what these teams go through to be competitive 36 weekends a year. I also don't hang on my tv for every other type of series either. Out playing in real life is way better than spectating.
My only other experience is computer sim racing. On an oval I generally suck whereas on a road course I am a decent competitor. I just don't have the incredible discipline and extremely fine skills to keep these beasts on and over the egde lap after lap. The lack of variables imho make it that much more challenging.
In road racing and/or rally more variables means more chances for driver creativity to make up or lose time.
In the end Nascar is popular and marketing wise financailly/business wise healthy. This is the side we all have trouble with as it is crammed down everyone throughts. On the other hand if it was'nt for nascar, speedtv would'nt be here. The last big trickle down benefit.
going to get some work done now...
1. Close racing. They will do whatever is needed rules wise to keep it equal. Basically a spec sereis. Not good or bad just how they decied to run their series.
2. Driver Safety. Again extremely strict rules both for the cars and the tracks. Nothiong wrong here as we've seen many now standard safety procedures and products come from nascar.
3. Giving the huge number of fans a good SHOW. See number one.
Technology does trickly down. For one I would be willing to bet nascar spends as much time in the wind tunnels as does F1. But in nascar what is learned here goes directly into making street cars more efficient. Another is materials and more specifically spring technology. The piston speed of a long stroke v8 at 9500 rpm is prolly pretty damn close to an f1 car at their max rpm. You then have con-rods, rocker arms, valves that are pushed to the physical limit using material we find in everyday cars. No unobtaniums used in F1.
Close Competition
This past w/e at ATL the top 30 cars qualified with 1/2 second of each other. If you don't think averaging 192mph around a 1.5 mile oval in a 3500 pound car with an 850 plus hp motor is at best difficult or in reality ****ing scary then I dare you to strap in for a lap at 160. One blink in qualifying and your packing it up going home.
Restrictor plate tracks like Daytona etc are not drivers tracks. They are team and strategy tracks. Engineers and savy racing wins these races.
For the record I am not a big fan of nascar and don't watch many races. But I have spent considerable time behind the scenes to know what these teams go through to be competitive 36 weekends a year. I also don't hang on my tv for every other type of series either. Out playing in real life is way better than spectating.
My only other experience is computer sim racing. On an oval I generally suck whereas on a road course I am a decent competitor. I just don't have the incredible discipline and extremely fine skills to keep these beasts on and over the egde lap after lap. The lack of variables imho make it that much more challenging.
In road racing and/or rally more variables means more chances for driver creativity to make up or lose time.
In the end Nascar is popular and marketing wise financailly/business wise healthy. This is the side we all have trouble with as it is crammed down everyone throughts. On the other hand if it was'nt for nascar, speedtv would'nt be here. The last big trickle down benefit.
going to get some work done now...
| STiMULi | 03-21-2006 09:44 AM |
Rally is Still > Nascar
| Bonzo | 03-21-2006 09:58 AM |
[QUOTE=STiMULi]Rally is Still > Nascar[/QUOTE]
I agree, I'd rather watch or drive rally.
I agree, I'd rather watch or drive rally.
| Howl | 03-21-2006 10:41 AM |
[QUOTE=STiMULi]BS...
I guess that we will have to kill off all of the fan sites then...
And the fact that WRC is second only to F1 in worldwide motorsports in spectators, well that is a lie too.
BTW there was no WMD :)[/QUOTE]
:lol:
I think your reading a lot more into the statement than was intended. Nascar is simple, straight forward, easy to understand and easy to broadcast. It caters to the lowest-common-denominator. That's why it's so popular in the USA. I wasn't saying anything derogatory about rallying. Rally fans have to have a lot more dedicated.
I guess that we will have to kill off all of the fan sites then...
And the fact that WRC is second only to F1 in worldwide motorsports in spectators, well that is a lie too.
BTW there was no WMD :)[/QUOTE]
:lol:
I think your reading a lot more into the statement than was intended. Nascar is simple, straight forward, easy to understand and easy to broadcast. It caters to the lowest-common-denominator. That's why it's so popular in the USA. I wasn't saying anything derogatory about rallying. Rally fans have to have a lot more dedicated.
| flyboymike | 03-21-2006 10:46 AM |
Bonzo- didn't know about the NASCAR tech aspect. Thanks for learnin' me somethin'. :)
| jmlmr2 | 03-21-2006 11:27 AM |
[QUOTE]The piston speed of a long stroke v8 at 9500 rpm is prolly pretty damn close to an f1 car at their max rpm.[/QUOTE]
Actually, I think I read in more than one place that piston speeds in NASCAR engines @ 9500 rpm are HIGHER than F1 engines @ 18K rpm. However, the valvetrain components are moving over 2x faster in the F1 engine...and that was in the V10 era. The video was posted somewhere on this message board showing the new Cosworth V8 revving to ~ 23K rpm :eek: That corresponds to each valve going open and shut over 190 times PER SECOND (one open/shut for every two crank revolutions on a four-stroke engine)
I still like F1, MotoGP and WRC better than NASCAR. I can't really quantify it, but ovals just don't do it for me I guess.
Actually, I think I read in more than one place that piston speeds in NASCAR engines @ 9500 rpm are HIGHER than F1 engines @ 18K rpm. However, the valvetrain components are moving over 2x faster in the F1 engine...and that was in the V10 era. The video was posted somewhere on this message board showing the new Cosworth V8 revving to ~ 23K rpm :eek: That corresponds to each valve going open and shut over 190 times PER SECOND (one open/shut for every two crank revolutions on a four-stroke engine)
I still like F1, MotoGP and WRC better than NASCAR. I can't really quantify it, but ovals just don't do it for me I guess.
| erikkellison | 03-21-2006 11:40 AM |
Seeing as how I'm really enjoying this...
[QUOTE=jeisen]Nascar racecars still have to adapt for the conditions, just look at how track temperature changes the strongest cars into some of the weakest. Nascar still forces teams to adapt just as much as other forms of racing.[/QUOTE]
I understand that there are differences in temperature that influence the few variables that Nascar drivers have, but to say that they have to adapt as much as other forms of racing (rally comes to mind) is sheer folly. Fewer variables = less potential for change. There are fewer things they CAN change, so there must be less opportunity for adaptation.
[QUOTE=jeisen]
If the rules are more strict, does that mean that the engineers and/or strategies to win are more or less involved?[/QUOTE]
Less involved. If one has less variables, the solutions are simpler. This is basic algebra. One may work harder to achieve the best solutions from the limited amount of variables that one has, but overall, the more variables, the more flexibility, and the more flexibility, the more potential for engineering and and adaptation. You were using some backward reasonsing to state that fewer variables = harder.
[SIZE=1][COLOR=LightBlue]I know you probably didn't go to school if you're letting your passion blind simple reason, so I'm sorry for being so hard on you. It just bothers me when people try to assert blatantly false statements as true just because they "feel" that way.[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[QUOTE=jeisen]Nascar racecars still have to adapt for the conditions, just look at how track temperature changes the strongest cars into some of the weakest. Nascar still forces teams to adapt just as much as other forms of racing.[/QUOTE]
I understand that there are differences in temperature that influence the few variables that Nascar drivers have, but to say that they have to adapt as much as other forms of racing (rally comes to mind) is sheer folly. Fewer variables = less potential for change. There are fewer things they CAN change, so there must be less opportunity for adaptation.
[QUOTE=jeisen]
If the rules are more strict, does that mean that the engineers and/or strategies to win are more or less involved?[/QUOTE]
Less involved. If one has less variables, the solutions are simpler. This is basic algebra. One may work harder to achieve the best solutions from the limited amount of variables that one has, but overall, the more variables, the more flexibility, and the more flexibility, the more potential for engineering and and adaptation. You were using some backward reasonsing to state that fewer variables = harder.
[SIZE=1][COLOR=LightBlue]I know you probably didn't go to school if you're letting your passion blind simple reason, so I'm sorry for being so hard on you. It just bothers me when people try to assert blatantly false statements as true just because they "feel" that way.[/COLOR][/SIZE]
| leecea | 03-21-2006 12:15 PM |
I used to ride and race a mountain bike and I thought that was pretty knarly stuff. I'd look distainfully at the roadies in the their neat packs and bright colored clothes. Then I bought a road bike and actually went out with a pack of roadies. Holy s**t, talk about bike handling skills and whole new levels of pain!
What looks easy from the outside can be a very different story when you try it. I never watch NASCAR but I have read a lot of stuff about aero and using the draft on their Web site. It is cool.
[I]"I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast at Charlotte. We're going too fast at Daytona.' Get the hell home. If you're not a race car driver or a racer, stay home. Don't come here and grumble about going too fast."[/I] - Dale Earnhardt
What looks easy from the outside can be a very different story when you try it. I never watch NASCAR but I have read a lot of stuff about aero and using the draft on their Web site. It is cool.
[I]"I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast at Charlotte. We're going too fast at Daytona.' Get the hell home. If you're not a race car driver or a racer, stay home. Don't come here and grumble about going too fast."[/I] - Dale Earnhardt
| Balishag | 03-21-2006 12:50 PM |
[QUOTE=Howl]
With Nascar it's all right there in front of you. You can usually tell who's winning and you see all the crashes.
Nascar is for fans. Rallying is for drivers.[/QUOTE]
+1 i think this guy nailed it right on the money
although i would never be caught dead watching nascar =P i wonder why le-mans hasnt been brought up yet as a comparison to nascar. theres more similarity btwn those 2, plus i think le-mans makes up for a better spectator sport than rally. the only appeal that i see in nascar is that it resembles more to a stadium sport, in that u can easily cram everyone around the track and everyone gets to see all the action thats going on. whereas in lemans or rally, ur gonna have blind spots from the race quite often.
imo, rally is a different type of race that requires a different type of car and skill set, and shouldnt be compared to normal track racing. i'm like the next guy who loves rally cars and rally racing, but its definitely not for everyone... especially those nascar loving peeps.
With Nascar it's all right there in front of you. You can usually tell who's winning and you see all the crashes.
Nascar is for fans. Rallying is for drivers.[/QUOTE]
+1 i think this guy nailed it right on the money
although i would never be caught dead watching nascar =P i wonder why le-mans hasnt been brought up yet as a comparison to nascar. theres more similarity btwn those 2, plus i think le-mans makes up for a better spectator sport than rally. the only appeal that i see in nascar is that it resembles more to a stadium sport, in that u can easily cram everyone around the track and everyone gets to see all the action thats going on. whereas in lemans or rally, ur gonna have blind spots from the race quite often.
imo, rally is a different type of race that requires a different type of car and skill set, and shouldnt be compared to normal track racing. i'm like the next guy who loves rally cars and rally racing, but its definitely not for everyone... especially those nascar loving peeps.
| Jack | 03-21-2006 01:20 PM |
Personally, I like roadraces best......when I'm driving.
I like NASCAR second best because I don't have cable and that's the only racing on broadcast TV. NASCAR/Busch at Watkins Glen/Mexico are as close to real racing as I ever see on the tube.
jack
I like NASCAR second best because I don't have cable and that's the only racing on broadcast TV. NASCAR/Busch at Watkins Glen/Mexico are as close to real racing as I ever see on the tube.
jack
| jeisen | 03-21-2006 02:22 PM |
[QUOTE=erikkellison]Seeing as how I'm really enjoying this...
I understand that there are differences in temperature that influence the few variables that Nascar drivers have, but to say that they have to adapt as much as other forms of racing (rally comes to mind) is sheer folly. Fewer variables = less potential for change. There are fewer things they CAN change, so there must be less opportunity for adaptation.
Less involved. If one has less variables, the solutions are simpler. This is basic algebra. One may work harder to achieve the best solutions from the limited amount of variables that one has, but overall, the more variables, the more flexibility, and the more flexibility, the more potential for engineering and and adaptation. You were using some backward reasonsing to state that fewer variables = harder.
[SIZE=1][COLOR=LightBlue]I know you probably didn't go to school if you're letting your passion blind simple reason, so I'm sorry for being so hard on you. It just bothers me when people try to assert blatantly false statements as true just because they "feel" that way.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/QUOTE]
1. Nascar is not my passion; I haven't watched a single race this year.
2. When all of the cars are so close in spec, yet there are specific areas to play around with, the amount of engineering done by the teams to make their car faster, isn't less, it is just more focused in fewer areas. In order to gain an advantage in any one area will require even more development (why do nascar racecars spend just as much time in the windtunnel as F1 if the nascar boys are all running the same shell?)
I understand that there are differences in temperature that influence the few variables that Nascar drivers have, but to say that they have to adapt as much as other forms of racing (rally comes to mind) is sheer folly. Fewer variables = less potential for change. There are fewer things they CAN change, so there must be less opportunity for adaptation.
Less involved. If one has less variables, the solutions are simpler. This is basic algebra. One may work harder to achieve the best solutions from the limited amount of variables that one has, but overall, the more variables, the more flexibility, and the more flexibility, the more potential for engineering and and adaptation. You were using some backward reasonsing to state that fewer variables = harder.
[SIZE=1][COLOR=LightBlue]I know you probably didn't go to school if you're letting your passion blind simple reason, so I'm sorry for being so hard on you. It just bothers me when people try to assert blatantly false statements as true just because they "feel" that way.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/QUOTE]
1. Nascar is not my passion; I haven't watched a single race this year.
2. When all of the cars are so close in spec, yet there are specific areas to play around with, the amount of engineering done by the teams to make their car faster, isn't less, it is just more focused in fewer areas. In order to gain an advantage in any one area will require even more development (why do nascar racecars spend just as much time in the windtunnel as F1 if the nascar boys are all running the same shell?)
| steverife | 03-21-2006 08:05 PM |
[QUOTE=Pakin]Both have respectful driver. Only one is a little harder to watch if you have a low tolerance for similar motion for an hour or so.
-paK +4[/QUOTE]
Definitely true! Lots of action in NASCAR, just a bunch of foreign people bouncing up and down and talking to each other as trees pass in rally. :p
-paK +4[/QUOTE]
Definitely true! Lots of action in NASCAR, just a bunch of foreign people bouncing up and down and talking to each other as trees pass in rally. :p
| joey1313 | 03-21-2006 08:18 PM |
Nascar>WRC cause you can actually watch a race on TV!!!
For all those who think Nascar drivers aren't as skilled as road race guys or that oval racing is easier than any other form of racing I ask this question: If it's so easy and the drivers suck, then how come Boris Said or Ron Fellows don't win all the oval track races?
Flamesuit on
For all those who think Nascar drivers aren't as skilled as road race guys or that oval racing is easier than any other form of racing I ask this question: If it's so easy and the drivers suck, then how come Boris Said or Ron Fellows don't win all the oval track races?
Flamesuit on
| STiMULi | 03-21-2006 09:25 PM |
[QUOTE=Howl]:lol:
I think your reading a lot more into the statement than was intended. Nascar is simple, straight forward, easy to understand and easy to broadcast. It caters to the lowest-common-denominator. That's why it's so popular in the USA. I wasn't saying anything derogatory about rallying. Rally fans have to have a lot more dedicated.[/QUOTE]
I disagreed with the "Nascar is for fans, Rally is for drivers" statement.
I think it is more Nascar is for Sponsors, and Rally is for Drivers.
How many people sit in their cars cruising the curves wishing the were at Daytona going round in circles? They are wishing for a road race and wishing they were good enough or had a car good enough.
The first time I ever saw a Rally Race it blew away any other motorsport I ever saw.
I still like NASCAR but you know when you ate too much of something and then after that all you have to do is think about it again and it makes you sick?
I have had my FILL and I don't care anymore and therefore I say...
[IMG]http://tronyx.com/images/Fspeed.jpg[/IMG] :)
I think your reading a lot more into the statement than was intended. Nascar is simple, straight forward, easy to understand and easy to broadcast. It caters to the lowest-common-denominator. That's why it's so popular in the USA. I wasn't saying anything derogatory about rallying. Rally fans have to have a lot more dedicated.[/QUOTE]
I disagreed with the "Nascar is for fans, Rally is for drivers" statement.
I think it is more Nascar is for Sponsors, and Rally is for Drivers.
How many people sit in their cars cruising the curves wishing the were at Daytona going round in circles? They are wishing for a road race and wishing they were good enough or had a car good enough.
The first time I ever saw a Rally Race it blew away any other motorsport I ever saw.
I still like NASCAR but you know when you ate too much of something and then after that all you have to do is think about it again and it makes you sick?
I have had my FILL and I don't care anymore and therefore I say...
[IMG]http://tronyx.com/images/Fspeed.jpg[/IMG] :)
| Imprezive_04 | 03-21-2006 09:28 PM |
[QUOTE=joey1313]Nascar>WRC cause you can actually watch a race on TV!!!
For all those who think Nascar drivers aren't as skilled as road race guys or that oval racing is easier than any other form of racing I ask this question: If it's so easy and the drivers suck, then how come Boris Said or Ron Fellows don't win all the oval track races?
Flamesuit on[/QUOTE]
A better arguement would have been to ask why said or fellows never win any road races in the cup series. They always enter but rarely have a good showing. Fellows has done some good things in a busch car, but never in the heavier cup car and said who has much more experience in the cup car then fellows never does anything
For all those who think Nascar drivers aren't as skilled as road race guys or that oval racing is easier than any other form of racing I ask this question: If it's so easy and the drivers suck, then how come Boris Said or Ron Fellows don't win all the oval track races?
Flamesuit on[/QUOTE]
A better arguement would have been to ask why said or fellows never win any road races in the cup series. They always enter but rarely have a good showing. Fellows has done some good things in a busch car, but never in the heavier cup car and said who has much more experience in the cup car then fellows never does anything
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét