rec.autos.simulators

>> > For *me* the problem in F1 is that equipment is far more important
>> > that raw driving skill.  If you're not driving a Ferrarri (currently)
>> >  the odds of you winning go down dramatically.

>Unless your name is Rubens Barrichello. In that case you *do* drive a
>Ferrari, and yet your odds of winning are dramatically low.

>Regards, Hans

>> through (at least with what we saw on the local news).  Things didn't start
>> getting crazy until very late in the race (lap 187 was the final flag I think).

>Ok.

>>>If there's rain, why not race - unless there's little streams forming

>> It's too dangerous on super speedways.  These guys are doing 220mph pulling
>> around 2.5-3g in the turns on a rather narrow track with a concrete wall right
>> on the edge.  Running in the rain would be suicide.  

>...Unless you... guess what... drive slower and adapt to the
>circumstances.  That seems to be a concept American race fans find
>almost impossible to grasp  ;)

> >> through (at least with what we saw on the local news).  Things didn't
start
> >> getting crazy until very late in the race (lap 187 was the final flag I
think).

> >Ok.

> >>>If there's rain, why not race - unless there's little streams forming

> >> It's too dangerous on super speedways.  These guys are doing 220mph
pulling
> >> around 2.5-3g in the turns on a rather narrow track with a concrete
wall right
> >> on the edge.  Running in the rain would be suicide.

> >...Unless you... guess what... drive slower and adapt to the
> >circumstances.  That seems to be a concept American race fans find
> >almost impossible to grasp  ;)

> At that point, why bother racing?  We watch for the speed, if a 'race'
> doesn't have that, then what's the point?  Might as well go across
> town to see the locals race.

> >Look Todd, you know about Europe, we're not completely crazy (a bit yes,
> >but still ;) and we've always been racing even when there's rain. Even
> >on the Nrburgring - and in the danger department, that track made Indy
> >look like kindergarten.

> Racing in the rain may be fine over there, we're just not about to do
> that ***on ovals over here.  Too many drivers would die, casual fans
> would be horrified, and racing would come to an abrupt end.

> I'm sure that there are technical reasons that y'all do it in Europe,
> we've just chosen not to go that route for whatever the reasons are.
> Accept it, because you're not going to change it.

> >Sure it's more dangerous, sure it's more difficult, sure it's not as
> >fast. But you adapt your car and your speed to the track, and then you
> >drive unless it's really getting out of control. But a race car driver,
> >any professional driver, ought to be able to control his/her car when
> >the track is wet (Ronnie Peterson was the master of this art). Even on
> >Indy and even with a concrete wall right on the edge.

> >At least when it rains you'll drive so much slower it won't be much of a
> >problem if you slam into it  <grin>

> >(Of course, you could also put the wall 300 ft further back and finally
> >install a decent run-off area... It's not like running on Indy in the
> >dry isn't somewhat dangerous already.)

> Run-off area???  What the heck is that?  You don't have run-off areas
> for ovals.  The closest thing you have is the retaining wall
> *designed* to keep cars from going off the track (and into the
> stands).  As to putting the wall 300 feet back, no chance.

> This isn't Europe.  Thank God.

> Mike

> >> >>>It makes me sick what this once great race has now turned into.
> >Pathetic...

> >> >> I'd have to say that was one of the better ones as of late.

> >> >Cripes, this was one of the better ones? Eeeeyuck...

> >> >  > The weather really messed things up, but, you can't control the
> >> >> weather.

> >> >Must say that as a European, (we did get it live today on one cable
> >> >channel), this was Boredom City guys.

> >> As a European you show a significant ignorance as to oval racing.
> >> Typical, but regretable.  The challenge in oval racing isn't sight
> >> seeing, it's how to run a consistently fast line over the course of
> >> 200 (in this case) laps.

> >Same as in F1, except you might have 15 corners to get absolutely
perfect,
> >every lap, with the added difficulty of actual (and massive) braking and
> >acceleration.

> > > Perhaps you shouldn't have 'zapped by' but instead *watched* the
> >> action.  The pits are a facinating part of the competition and pit
> >> strategy and adjustments are crucial in winning an oval race.

> >Try watching an F1 car pit.

> I have.  All I ever see is them fueling and putting new tires on.
> It's actually rather impressive from a technical point of view, but I
> never see them make any adjustments to the car.  It seems that all the
> pit strategy is thought out in advance rather than developed over the
> course of the race, such as is done in oval racing.

> >> >Maybe it's just me, but apart from the bits where they were actually
up
> >> >to speed for about 5 secs before the next yellow flag, it looked
pretty
> >> >boring to me, sorry.

> >> >> There was abundant passing (something that doesn't happen in F1),

> >But in F1 a pass actually means you've done something impressive and
which
> >requires skill.

> Try passing at over 200 mph.  That does take skill as well.  One wrong
> move and at least 2 cars are done for.

> Really, I'd like to see Shumi at Indy in the 500.  No more super-team
> to back him up with a super-car.  200 laps in a realatively equal car
> with just the difference in how well prepared the team is for the race
> and how well Shumi can call for adjustments.  I think he'd do well,
> but I think he'd find it a lot more difficult that he'd imagine.  It
> would be wonderful to see.

> For *me* the problem in F1 is that equipment is far more important
> that raw driving skill.  If you're not driving a Ferrarri (currently)
> the odds of you winning go down dramatically.  The disparity in
> equipment tends to make a F1 race a parade after a few corners with
> only preplanned pit strategy to bring an upset.  Not a lot of fun for
> me.

> >> >You should've seen some of the (stupid) passes made today ;)

> >> Making passes involves not only being faster than the person you're
> >> passing but patience as to when and where to pass, not to mention how
> >> you do it.

> >You're describing a pass in F1. Passing in NASCAR or Indy is far easier
than
> >in F1. Get in the draft and then shoot by. Those series are artificially
set
> >up for a lot of passing.

> Artificially set up?  How so?  I described passing in general, not
> limiting myself to any form of racing.  It holds true in karts, stock
> cars, sprints, touring cars, open wheels, anything short of rally
> (where you don't have 2 cars in the same stretch of road - at least
> not by design).

> I like my ovals and I like them on asphalt.  That's my choice.
> Occasionally I like to see a road course being used by cars designed
> to run on them (ie. not stock cars) where a single manufacture isn't
> allowed to dominate (ie. F1) through sheer engineering/ $.  That's my
> preference.  Others might (do) like what I don't, and that's their
> choice.  Good for them.  But to knock NASCAR/Indycar for their style
> is childish at best - particularly if it's just because you don't like
> them.

> Mike

> Mitch

>> through (at least with what we saw on the local news).  Things didn't start
>> getting crazy until very late in the race (lap 187 was the final flag I
>think).

>Ok.

>>>If there's rain, why not race - unless there's little streams forming

>> It's too dangerous on super speedways.  These guys are doing 220mph pulling
>> around 2.5-3g in the turns on a rather narrow track with a concrete wall
>right
>> on the edge.  Running in the rain would be suicide.  

>...Unless you... guess what... drive slower and adapt to the
>circumstances.  That seems to be a concept American race fans find
>almost impossible to grasp  ;)

>Look Todd, you know about Europe, we're not completely crazy (a bit yes,
>but still ;) and we've always been racing even when there's rain. Even
>on the Nrburgring - and in the danger department, that track made Indy
>look like kindergarten.

>On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:57:30 GMT, Mike Donnelly Jr

>[snip antecedents]

>>Racing in the rain may be fine over there, we're just not about to do
>>that ***on ovals over here.  Too many drivers would die, casual fans
>>would be horrified, and racing would come to an abrupt end.  

>>I'm sure that there are technical reasons that y'all do it in Europe,
>>we've just chosen not to go that route for whatever the reasons are.
>>Accept it, because you're not going to change it.

>I thought one technical reason was that the treaded tires
>would shred because of all the lateral G's, and hence
>wouldn't last more than a few laps...

>         John DiFool

>> There is no such thing as a "tornado warning" until one has actually been
>> spotted.  That morning there was some rain and a couple of fronts came
>through,
>> but there wasn't any sign that early in the morning of anything serious
>coming
>> through (at least with what we saw on the local news).  Things didn't start
>> getting crazy until very late in the race (lap 187 was the final flag I
>think).

>As early as the 29th, it was clear that conditions over the Ohio Valley
>would be VERY favorable for severe weather.  By mid morning Sunday, well
>before any storms actuall formed, conditions were even better, and most
>of Indiana was under a tornado watch.  When the first storms did form,
>many of them just exploded, putting tornadoes on the ground in short
>order.  As a noobie armchair storm chaser, from what I saw Sunday
>morning, I'd have called the race.

>We've been very lucky in that a strong tornado hasn't clobbered a
>sporting event.  When it finally happens it will kill dozens, hundreds,
>possibly thousands.

>-Greg

>> Agreed. A big snooze-fest. Fortunately, the next race is at Texas so
>> there might actually *be* some racing going on.