| Chromer | 03-21-2006 09:47 PM |
[QUOTE=Imprezive_04]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[/QUOTE]
[sarcasm]
It's tough to win when you get taken out from behind.
It's tough to gain positions when the entire race runs under yellow.
Team orders in Nascar? Naaaaaaa....
[/sarcasm]
It does seem that Said and Fellows perenially underachieve on the road courses. Watching the road courses, you realize that the top drivers really CAN drive. They're sliding the cars around every corner, playing the tires slip angles for all they're worth. I wish they'd run more of them.
[sarcasm]
It's tough to win when you get taken out from behind.
It's tough to gain positions when the entire race runs under yellow.
Team orders in Nascar? Naaaaaaa....
[/sarcasm]
It does seem that Said and Fellows perenially underachieve on the road courses. Watching the road courses, you realize that the top drivers really CAN drive. They're sliding the cars around every corner, playing the tires slip angles for all they're worth. I wish they'd run more of them.
| erikkellison | 03-21-2006 10:57 PM |
[QUOTE=joey1313]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]
Just a thought, but maybe that's not all they do? I don't even know who you're talking about, but from the context I'm guessing they're rally-turned-oval/road racers. Might as well ask why Petter isn't as good as Loeb on tarmac. Some people are just better. I think it's unfair to generalize that a few ex-rally drivers who are not winning on the road are a fair representation of the skill of rally drivers in general. I have a feeling that the overarching rule is that you're good at what you continually do. Rally drivers will beat the pants of Nascar drivers in a rally, and Nascar drivers will probably beat the pants off of rally drivers in an oval. But, say you put Loeb or Gronholm in an oval or road course, if they were able to stay awake, they would probably do quite well (assuming they weren't sabotaged by jealous Nascar drivers who have less worldly fame than they do).
AND
Just because it's on TV doesn't make it better. I'd rather drive backroad rally than watch anything Nascar anyday. I'd rather drive than watch anything anyday. Downhill mountain biking is hardly ever on TV, but it simply rules. It's just like rally - in the woods, you can't see all the action, no on-bike cameras, but it is incredible, and requires a larger combination of skill and guts to do well than most anything I can think of. Not to mention that the tecnhology that goes into suspending a race bike is most often superior to any motorsport technology. When was the last time you heard of a 6 way adjustable damper on a car or a motorcycle?
Sounds like someone needs to get away from the TV and live... ;)
Flamesuit on[/QUOTE]
Just a thought, but maybe that's not all they do? I don't even know who you're talking about, but from the context I'm guessing they're rally-turned-oval/road racers. Might as well ask why Petter isn't as good as Loeb on tarmac. Some people are just better. I think it's unfair to generalize that a few ex-rally drivers who are not winning on the road are a fair representation of the skill of rally drivers in general. I have a feeling that the overarching rule is that you're good at what you continually do. Rally drivers will beat the pants of Nascar drivers in a rally, and Nascar drivers will probably beat the pants off of rally drivers in an oval. But, say you put Loeb or Gronholm in an oval or road course, if they were able to stay awake, they would probably do quite well (assuming they weren't sabotaged by jealous Nascar drivers who have less worldly fame than they do).
AND
Just because it's on TV doesn't make it better. I'd rather drive backroad rally than watch anything Nascar anyday. I'd rather drive than watch anything anyday. Downhill mountain biking is hardly ever on TV, but it simply rules. It's just like rally - in the woods, you can't see all the action, no on-bike cameras, but it is incredible, and requires a larger combination of skill and guts to do well than most anything I can think of. Not to mention that the tecnhology that goes into suspending a race bike is most often superior to any motorsport technology. When was the last time you heard of a 6 way adjustable damper on a car or a motorcycle?
Sounds like someone needs to get away from the TV and live... ;)
| steverife | 03-21-2006 11:23 PM |
[QUOTE=erikkellison](assuming they weren't sabotaged by jealous Nascar drivers who have less worldly fame than they do).[/QUOTE]
I think you forgot a smiley to indicate sarcasm. Do you honestly think NASCAR drivers are jealous?
[QUOTE]Sounds like someone needs to get away from the TV and live... ;)[/QUOTE]
I don't think it is a very valid comparison as competing in NASCAR isn't a viable option for most. I think I'd rather race NASCAR than drive a backroad rally.
I think you forgot a smiley to indicate sarcasm. Do you honestly think NASCAR drivers are jealous?
[QUOTE]Sounds like someone needs to get away from the TV and live... ;)[/QUOTE]
I don't think it is a very valid comparison as competing in NASCAR isn't a viable option for most. I think I'd rather race NASCAR than drive a backroad rally.
| STiMULi | 03-22-2006 12:02 AM |
[QUOTE=steverife] I think I'd rather race NASCAR than drive a backroad rally.[/QUOTE]
Here you go...
[IMG]http://www.diesel-ebooks.com/mas_assets/full/0471750980.jpg[/IMG]
[B]Just incase you need a little help driving in circles :)[/B]
Here you go...
[IMG]http://www.diesel-ebooks.com/mas_assets/full/0471750980.jpg[/IMG]
[B]Just incase you need a little help driving in circles :)[/B]
| GarySheehan | 03-22-2006 04:03 AM |
[QUOTE=erikkellison]Just a thought, but maybe that's not all they do? I don't even know who you're talking about, but from the context I'm guessing they're rally-turned-oval/road racers. Might as well ask why Petter isn't as good as Loeb on tarmac. Some people are just better. I think it's unfair to generalize that a few ex-rally drivers who are not winning on the road are a fair representation of the skill of rally drivers in general. I have a feeling that the overarching rule is that you're good at what you continually do. Rally drivers will beat the pants of Nascar drivers in a rally, and Nascar drivers will probably beat the pants off of rally drivers in an oval. But, say you put Loeb or Gronholm in an oval or road course, if they were able to stay awake, they would probably do quite well (assuming they weren't sabotaged by jealous Nascar drivers who have less worldly fame than they do).
[/QUOTE]
Erik,
Boris Said and Ron Fellows are some of the best professional road racers in the US and Canada.
Thank you for your statement. You just clarified your level of understanding of the sport by dismissing what you don't know.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
[/QUOTE]
Erik,
Boris Said and Ron Fellows are some of the best professional road racers in the US and Canada.
Thank you for your statement. You just clarified your level of understanding of the sport by dismissing what you don't know.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
| Howl | 03-22-2006 10:58 AM |
You wouldn't expect a downhill skier to do well in cross-country and you would expect a cross-country skier to do well in the downhill. So which skier is better?
:p
:p
| Chromer | 03-22-2006 11:30 AM |
[QUOTE=Howl]You wouldn't expect a downhill skier to do well in cross-country and you would expect a cross-country skier to do well in the downhill. So which skier is better?
:p[/QUOTE]
Duh! The Telemark skier. :devil: :rolleyes:
:p[/QUOTE]
Duh! The Telemark skier. :devil: :rolleyes:
| erikkellison | 03-22-2006 12:06 PM |
I didn't say they WERE jealous, I said they MIGHT be jealous because they DO have LESS worldly fame. It was just a thought.
Gary, it would be nice if you took the time to actually explain your statement. Without clarification and understanding, how can any of us grow?
Oh, and the downhill skier is better ;) XC is for people who don't like to go fast and/or aren't privileged with mountains.
Gary, it would be nice if you took the time to actually explain your statement. Without clarification and understanding, how can any of us grow?
Oh, and the downhill skier is better ;) XC is for people who don't like to go fast and/or aren't privileged with mountains.
| ianliam | 03-22-2006 12:09 PM |
Coverage and Race of Champions
�
�
I like watching racing. I have my preferences, but I have watched a lot of different racing events if the coverage is good.
WRC and US select Rally events are making great strides in presenting a product as visibly comprehensible as NASCAR. (Remember NASCAR before FOX added the arrows defining who was in the lead). Also, NASCAR is not the model for expanding coverage of rallying in North America. New technologies will soon allow TV viewers to switch between different in car cameras while providing the overall order. WRC, Cycling, Hockey, all have dumped a lot of money in the last five years towards presenting a more visually appealing and comprehensible product for the average viewer. At least in regards to coverage, the future for rallying couldn't be better.
Anyhow, all racing fans should watch the Race of Champions.
[url]http://www.raceofchampions.com/[/url]
[QUOTE]
....it remains the only event to allow drivers to race head-to-head heats in exactly the same cars and on a parallel-track. The premise is simple: using identical equipment and track, drivers can prove themselves based on their talent alone. [/QUOTE]
WRC and US select Rally events are making great strides in presenting a product as visibly comprehensible as NASCAR. (Remember NASCAR before FOX added the arrows defining who was in the lead). Also, NASCAR is not the model for expanding coverage of rallying in North America. New technologies will soon allow TV viewers to switch between different in car cameras while providing the overall order. WRC, Cycling, Hockey, all have dumped a lot of money in the last five years towards presenting a more visually appealing and comprehensible product for the average viewer. At least in regards to coverage, the future for rallying couldn't be better.
Anyhow, all racing fans should watch the Race of Champions.
[url]http://www.raceofchampions.com/[/url]
[QUOTE]
....it remains the only event to allow drivers to race head-to-head heats in exactly the same cars and on a parallel-track. The premise is simple: using identical equipment and track, drivers can prove themselves based on their talent alone. [/QUOTE]
| Bonzo | 03-22-2006 12:14 PM |
If this has'nt already been said, the lowly nascar drivers have proved their mettle in years of competing and winning at the annual ROC event. I also remember JPM and JGordon swaping rides.
Winning drivers will be great in just about any discipline they chose to do. Nascar for many is a profession. A very well paying, safe, secure and ultra competitive profession. It's a job I would be more than happy to do.
Winning drivers will be great in just about any discipline they chose to do. Nascar for many is a profession. A very well paying, safe, secure and ultra competitive profession. It's a job I would be more than happy to do.
| GarySheehan | 03-22-2006 02:16 PM |
[QUOTE=erikkellison]Gary, it would be nice if you took the time to actually explain your statement. Without clarification and understanding, how can any of us grow?
Oh, and the downhill skier is better ;) XC is for people who don't like to go fast and/or aren't privileged with mountains.[/QUOTE]
Erik,
Here's the explanation. joey1313 pointed out that if NASCAR is so easy and the drivers suck so bad, why is it that Boris Said and Ron Fellows have yet to win a race against these guys. You dismissed his point out of hand by assuming these guys were ex-rally drivers and discussed reasons why the transition from rally to NASCAR may not be optimal.
joey1313's point, and my follow-up, is that Boris Said and Ron Fellows are premier sedan road racers. All they do is roadracing and they do it extremely well. The gotcha here is, since these guys are so good at roadracing, why is it that they can't beat the "lowly" NASCAR drivers on roadcourses that they are both VERY familiar with (i.e.-Infineon Raceway and Watkins Glen)?
The reason is, the top NASCAR drivers are excellent drivers, and it doesn't matter if they are on an oval or a roadcourse, they drive extremely well. As a matter of fact, several NASCAR drivers have crossed over into Daytona Prototypes and have been amazing in them.
You have posted up a lot of erroneous information about how NASCAR operates and why they do what they do, and it has become obvious to me that it is just your lack of understanding about the sport. It's fine to enjoy Rally more than NASCAR. I feel the same way. But to downplay the NASCAR drivers' skill, competitive drive and ability to adapt is just ignorant. No insult intended here.
As a race car driver, I have the utmost respect for NASCAR drivers and what they do. And I would certainly take notice of any of them showing up at the type of racing that I do. And this is in spite of the fact that I don't really enjoy watching what they do.
So, bringing this thread back on track, I agree with Rally>NASCAR from the point of view of me sitting in front of the TV. But I disagree with Rally Drivers>NASCAR Drivers. It's apples and oranges until you get them in the same car. And most likely, the results will surprise you.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
Oh, and the downhill skier is better ;) XC is for people who don't like to go fast and/or aren't privileged with mountains.[/QUOTE]
Erik,
Here's the explanation. joey1313 pointed out that if NASCAR is so easy and the drivers suck so bad, why is it that Boris Said and Ron Fellows have yet to win a race against these guys. You dismissed his point out of hand by assuming these guys were ex-rally drivers and discussed reasons why the transition from rally to NASCAR may not be optimal.
joey1313's point, and my follow-up, is that Boris Said and Ron Fellows are premier sedan road racers. All they do is roadracing and they do it extremely well. The gotcha here is, since these guys are so good at roadracing, why is it that they can't beat the "lowly" NASCAR drivers on roadcourses that they are both VERY familiar with (i.e.-Infineon Raceway and Watkins Glen)?
The reason is, the top NASCAR drivers are excellent drivers, and it doesn't matter if they are on an oval or a roadcourse, they drive extremely well. As a matter of fact, several NASCAR drivers have crossed over into Daytona Prototypes and have been amazing in them.
You have posted up a lot of erroneous information about how NASCAR operates and why they do what they do, and it has become obvious to me that it is just your lack of understanding about the sport. It's fine to enjoy Rally more than NASCAR. I feel the same way. But to downplay the NASCAR drivers' skill, competitive drive and ability to adapt is just ignorant. No insult intended here.
As a race car driver, I have the utmost respect for NASCAR drivers and what they do. And I would certainly take notice of any of them showing up at the type of racing that I do. And this is in spite of the fact that I don't really enjoy watching what they do.
So, bringing this thread back on track, I agree with Rally>NASCAR from the point of view of me sitting in front of the TV. But I disagree with Rally Drivers>NASCAR Drivers. It's apples and oranges until you get them in the same car. And most likely, the results will surprise you.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
| jamest | 03-22-2006 06:22 PM |
NASCAR used to be about stock cars and their drivers, but because all the rule changes over the years you now have cookie cutter cars. I would still consider it a valid motorsport, but it has lost its appeal. When Chrysler used the race hemi in 1964, it dominated the Daytona 500 finishing all of the top 4, so logically you change the rules to prevent them from competing right? Even though they were valid stock cars that you could get from the dealer.
IMHO, NASCAR would be much more exciting today if they were racing Z06s/Vipers instead of MonteCarlo/Chargers.
But WRC can suffer from the same fate, how do you balance fair competition versus stomping out innovation? Recent WRC rule changes helped reduce the cost of competing, at the same time they prevented computer-controlled front/rear diffs.
IMHO, NASCAR would be much more exciting today if they were racing Z06s/Vipers instead of MonteCarlo/Chargers.
But WRC can suffer from the same fate, how do you balance fair competition versus stomping out innovation? Recent WRC rule changes helped reduce the cost of competing, at the same time they prevented computer-controlled front/rear diffs.
| GarySheehan | 03-22-2006 06:56 PM |
[QUOTE=jamest]I would still consider it a valid motorsport, but it has lost its appeal. [/QUOTE]
Based on what? NASCAR is larger than it has ever been. How can you say it has lost it's appeal when it is growing so quickly.
It doesn't appeal to me, but obviously, I am a minority in this respect and I have come to terms with it. No big deal.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
Based on what? NASCAR is larger than it has ever been. How can you say it has lost it's appeal when it is growing so quickly.
It doesn't appeal to me, but obviously, I am a minority in this respect and I have come to terms with it. No big deal.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
| WickedSTI | 03-22-2006 09:23 PM |
NASCAR is ez not a good show to many good oll boys how many times have i seen that on NASIOC.Like i have said a few times before you can go RENT a car that is 6/10s what a cup car is and give it a go.Maybe yall will be so good that you will have a ride in 07 and show the world how ez it all is.Brad
| erikkellison | 03-22-2006 09:26 PM |
Well put.
| pittspilot | 03-22-2006 09:28 PM |
[QUOTE=GarySheehan]Based on what? NASCAR is larger than it has ever been. How can you say it has lost it's appeal when it is growing so quickly.
It doesn't appeal to me, but obviously, I am a minority in this respect and I have come to terms with it. No big deal.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url][/QUOTE]
Thanks Gary,
Good breakdown. Can't say I enjoy Rally more then NASCAR because they are different. Same as with Open Wheel, Aircraft Racing, NHRA, or any other racing.
I just know it would be sad not to have variety.
It doesn't appeal to me, but obviously, I am a minority in this respect and I have come to terms with it. No big deal.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url][/QUOTE]
Thanks Gary,
Good breakdown. Can't say I enjoy Rally more then NASCAR because they are different. Same as with Open Wheel, Aircraft Racing, NHRA, or any other racing.
I just know it would be sad not to have variety.
| buster | 03-23-2006 12:00 AM |
Ahhhh, the battle wages on. Even on a Subaru board. I would agree with Gary, the great Nascar drivers are good race car drivers. 20 years ago Nascar was pretty entertaining to watch. Nascar, drive to giant parking lot. enter venue, drink beer, yell, drive home. Sure Rally fans have to rough it a little more but I would give me left nut to go hang out with some crazy swedes for a day in the cold of Rally Sweden for the driving and atmosphere...or Finland, or Monte Carlo, or ..... you get the point.
Now it is for sponsors, and really with all the antics's of drafting, bumping, etc I really could give a rats azz about it. They drive in circles (the balance and tire temp issues....whatever) whine about having to shift and don't race in the rain. It is dominated by southern folk who spend their free time watching Monster trucks, WWF, and polishing their Monte Carlo in the driveway. I know, i know, it is a horrible generalization and I'll go to hell for it. Even talking about it makes me angry.
Here is the thing though, say what you will about the fans, the sport, etc. The fact is that we are very bitter and angry that Speed has decided to turn into the Nascar, Barret Jackson crap channel. Sure, they throw in a day or two of road, motogp, DTM, BTCC, etc but it is really 1/4 of the channel it used to be. ****, I can barely stumble upon anything other than Nascar everytime I turn it on. It's really pretty sad and they refuse to listen to anything else in regards to the programming.
Now it is for sponsors, and really with all the antics's of drafting, bumping, etc I really could give a rats azz about it. They drive in circles (the balance and tire temp issues....whatever) whine about having to shift and don't race in the rain. It is dominated by southern folk who spend their free time watching Monster trucks, WWF, and polishing their Monte Carlo in the driveway. I know, i know, it is a horrible generalization and I'll go to hell for it. Even talking about it makes me angry.
Here is the thing though, say what you will about the fans, the sport, etc. The fact is that we are very bitter and angry that Speed has decided to turn into the Nascar, Barret Jackson crap channel. Sure, they throw in a day or two of road, motogp, DTM, BTCC, etc but it is really 1/4 of the channel it used to be. ****, I can barely stumble upon anything other than Nascar everytime I turn it on. It's really pretty sad and they refuse to listen to anything else in regards to the programming.
| jamest | 03-23-2006 04:28 AM |
[QUOTE=GarySheehan]Based on what? NASCAR is larger than it has ever been. How can you say it has lost it's appeal when it is growing so quickly.[/QUOTE]
Well, I was speaking for myself. I think the NASCAR of old has more appeal, to me, than what it has become.
Well, I was speaking for myself. I think the NASCAR of old has more appeal, to me, than what it has become.
| GarySheehan | 03-23-2006 10:12 AM |
[QUOTE=jamest]Well, I was speaking for myself. I think the NASCAR of old has more appeal, to me, than what it has become.[/QUOTE]
I hear you. I remember watching NASCAR as a kid in the late 70's and early 80's. That was a very different series than what is on today.
I think we all tend to look at this as me, me, me. SPEED TV isn't evil. It is giving it's largest audience (by far) what it wants to watch. Us relatively few have significantly less programming to watch compared to NASCAR.
It's still my favorite channel, though. TIVO grabs so much stuff for me that I don't have time to watch all the racing it records.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
I hear you. I remember watching NASCAR as a kid in the late 70's and early 80's. That was a very different series than what is on today.
I think we all tend to look at this as me, me, me. SPEED TV isn't evil. It is giving it's largest audience (by far) what it wants to watch. Us relatively few have significantly less programming to watch compared to NASCAR.
It's still my favorite channel, though. TIVO grabs so much stuff for me that I don't have time to watch all the racing it records.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
| erikkellison | 03-23-2006 11:34 AM |
You know why it caters to the Nascar crowd (in part)? Because they are a better audience to cater to. They watch TV far more than we do, and buy into commercials more than we do. It's monetarily worth it for them to cater to the people that support them. We just want to watch rally, and don't give a crap about supporting their supporting advertisers. I guess I'd put whatever on TV that the people that paid the bills wanted to watch. Heh, can you imagine commercials for aftermarket turbos or suspension?
| WRXSleeper | 03-23-2006 11:51 AM |
[QUOTE=erikkellison]You know why it caters to the Nascar crowd (in part)? Because they are a better audience to cater to. They watch TV far more than we do, and buy into commercials more than we do. It's monetarily worth it for them to cater to the people that support them. We just want to watch rally, and don't give a crap about supporting their supporting advertisers. I guess I'd put whatever on TV that the people that paid the bills wanted to watch. Heh, can you imagine commercials for aftermarket turbos or suspension?[/QUOTE]
NASCAR fans are brand loyal, it's a proven fact.
btw, me=NASCAR fan
NASCAR fans are brand loyal, it's a proven fact.
btw, me=NASCAR fan
| meebs | 03-23-2006 11:51 AM |
[QUOTE=erikkellison]You know why it caters to the Nascar crowd (in part)? Because they are a better audience to cater to. They watch TV far more than we do, and buy into commercials more than we do. It's monetarily worth it for them to cater to the people that support them. We just want to watch rally, and don't give a crap about supporting their supporting advertisers. I guess I'd put whatever on TV that the people that paid the bills wanted to watch. Heh, can you imagine commercials for aftermarket turbos or suspension?[/QUOTE]
You've hit the nail on the head. They do watch more TV I'd say. Check out this story. A [b]RAINED OUT[/b] nascar event had higher ratings than the NBA game and the final round of a PGA tournament combined. [url]http://www.benmaller.com/archives/2006/march/23-nascar_rainout_beats_nba_pga_ratings.html[/url]
The people have spoken. We will never see WRC back on TV in the states. :(
You've hit the nail on the head. They do watch more TV I'd say. Check out this story. A [b]RAINED OUT[/b] nascar event had higher ratings than the NBA game and the final round of a PGA tournament combined. [url]http://www.benmaller.com/archives/2006/march/23-nascar_rainout_beats_nba_pga_ratings.html[/url]
The people have spoken. We will never see WRC back on TV in the states. :(
| WRXSleeper | 03-23-2006 01:05 PM |
[QUOTE=meebs]You've hit the nail on the head. They do watch more TV I'd say. Check out this story. A [b]RAINED OUT[/b] nascar event had higher ratings than the NBA game and the final round of a PGA tournament combined. [url]http://www.benmaller.com/archives/2006/march/23-nascar_rainout_beats_nba_pga_ratings.html[/url]
The people have spoken. We will never see WRC back on TV in the states. :([/QUOTE]
Remember all those people who voted for GW in '04, they are also NASCAR fans and they could care less about the NBA or PGA golf.
The people have spoken. We will never see WRC back on TV in the states. :([/QUOTE]
Remember all those people who voted for GW in '04, they are also NASCAR fans and they could care less about the NBA or PGA golf.
| digitalmethods | 03-23-2006 01:22 PM |
They should just break up their coverage of events between different channels but the same network. Like MTV, MTV2, MTVjams etc... They could have a speed channel for most of the events then they could have one for NASCAR. I personally think NASCAR is for people who like fast cars but don't neccesarilly get into technical driving. I don't care about drafting and tire temps. NASCAR is great for spectators though. I went to the Winston cup in NH a couple of years ago and had a blast. The best part about it was not the race. The race sucked but getting drunk with a bunch of rednecks for 2 days was great. I tried to watch it on tv later on and found that I never went to the race to watch it but just for the entertainment that surrounded it.
| flyboymike | 03-23-2006 02:36 PM |
[QUOTE=erikkellison]Heh, can you imagine commercials for aftermarket turbos or suspension?[/QUOTE]
In my imaginary worldwide utopia... yes. Vividly. :-D
In my imaginary worldwide utopia... yes. Vividly. :-D
| Templar | 03-23-2006 03:47 PM |
[QUOTE=WRXSleeper]Remember all those people who voted for GW in '04, they are also NASCAR fans and they could care less about the NBA or PGA golf.[/QUOTE]
Umm, I voted for GW, but I loathe nascar. Although to be honest, Golf is a game, not a sport and I haven't really cared much for the NBA since His Airness retired. I would much prefer to watch Rally coverage, or USTCC or World Challenge coverage over any of those other three. Oh and I know a number of people who voted for Kerry that are die hard Nascar fans, so you should probably pay more attention to your political generalizations.
Umm, I voted for GW, but I loathe nascar. Although to be honest, Golf is a game, not a sport and I haven't really cared much for the NBA since His Airness retired. I would much prefer to watch Rally coverage, or USTCC or World Challenge coverage over any of those other three. Oh and I know a number of people who voted for Kerry that are die hard Nascar fans, so you should probably pay more attention to your political generalizations.
| roadrace1982 | 03-24-2006 01:45 AM |
HOW DO YOU LOSE A NASCAR DRIVER????
TURN RIGHT!!! LOL
[url]www.nascarsucks.com[/url]
TURN RIGHT!!! LOL
[url]www.nascarsucks.com[/url]
| silver-dragon | 03-24-2006 02:03 AM |
[img]http://www.bustedtees.com/images/boringnascar.682.gallery_normal.jpg[/img]
:D
WRC is so much more exciting than NASCAR
:D
WRC is so much more exciting than NASCAR
| WRXMaster | 03-24-2006 03:35 AM |
[QUOTE=GarySheehan]I hear you. I remember watching NASCAR as a kid in the late 70's and early 80's. That was a very different series than what is on today.
I think we all tend to look at this as me, me, me. SPEED TV isn't evil. It is giving it's largest audience (by far) what it wants to watch. Us relatively few have significantly less programming to watch compared to NASCAR.
It's still my favorite channel, though. TIVO grabs so much stuff for me that I don't have time to watch all the racing it records.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url][/QUOTE]
Speed is owned by fox..... Fox owns the rights to Nascar "most of it" ... Fox makes money from advertising... Fox makes money off selling advertising spots on nascar programing "advertisements in the nascar show"...Forcing speed to show nascar = more exposure for the $$$ for potential commerical spots.. Only reason speed is showing nascar 24/7 because its making money for Fox! Nascar is just one big advertising ploy! Thats why other motorsports in the US cant keep up and prove to corporations that their racing = $$$ + sponsorship = exposure
and people who keep saying nascar fans are loyal buyers? Thats not a fact and their are no exact numbers to prove this! All marketing/advertising is guestimation... How can you prove that having a 12million dollar name on a car = this many sales .... you cant! How come ford/chevy/dodge are having horrible sales compared to other car manufactures? and the nielson rating system is flawed and a few thosand people dictate our viewing habits. I used to sell subarus and I found that 8 out of 10 buyers bought their subaru wrx because of its rally hertige.. food for thought
I dont see people running to chevy dealers to buy monte carlos the worst selling car in gms lineup!
I think we all tend to look at this as me, me, me. SPEED TV isn't evil. It is giving it's largest audience (by far) what it wants to watch. Us relatively few have significantly less programming to watch compared to NASCAR.
It's still my favorite channel, though. TIVO grabs so much stuff for me that I don't have time to watch all the racing it records.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url][/QUOTE]
Speed is owned by fox..... Fox owns the rights to Nascar "most of it" ... Fox makes money from advertising... Fox makes money off selling advertising spots on nascar programing "advertisements in the nascar show"...Forcing speed to show nascar = more exposure for the $$$ for potential commerical spots.. Only reason speed is showing nascar 24/7 because its making money for Fox! Nascar is just one big advertising ploy! Thats why other motorsports in the US cant keep up and prove to corporations that their racing = $$$ + sponsorship = exposure
and people who keep saying nascar fans are loyal buyers? Thats not a fact and their are no exact numbers to prove this! All marketing/advertising is guestimation... How can you prove that having a 12million dollar name on a car = this many sales .... you cant! How come ford/chevy/dodge are having horrible sales compared to other car manufactures? and the nielson rating system is flawed and a few thosand people dictate our viewing habits. I used to sell subarus and I found that 8 out of 10 buyers bought their subaru wrx because of its rally hertige.. food for thought
I dont see people running to chevy dealers to buy monte carlos the worst selling car in gms lineup!
| Bonzo | 03-24-2006 09:08 AM |
[QUOTE=WRXMaster]Speed is owned by fox..... Fox owns the rights to Nascar "most of it" ... Fox makes money from advertising... Fox makes money off selling advertising spots on nascar programing "advertisements in the nascar show"...Forcing speed to show nascar = more exposure for the $$$ for potential commerical spots.. Only reason speed is showing nascar 24/7 because its making money for Fox! Nascar is just one big advertising ploy! Thats why other motorsports in the US cant keep up and prove to corporations that their racing = $$$ + sponsorship = exposure
[/QUOTE]
Money talks. Nothing more, nothing less. Money has no feelings or cares. Money is black and white.
It's all about the mighty dollar. If you think anything on tv is their for anything other than profit then I have some nice land to sell you.
The same goes for WRC or F1. IIRC WRC raised their television fees this year forcing speedtv to drop it as they can no longer justify the cost vs benefit. I don't see Subaru or others stepping up as a show sponsor to help defray these costs.
As much as everyone wants to put the blame on SpeedTV their are two sides to this story/relationship.
[/QUOTE]
Money talks. Nothing more, nothing less. Money has no feelings or cares. Money is black and white.
It's all about the mighty dollar. If you think anything on tv is their for anything other than profit then I have some nice land to sell you.
The same goes for WRC or F1. IIRC WRC raised their television fees this year forcing speedtv to drop it as they can no longer justify the cost vs benefit. I don't see Subaru or others stepping up as a show sponsor to help defray these costs.
As much as everyone wants to put the blame on SpeedTV their are two sides to this story/relationship.
| Howl | 03-24-2006 09:29 AM |
You'll know rallying has made it to the big times in North America when you see TIDE and VIAGRA advertised on the cars. :lol:
[IMG]http://www.crowndesign.ch/nascar/modem/Tide_003.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.crowndesign.ch/nascar/modem/Tide_003.jpg[/IMG]
| WRXSleeper | 03-24-2006 11:39 AM |
[QUOTE=Templar]Umm, I voted for GW, but I loathe nascar. Although to be honest, Golf is a game, not a sport and I haven't really cared much for the NBA since His Airness retired. I would much prefer to watch Rally coverage, or USTCC or World Challenge coverage over any of those other three. Oh and I know a number of people who voted for Kerry that are die hard Nascar fans, so you should probably pay more attention to your political generalizations.[/QUOTE]
It was a joke, you know the whole "red states" thing and the south being huge for NASCAR. Geez, ligten up. :rolleyes:
BTW, when Kerry was introduced at Loudon last September he got Booed.
It was a joke, you know the whole "red states" thing and the south being huge for NASCAR. Geez, ligten up. :rolleyes:
BTW, when Kerry was introduced at Loudon last September he got Booed.
| cyrexpl | 03-24-2006 12:48 PM |
I don't see what all the fuss is about. It all boils down to personal preference: some of us prefer cars that are setup for extreme handling and have fat low end torque at the sacrifice of top-end speed. For these drivers there�s nothing better then carving a nice line on the back roads (closed mind you). Still others prefer to go with a huge slower spooling turbo in order to attain the highest maximum speed, these guys live a quarter-mile at a time. So who is the better driver, and what�s more fun to watch? It depends. It depends entirely upon your personal preference.
To say based solely on personal preference that a rally driver is more skilled then a NASCAR driver is ignorant. Both have different skill sets that they have honed and perfected, and both are experts in their respective fields.
I don�t think it comes as a surprise that most Subi drivers prefer rallying since, get this revelation guys, the WRX is a rally car. Most of us would not have bought a WRX if our personal preference wasn�t racing in the twisties. If we wanted top-speed we would have bought Camero�s, or some other F-body variant, dumped in a LS1 engine and been of to the strip. So please stop your bashing of NASCAR and NASCAR drivers, while it may be boring to you, and me, there is clearly a large majority that enjoy it.
To say based solely on personal preference that a rally driver is more skilled then a NASCAR driver is ignorant. Both have different skill sets that they have honed and perfected, and both are experts in their respective fields.
I don�t think it comes as a surprise that most Subi drivers prefer rallying since, get this revelation guys, the WRX is a rally car. Most of us would not have bought a WRX if our personal preference wasn�t racing in the twisties. If we wanted top-speed we would have bought Camero�s, or some other F-body variant, dumped in a LS1 engine and been of to the strip. So please stop your bashing of NASCAR and NASCAR drivers, while it may be boring to you, and me, there is clearly a large majority that enjoy it.
| ROC pit-bull | 03-25-2006 12:51 PM |
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.
the above is not true. F1 has alot more adjustments then NASCAR. They just don't do it during a race. They do it during the testing and qualifing days. And WRC does more then nascar on race day. simply because when a stage is done something needs to be fixed.
Neck car is for people who don't understand that road tracks exist. (I like to call them mindless idiots)
the above is not true. F1 has alot more adjustments then NASCAR. They just don't do it during a race. They do it during the testing and qualifing days. And WRC does more then nascar on race day. simply because when a stage is done something needs to be fixed.
Neck car is for people who don't understand that road tracks exist. (I like to call them mindless idiots)
| WRXMaster | 03-25-2006 05:58 PM |
[QUOTE=Bonzo]Money talks. Nothing more, nothing less. Money has no feelings or cares. Money is black and white.
It's all about the mighty dollar. If you think anything on tv is their for anything other than profit then I have some nice land to sell you.
The same goes for WRC or F1. IIRC WRC raised their television fees this year forcing speedtv to drop it as they can no longer justify the cost vs benefit. I don't see Subaru or others stepping up as a show sponsor to help defray these costs.
As much as everyone wants to put the blame on SpeedTV their are two sides to this story/relationship.[/QUOTE]
Weird thats not what ISC told me at wrc mexico. They told me they are pretty much giving it away to a US Channel. The big thing with US channels is the lack of a American in the WRC. I heard that speed came crawling back to negociations because of all the pissed off viewers.
It's all about the mighty dollar. If you think anything on tv is their for anything other than profit then I have some nice land to sell you.
The same goes for WRC or F1. IIRC WRC raised their television fees this year forcing speedtv to drop it as they can no longer justify the cost vs benefit. I don't see Subaru or others stepping up as a show sponsor to help defray these costs.
As much as everyone wants to put the blame on SpeedTV their are two sides to this story/relationship.[/QUOTE]
Weird thats not what ISC told me at wrc mexico. They told me they are pretty much giving it away to a US Channel. The big thing with US channels is the lack of a American in the WRC. I heard that speed came crawling back to negociations because of all the pissed off viewers.
| Bonzo | 03-25-2006 07:56 PM |
I don't know who ISC is but it never hurts to get more sides to the story.
Who is this "US channel"?
Who is this "US channel"?
| Hondaslayer | 03-25-2006 08:06 PM |
[QUOTE=Howl]You'll know rallying has made it to the big times in North America when you see TIDE and VIAGRA advertised on the cars. :lol:
[/QUOTE]
No need to advertise Viagra on Rally cars, the sound of anti-lag does a fine enough job for me :lol:
[/QUOTE]
No need to advertise Viagra on Rally cars, the sound of anti-lag does a fine enough job for me :lol:
| WRXMaster | 03-25-2006 08:16 PM |
[QUOTE=Bonzo]I don't know who ISC is but it never hurts to get more sides to the story.
Who is this "US channel"?[/QUOTE]
International Sportsworld Communicators .............. I heard they were talking to OLN/Speed and a couple other channels.....You might hear something more by the end of this month
Who is this "US channel"?[/QUOTE]
International Sportsworld Communicators .............. I heard they were talking to OLN/Speed and a couple other channels.....You might hear something more by the end of this month
| Nemesis Destiny | 03-25-2006 09:35 PM |
I'm sure the drivers in NASCAR are very skilled. Car and Driver got a chance to do a road test in a NASCAR-spec car, and amusingly, couldn't even launch it. No joke. Expert drivers in their own right, though not bona fide racers, still more skilled than the average joe, and they couldn't even launch. Burnt out a very expensive clutch just trying. So that says something about the skill of the drivers in the sport.
That said, I find it intolerably boring and would rather watch just about any other type of racing. Preferably WRC, or some Touring Car variant where they use actual cars that I could theoretically go down to the local dealership and buy, or even GT, where they race cars that I could never afford, but can at least discern some technical and design differences between them.
Also, who cares if this thread is the same old, same old? There are constantly new users to this site, myself included, and why shouldn't we have the same conversations that the rest of you have already had? If you're so thoroughly tired of the same old refrains, then you don't have to be here reading it. There are thousands of other threads to pique your interest, I'm sure.
Speed needs more non-roundy-round. End of story. I like the channel differentiation idea, � la MTV.
That said, I find it intolerably boring and would rather watch just about any other type of racing. Preferably WRC, or some Touring Car variant where they use actual cars that I could theoretically go down to the local dealership and buy, or even GT, where they race cars that I could never afford, but can at least discern some technical and design differences between them.
Also, who cares if this thread is the same old, same old? There are constantly new users to this site, myself included, and why shouldn't we have the same conversations that the rest of you have already had? If you're so thoroughly tired of the same old refrains, then you don't have to be here reading it. There are thousands of other threads to pique your interest, I'm sure.
Speed needs more non-roundy-round. End of story. I like the channel differentiation idea, � la MTV.
| erikkellison | 03-26-2006 12:12 AM |
[QUOTE=Nemesis Destiny]I'm sure the drivers in NASCAR are very skilled. Car and Driver got a chance to do a road test in a NASCAR-spec car, and amusingly, couldn't even launch it. No joke.[/QUOTE]
I didn't know Nascar cars were launched from the start. Last time I looked at a Nascar start (probably a few years ago), I recall that it was a rolling start. I don't think I've ever seen a Nascar car be launched.
I didn't know Nascar cars were launched from the start. Last time I looked at a Nascar start (probably a few years ago), I recall that it was a rolling start. I don't think I've ever seen a Nascar car be launched.
| STiMULi | 03-26-2006 12:55 AM |
[QUOTE=WRXSleeper]Remember all those people who voted for GW in '04, they are also NASCAR fans and they could care less about the NBA or PGA golf.[/QUOTE]
Stereotyping aren't we? You can't Stereo type this no matter how bad you want to.
Talk about their views on racing and driving not politics.
But you are partially right. I could give a RATS PATOOTEY about NBA or Golf. Lets add MLB and Hockey. Tennis and Soccer... Oh yeah and NASCAR.
[SIZE=3][B]Raise your both of your hands :banana: if you were at a Rally Today![/B][/SIZE]
Stereotyping aren't we? You can't Stereo type this no matter how bad you want to.
Talk about their views on racing and driving not politics.
But you are partially right. I could give a RATS PATOOTEY about NBA or Golf. Lets add MLB and Hockey. Tennis and Soccer... Oh yeah and NASCAR.
[SIZE=3][B]Raise your both of your hands :banana: if you were at a Rally Today![/B][/SIZE]
| jeisen | 03-26-2006 09:21 AM |
[QUOTE=Nemesis Destiny]
Speed needs more non-roundy-round. End of story. I like the channel differentiation idea, � la MTV.[/QUOTE]
First we had MTV which is no longer music television because there is never any music on. Then we had MTV2 which was all music and is now half shows, so we have MTV Hits...
Speed needs more non-roundy-round. End of story. I like the channel differentiation idea, � la MTV.[/QUOTE]
First we had MTV which is no longer music television because there is never any music on. Then we had MTV2 which was all music and is now half shows, so we have MTV Hits...
| pittspilot | 03-27-2006 10:41 PM |
[QUOTE=ROC pit-bull]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.
the above is not true. F1 has alot more adjustments then NASCAR. They just don't do it during a race. They do it during the testing and qualifing days. And WRC does more then nascar on race day. simply because when a stage is done something needs to be fixed.
Neck car is for people who don't understand that road tracks exist. (I like to call them mindless idiots)[/QUOTE]
I said ontrack adjustment. Champ, F! and IndyCar do most of their adjustment using telemetry, with input from the driver.
Nascar has zero telemetry, so the driver must give all the input. And I would argue that stock cars are far more dependent on setup, then almost any other race car.
Rallying is just far different, and they also have telemetry.
There is something beautiful about a crew setting up a car without the use of onboard technology. It must be a hell of a challenge. Not saying that all telemetry should be banned, but I think an F1 crew facing a stock car would be as lost as a NASCAR crew chief with an F1 car.
One other question. How may F1 races have you attended? Champ Car? Know any drivers? Anything? Or am I just mindless?
the above is not true. F1 has alot more adjustments then NASCAR. They just don't do it during a race. They do it during the testing and qualifing days. And WRC does more then nascar on race day. simply because when a stage is done something needs to be fixed.
Neck car is for people who don't understand that road tracks exist. (I like to call them mindless idiots)[/QUOTE]
I said ontrack adjustment. Champ, F! and IndyCar do most of their adjustment using telemetry, with input from the driver.
Nascar has zero telemetry, so the driver must give all the input. And I would argue that stock cars are far more dependent on setup, then almost any other race car.
Rallying is just far different, and they also have telemetry.
There is something beautiful about a crew setting up a car without the use of onboard technology. It must be a hell of a challenge. Not saying that all telemetry should be banned, but I think an F1 crew facing a stock car would be as lost as a NASCAR crew chief with an F1 car.
One other question. How may F1 races have you attended? Champ Car? Know any drivers? Anything? Or am I just mindless?
| STiMULi | 03-27-2006 11:54 PM |
Why rally>nascar
Because XGames doesn't want Nascar
Because XGames doesn't want Nascar
| motogpboy | 03-28-2006 12:46 AM |
I could just take a completely different route... You cagers and your... monococques! Safety! hah! lol I can't say anything anymore. I've been won over to four wheeled racing as well
| Ryouga | 03-28-2006 02:26 PM |
[QUOTE=erikkellison]I didn't know Nascar cars were launched from the start. Last time I looked at a Nascar start (probably a few years ago), I recall that it was a rolling start. I don't think I've ever seen a Nascar car be launched.[/QUOTE]
It's obvious you've never watched a NASCAR race, but maybe you've seen a Formula 1 race? You know how they stop for gas, tires, etc. from time to time? You know. Come down this thing called pit road and come to a complete stop in their stall. And then they have to get going again. From a complete stop.
Well, golly gee, Miss Molly. I do seem to remember hearing that in this NASCAR thing they also have pit stops! You don't suppose they're similar in nature to F1 pit stops, do you? I mean, I can't imagine those NASCAR drivers having to bring their cars to a complete stop, and then launching them again. :lol:
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile. If you ask me, variety is what makes this country of ours so great. What's not so great is how money has become the overriding influence of our times. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=bonzo]A whole lotta ignorance going on in this theard.
I say ship this waste back to OT. It'll fit right in there.[/QUOTE]
I sorta had hope for this thread, but I think I'm done with it now.
Out.
It's obvious you've never watched a NASCAR race, but maybe you've seen a Formula 1 race? You know how they stop for gas, tires, etc. from time to time? You know. Come down this thing called pit road and come to a complete stop in their stall. And then they have to get going again. From a complete stop.
Well, golly gee, Miss Molly. I do seem to remember hearing that in this NASCAR thing they also have pit stops! You don't suppose they're similar in nature to F1 pit stops, do you? I mean, I can't imagine those NASCAR drivers having to bring their cars to a complete stop, and then launching them again. :lol:
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile. If you ask me, variety is what makes this country of ours so great. What's not so great is how money has become the overriding influence of our times. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=bonzo]A whole lotta ignorance going on in this theard.
I say ship this waste back to OT. It'll fit right in there.[/QUOTE]
I sorta had hope for this thread, but I think I'm done with it now.
Out.
| fireball_jones | 03-28-2006 02:50 PM |
As much as I like rally racing, I hate the lack of fixed tracks. IMO, the best compromise is F1, LeMans, GT, Australian V8s or even SCCA ... anything that races on the same tracks and has some uniformity to the competition, but isn't just an oval.
Although, if you're just gonna go in circles... it's more fun with open wheels.
Although, if you're just gonna go in circles... it's more fun with open wheels.
| Howl | 03-28-2006 03:33 PM |
One thing that you have to remember is the roots of rally racing. Real cars on real roads. Rally's started as long-distance driving events between two different cities or locations (i.e. how quickly can you get from Paris to Rome). Whether they are on gravel, pavement or snow is less important than the idea that every corner should be, in theory, unknown to the driver. Most modern rally's start and end in the same location and generally use the same roads year after year but there are almost always a few changes. A fixed tracks event cannot be a true rally event.
| bjorn240 | 03-28-2006 03:54 PM |
[QUOTE=fireball_jones]As much as I like rally racing, I hate the lack of fixed tracks. [/QUOTE]
Newsflash: You don't like rally racing.
- Christian
Newsflash: You don't like rally racing.
- Christian
| ROC pit-bull | 03-28-2006 04:00 PM |
there is also the adjustment of the engines, the down force, the transmisions gear ratio's. fuel adjustment, suspension adjustments. ect.. ect.. ect..
I know nascar has alot of things to adjust also. but a stock car is far more inferior to the high teck F1 car. More money goes into the testing and building a f1 car. I know there is alot that goes into a nascar also but not close to the amount of a F1 car..
FIA sanctioned motor sports has more to them then any other racing body
Yes i have been to several events. a few glen events (a good nascar race) f1 montreal, and a few open wheel events at toronto.
If your a huge neck car fan then yes you are mindless.. (just kidding)
[QUOTE=pittspilot]I said ontrack adjustment. Champ, F! and IndyCar do most of their adjustment using telemetry, with input from the driver.
Nascar has zero telemetry, so the driver must give all the input. And I would argue that stock cars are far more dependent on setup, then almost any other race car.
Rallying is just far different, and they also have telemetry.
There is something beautiful about a crew setting up a car without the use of onboard technology. It must be a hell of a challenge. Not saying that all telemetry should be banned, but I think an F1 crew facing a stock car would be as lost as a NASCAR crew chief with an F1 car.
One other question. How may F1 races have you attended? Champ Car? Know any drivers? Anything? Or am I just mindless?[/QUOTE]
I know nascar has alot of things to adjust also. but a stock car is far more inferior to the high teck F1 car. More money goes into the testing and building a f1 car. I know there is alot that goes into a nascar also but not close to the amount of a F1 car..
FIA sanctioned motor sports has more to them then any other racing body
Yes i have been to several events. a few glen events (a good nascar race) f1 montreal, and a few open wheel events at toronto.
If your a huge neck car fan then yes you are mindless.. (just kidding)
[QUOTE=pittspilot]I said ontrack adjustment. Champ, F! and IndyCar do most of their adjustment using telemetry, with input from the driver.
Nascar has zero telemetry, so the driver must give all the input. And I would argue that stock cars are far more dependent on setup, then almost any other race car.
Rallying is just far different, and they also have telemetry.
There is something beautiful about a crew setting up a car without the use of onboard technology. It must be a hell of a challenge. Not saying that all telemetry should be banned, but I think an F1 crew facing a stock car would be as lost as a NASCAR crew chief with an F1 car.
One other question. How may F1 races have you attended? Champ Car? Know any drivers? Anything? Or am I just mindless?[/QUOTE]
| bjorn240 | 03-28-2006 04:22 PM |
[QUOTE=pittspilot]Rallying is just far different, and they also have telemetry.
[/QUOTE]
Unless you're counting the ISC/FIA safety system that broadcasts speed and location (which goes to ISC and the organizers/safety crews, not the teams), rally cars do not have telemetry.
Perhaps you mean data logging?
- Christian
[/QUOTE]
Unless you're counting the ISC/FIA safety system that broadcasts speed and location (which goes to ISC and the organizers/safety crews, not the teams), rally cars do not have telemetry.
Perhaps you mean data logging?
- Christian
| cooleyjb | 03-28-2006 05:50 PM |
[QUOTE=ROC pit-bull]I know nascar has alot of things to adjust also. but a stock car is far more inferior to the high teck F1 car. More money goes into the testing and building a f1 car. I know there is alot that goes into a nascar also but not close to the amount of a F1 car..
[/QUOTE]
Just becuase you have been to the races doesn't mean you know if they are high tech.
I can imagine that the engineers who work on NASCAR would say they are pretty high tech.
What do you think costs more money and is higher technology. Going faster than everyone else with fewer rules or going faster than everyone else with a rule for everything.
Comparing Nascar to Rally is just pointless. It gets a lot of people who know very little talking a lot about what they presume to know and often times don't.
[/QUOTE]
Just becuase you have been to the races doesn't mean you know if they are high tech.
I can imagine that the engineers who work on NASCAR would say they are pretty high tech.
What do you think costs more money and is higher technology. Going faster than everyone else with fewer rules or going faster than everyone else with a rule for everything.
Comparing Nascar to Rally is just pointless. It gets a lot of people who know very little talking a lot about what they presume to know and often times don't.
| GarySheehan | 03-28-2006 06:41 PM |
[QUOTE=cooleyjb]I can imagine that the engineers who work on NASCAR would say they are pretty high tech.[/QUOTE]
Yes they would say that. And they would also say that the engineers in F1 are far beyond what they are doing in NASCAR
[QUOTE=cooleyjb]What do you think costs more money and is higher technology. Going faster than everyone else with fewer rules or going faster than everyone else with a rule for everything.[/QUOTE]
I'm not following your logic here. Regardless, a rally team or F1 team is significantly more expensive with far more research, development and testing than NASCAR. If you are arguing otherwise, you truly have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
Yes they would say that. And they would also say that the engineers in F1 are far beyond what they are doing in NASCAR
[QUOTE=cooleyjb]What do you think costs more money and is higher technology. Going faster than everyone else with fewer rules or going faster than everyone else with a rule for everything.[/QUOTE]
I'm not following your logic here. Regardless, a rally team or F1 team is significantly more expensive with far more research, development and testing than NASCAR. If you are arguing otherwise, you truly have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
| cooleyjb | 03-28-2006 07:01 PM |
[QUOTE=GarySheehan]
I'm not following your logic here. Regardless, a rally team or F1 team is significantly more expensive with far more research, development and testing than NASCAR. If you are arguing otherwise, you truly have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url][/QUOTE]
A thought that comes to mind when I ready your post Gary.
How much money is spent on the Chevy NASCAR effort? Versus teh Ferrari F1 effort.
I won't argue that and F1 team spend a lot more on R&D and Development than a NASCAR team but couldn't that be due to the fact that it is spread out over 20 teams.
I'm not sure the answer on that.
As for teh second part of your question I was trying say what do you think is tougher to do. Win in NASCAR or win in F1.
I'm not following your logic here. Regardless, a rally team or F1 team is significantly more expensive with far more research, development and testing than NASCAR. If you are arguing otherwise, you truly have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url][/QUOTE]
A thought that comes to mind when I ready your post Gary.
How much money is spent on the Chevy NASCAR effort? Versus teh Ferrari F1 effort.
I won't argue that and F1 team spend a lot more on R&D and Development than a NASCAR team but couldn't that be due to the fact that it is spread out over 20 teams.
I'm not sure the answer on that.
As for teh second part of your question I was trying say what do you think is tougher to do. Win in NASCAR or win in F1.
| CirrusWRX | 03-28-2006 08:53 PM |
[quote]I won't argue that and F1 team spend a lot more on R&D and Development than a NASCAR team but couldn't that be due to the fact that it is spread out over 20 teams. [/quote]
Que? Research & Development and Development?
F1 teams probably spent around 1.5 BILLION british pounds traveling the globe in 2005. Toyota probably spent around $290 million with Ferrari a close second in $250 million.
Here's what I found for NASCAR for a mid level 2 car team:
Operational Costs, from largest cost down
In-house engine program: $3.5 million+
Team salaries (for a typical 90-100 person team): $2.5-3.5 million
Driver salary (varies, see below)
Travel: $1 million per team
Tires: $1 million per team ($20,000 per race weekend plus testing)
Cars: $1-3 million per team*
*From the ground up, including the engine, a race-ready Nextel Cup car costs about $125,000 to build:
Car - $70,000
Engine - $40,000
Labor - $15,000
Double it just for the hell of it and say they're a #1 team you're BARELY approaching 1/6 the cost of F1.
I'm not making any arguments for or against either one. It has nothing to do with the number of cars in the field.
R&D is expensive. There is a lot to R and a ton of D done in F1. Due to the restrictions in NASCAR, there is less R and less D compared to F1, ergo, NASCAR spends on an order of magnitude MUCH less than F1. That is one of the arguments from FIA AGAINST F1 that it's costs are out of this world.
Que? Research & Development and Development?
F1 teams probably spent around 1.5 BILLION british pounds traveling the globe in 2005. Toyota probably spent around $290 million with Ferrari a close second in $250 million.
Here's what I found for NASCAR for a mid level 2 car team:
Operational Costs, from largest cost down
In-house engine program: $3.5 million+
Team salaries (for a typical 90-100 person team): $2.5-3.5 million
Driver salary (varies, see below)
Travel: $1 million per team
Tires: $1 million per team ($20,000 per race weekend plus testing)
Cars: $1-3 million per team*
*From the ground up, including the engine, a race-ready Nextel Cup car costs about $125,000 to build:
Car - $70,000
Engine - $40,000
Labor - $15,000
Double it just for the hell of it and say they're a #1 team you're BARELY approaching 1/6 the cost of F1.
I'm not making any arguments for or against either one. It has nothing to do with the number of cars in the field.
R&D is expensive. There is a lot to R and a ton of D done in F1. Due to the restrictions in NASCAR, there is less R and less D compared to F1, ergo, NASCAR spends on an order of magnitude MUCH less than F1. That is one of the arguments from FIA AGAINST F1 that it's costs are out of this world.
| pittspilot | 03-28-2006 11:22 PM |
[QUOTE=bjorn240]Unless you're counting the ISC/FIA safety system that broadcasts speed and location (which goes to ISC and the organizers/safety crews, not the teams), rally cars do not have telemetry.
Perhaps you mean data logging?
- Christian[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that's what I meant.
My point is that just because something is not high tech, does not make it easy.
Setting up an F1 must be a bitch. You have tons of information to deal with, and sorting it out so that it makes sense must be tough. Plus, an F1 has so many variable to juggle.
A cup car isn't near as complicated as an F1, but there is much less information, and no telemetry. It's pre-track testing, tire temperatures, and driver feel, hunches, and that's about it. There's a beauty to it. Some of those crew chiefs are complete rednecks, but they are artists at setting up a car.
It's not for everyone, but saying that NASCAR is just left, straight, left, etc, demonstrates pure ignorance.
Perhaps you mean data logging?
- Christian[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that's what I meant.
My point is that just because something is not high tech, does not make it easy.
Setting up an F1 must be a bitch. You have tons of information to deal with, and sorting it out so that it makes sense must be tough. Plus, an F1 has so many variable to juggle.
A cup car isn't near as complicated as an F1, but there is much less information, and no telemetry. It's pre-track testing, tire temperatures, and driver feel, hunches, and that's about it. There's a beauty to it. Some of those crew chiefs are complete rednecks, but they are artists at setting up a car.
It's not for everyone, but saying that NASCAR is just left, straight, left, etc, demonstrates pure ignorance.
| WildBlueWRX | 03-28-2006 11:49 PM |
i dont know if this will make u guys mad or not, but when i was watching the "pre-game" for the bristol race on sunday, someone mentioned that theyre now allowing rally cars into nascar! toyota is gonna be the first import in nascar.
| LastResort | 03-29-2006 12:24 AM |
[QUOTE=WildBlueWRX]i dont know if this will make u guys mad or not, but when i was watching the "pre-game" for the bristol race on sunday, someone mentioned that theyre now allowing rally cars into nascar! toyota is gonna be the first import in nascar.[/QUOTE]
I doubt it. Toyota is bringing a car to NASCAR, which will be same spec parts as everyone else, V8 and all. It will just say CAMRY instead of IMPALA or whatever. A Toyota NASCAR does not have anything more to do with a rally car than the Fords, Chevys, and Dodges already out on the track. Besides AWD, big suspension, and turbo 2 liter would not last long at a NASCAR event. The old Group B's possibly. Not the new cars.
I doubt it. Toyota is bringing a car to NASCAR, which will be same spec parts as everyone else, V8 and all. It will just say CAMRY instead of IMPALA or whatever. A Toyota NASCAR does not have anything more to do with a rally car than the Fords, Chevys, and Dodges already out on the track. Besides AWD, big suspension, and turbo 2 liter would not last long at a NASCAR event. The old Group B's possibly. Not the new cars.
| STiMULi | 03-29-2006 12:28 AM |
[QUOTE=LastResort] Besides AWD, big suspension, and turbo 2 liter would not last long at a NASCAR event. The old Group B's possibly. Not the new cars.[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't that be fun to watch though!
Wouldn't that be fun to watch though!
| banzai | 03-29-2006 11:27 AM |
!
�
�
my valueable opinion is this:
I have driven a bit of everything, cars with too much power on dirt roads growing up, dirt track roundy roundys, go-karts at 150+ mph, autoX in my subie, you name it and i have probably done some of that type of racing.
what makes a racing series here in the states is the moneys. i have driven texas world speeedway at 150+, trust me, it's much harder to finesse my subie around an autoX course than it is to turn left all the time.
joe six pack comsumer likes to have his cake and eat it too. he wants to be able to see the whole track at once. even if it's over a mile away like at daytona or 'Dega. NASCAR isn't about the fans, it's about sponsor money.
Joe doesn't want to watch the cars go thru the corkscrew at Laguna Seca or blast down thunder alley at Road America. Or for that matter watch the cars go by once every mionute and a half anywhere. he wants be able to see everything.
the road course is dying in north america. all we are getting is new ovals...for NASCAR.
Yes, going thru turn 2 at atlanta three wide is a rush, but so is running everyones favorite turn at hallett four wide. been there done that.
when a NASCAR road race comes on, it's like watching cows square dance on ice. show me a rally race or F1 instead.
I used to love NASCAR, now i can't stand it. it's not that it's too mainstream, it's far too commercialized.
I don't mean to come off as anythign other than offering my opinion. you might take what i have written the wrong way and see me ass arrogant or egotistical, but that's not what i am trying to get across.
I have driven a bit of everything, cars with too much power on dirt roads growing up, dirt track roundy roundys, go-karts at 150+ mph, autoX in my subie, you name it and i have probably done some of that type of racing.
what makes a racing series here in the states is the moneys. i have driven texas world speeedway at 150+, trust me, it's much harder to finesse my subie around an autoX course than it is to turn left all the time.
joe six pack comsumer likes to have his cake and eat it too. he wants to be able to see the whole track at once. even if it's over a mile away like at daytona or 'Dega. NASCAR isn't about the fans, it's about sponsor money.
Joe doesn't want to watch the cars go thru the corkscrew at Laguna Seca or blast down thunder alley at Road America. Or for that matter watch the cars go by once every mionute and a half anywhere. he wants be able to see everything.
the road course is dying in north america. all we are getting is new ovals...for NASCAR.
Yes, going thru turn 2 at atlanta three wide is a rush, but so is running everyones favorite turn at hallett four wide. been there done that.
when a NASCAR road race comes on, it's like watching cows square dance on ice. show me a rally race or F1 instead.
I used to love NASCAR, now i can't stand it. it's not that it's too mainstream, it's far too commercialized.
I don't mean to come off as anythign other than offering my opinion. you might take what i have written the wrong way and see me ass arrogant or egotistical, but that's not what i am trying to get across.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét