rec.autos.simulators

by **Peter Olivol** » Tue, 07 Mar 2000 04:00:00

Am I supposed to be upset by this? Am I supposed to loose my temper and
prove some point that's known only to your own mind? Nah, I'd rather let
everyone else here judge for themselves on the basis of what's been written.

> > Brian, you're the one who's missed a necessary step. You know nothing
about
> > what it takes physically to drive a race car in any form of the sport.

> > > Yes, but a librarian could train for the Ironman competition, but it
> > > doesn't make library work athletic. You've missed a necessary step.

> Thanks for the irrelevancy, Pete, but this is logic, and you know scant
> little about it, so I suggest you heed your own advice.

> I simply noted (much to your apparent bewilderment) the post hoc, propter
> hoc fallacy, and you don't have to know a damn thing about the subject in
> which the fallacy is employed to spot the error.

> Think of it this way. An error in programming code is still an error,
> regardless of whether the person reviewing the code knows anything about
> word processors, 3D games, or whatever the program might be.

by **Peter Olivol** » Tue, 07 Mar 2000 04:00:00

Brian, you're beginning to remind me of the incident near Seattle recently
when a weather helicopter pilot got lost in the fog. He gingerly made his
way toward what appeared to be an office building, and while hovering,
instructed the reporter to write a question and hold it up for the office
workers to see, "where are we?" Sure enough they got a response, "you're in
a helicopter." Whereupon the pilot set a course and flew directly to the
airport on compass and landed. Afterward the reporter asked the pilot how
he knew from such little information. The pilot replied, "we were in
Redmond, at the Microsoft office. The answer they gave was perfectly
correct and totally useless."

> > Pretty cheap to point out an error in formal logic while the overall
> > statement of the post is correct.

> > Jan.

> The "overall statement of the post" was a fallacy, so it's certainly not
> pedantry to note the error. Further, what I know about racing fitness is
> pretty irrelevant to anything being discussed anywhere.

> This is elementary stuff, folks.

by **Moezill** » Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:00:00

All drivers regardless of their style are some of the best conditioned
athletes, they need to be with all that jostling around. Think of how
you feel when you drive an hour or two in your own car to some far off
(100 mile or so) destination. Then think of how those guys must feel
after running 500 miles! :)

> [snip]
> >set-up, car control, etc. that oval racing requires....however, road racing
> >demands additional skills that are never required in oval racing. For example,
> >do you think Jeff Gordon will ever deal with the sheer braking loads in NASCAR
> >like Schumie encounters every week in F1? I'm sure that other posters can
> [snip]

> Think Schumie will ever have to deal with a 10 car nose-to-tail draft,
> and figure out who to go with on the last lap?

> Nothing has the braking loads of an F1 car. But sometimes *not* doing
> that is a special skill. Back in the 60s, when Denny Hulme went to
> Indianapolis, one of his problems was using the brakes too much, like
> on a road course, rather than smoothly easing off the speed entering
> the corners. Hulme - as skilled a driver as there was in that era -
> could never master that, so his car owner finally put wheel covers on
> so the brakes would heat up and fade.

> The biggest thing about racing in any series is that the fast guys are
> going as fast as they can, and as close to the edge as they can.

> Kind of interesting seeing this discussion touching on arguments about
> which kind of driver has to be a better athlete. Wasn't too long ago
> that people questioned whether drivers were athletes at all. Nowadays
> the good drivers are all in top athletic condition.

> Ken Plotkin

by **Moezill** » Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:00:00

Road rash? :)

> Mike, 3 wide at 185mph?
> What bikes?
> What track?

> Just curious

> Jerry

> > > When was the last time you saw drivers going three and four wide in
> > > the corners at 185+ mph on a road course?

> > Happens at every bike race.

> > Mike.

by **Jan Verschuere** » Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:00:00

Pretty cheap to point out an error in formal logic while the overall
statement of the post is correct.

Jan.
----

> <snip>
> I simply noted (much to your apparent bewilderment) the post hoc, propter
> hoc fallacy, and you don't have to know a damn thing about the subject in
> which the fallacy is employed to spot the error.

by **Speedy Fas** » Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:00:00

But the fact still remains that road racing is signifcantly more
difficult. I'd hire an British F3 racer over any USAC sprinter any
day!

by **Speedy Fas** » Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:00:00

> When was the last time you saw drivers going three and four wide in
>the corners at 185+ mph on a road course?

When was the last time you went through a turn side by side at 150 MPH
knowing damn well that the next set of turns is impossible to do
side-by-side. That would scare the ***out of me more than any
oval!

by **Alan Orto** » Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:00:00

Actually I think Gordon does, and probably more of it. Take a track like
Martinsville or Pocono, Gordon will have to hit the brake with around
160-180 lbs of pedal pressure per corner to slow down the 3500lb while
downshifting, A real ***, not the F1 semi auto crap. That's 2 times a
lap and only about 10 seconds in between corners. I don't know how many
laps, but he's doing it for about 3-4 hours straight, believe me he's
working much harder at Martinsville then Schumie will ever do at any f1
track. Don't forget the incar temps in a Nascar is VERY high and all the
carbon Monoxide and other toxic fumes get stuck in there. Plus NASCAR's
have a lot of power, probably more Torque then a f1.
Both in F1, NASCAR and other forms of motorsport you have to be in great
condition to be competitive. NASCAR is not harder then F1 and vise
versa.
But I do believe NASCAR is much more dependant on a good setup to win
unlike F1. WHY? Probably because a Oval is half corner and corners need
a good handling car to go fast. It's impossible to rotate a car through
a 1/4 mile long turn. ;)
NASCAR and F1 have one thing in common, they are both left foot brakers.

by **Stephen Ferguso** » Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:00:00

<snip>

All good points, but I think the original post was referring to the
ridiculous level of deceleration a F1 car can achieve, plus the lateral
acceleration. F1 drivers get pummeled in their cars for the duration of the
race. Obviously they adapt, as do Indy drivers to vibration on ovals,
NASCAR drivers to their environment, but the casual rider taken for a tour
in the McLaren 2-seater usually first comments on the sheer *** of a F1
drive.

Stephen

by **Brian P. Sween** » Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:00:00

> Brian, you're beginning to remind me of the incident near Seattle recently
> when a weather helicopter pilot got lost in the fog. He gingerly made his
> way toward what appeared to be an office building, and while hovering,
> instructed the reporter to write a question and hold it up for the office
> workers to see, "where are we?" Sure enough they got a response, "you're in
> a helicopter." Whereupon the pilot set a course and flew directly to the
> airport on compass and landed. Afterward the reporter asked the pilot how
> he knew from such little information. The pilot replied, "we were in
> Redmond, at the Microsoft office. The answer they gave was perfectly
> correct and totally useless."

Well, Pete, in your case, your answers are incorrect and useless, so your
helicopter would have crashed.

by **Brian P. Sween** » Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:00:00

> > For example,
> > do you think Jeff Gordon will ever deal with the sheer braking loads
in NASCAR
> > like Schumie encounters every week in F1?

> Actually I think Gordon does, and probably more of it. Take a track like
> Martinsville or Pocono, Gordon will have to hit the brake with around
> 160-180 lbs of pedal pressure per corner to slow down the 3500lb while
> downshifting, A real ***, not the F1 semi auto crap. That's 2 times a
> lap and only about 10 seconds in between corners. I don't know how many
> laps, but he's doing it for about 3-4 hours straight, believe me he's
> working much harder at Martinsville then Schumie will ever do at any f1
> track. Don't forget the incar temps in a Nascar is VERY high and all the
> carbon Monoxide and other toxic fumes get stuck in there. Plus NASCAR's
> have a lot of power, probably more Torque then a f1.

You were doing well until that last sentence. F1 engines generate gobs of
torque. They have to to accelerate from an endless series of slow corners.

Um, not really. I heard Rubens just had to learn to left-foot-brake, upon
Michael's insistence. Further, a coveted NASCAR trick is
right-foot-braking while keeping your right foot on the gas.

by **Brian P. Sween** » Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:00:00

> Am I supposed to be upset by this? Am I supposed to loose my temper and
> prove some point that's known only to your own mind? Nah, I'd rather let
> everyone else here judge for themselves on the basis of what's been written.

Here's what you wrote, Pete: "Brian, you're the one who's missed a
necessary step. You know nothing about what it takes physically to drive
a race car in any form of the sport."

1. How do you know this?

2. How can you prove it?

3. How is it germane to anything being discussed?

4. How is what I know about fitness relevant to whether drivers need to be fit?

Eh?

If we're going to "let everyone else here judge for themselves on the
basis of what's been written," as you advise, then all you've written is
an empty insult, completely irrelevant and error-filled. If anyone forms a
judgment on something so vacant, then we need a more enlightened court.

So, Pete, have at it. Instead of pondering openly about whether I know
anything about the subject, attempt to answer the question. Why must
drivers, necessarily, be fit? Given your dodges, it looks like you're the
one who knows little about the subject.

> > > Brian, you're the one who's missed a necessary step. You know nothing
> about
> > > what it takes physically to drive a race car in any form of the sport.

> > > > Yes, but a librarian could train for the Ironman competition, but it
> > > > doesn't make library work athletic. You've missed a necessary step.

> > Thanks for the irrelevancy, Pete, but this is logic, and you know scant
> > little about it, so I suggest you heed your own advice.

> > I simply noted (much to your apparent bewilderment) the post hoc, propter
> > hoc fallacy, and you don't have to know a damn thing about the subject in
> > which the fallacy is employed to spot the error.

> > Think of it this way. An error in programming code is still an error,
> > regardless of whether the person reviewing the code knows anything about
> > word processors, 3D games, or whatever the program might be.

by **Stephen Ferguso** » Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:00:00

> > > For example,
> > > do you think Jeff Gordon will ever deal with the sheer braking loads
> in NASCAR
> > > like Schumie encounters every week in F1?

> > Actually I think Gordon does, and probably more of it. Take a track like
> > Martinsville or Pocono, Gordon will have to hit the brake with around
> > 160-180 lbs of pedal pressure per corner to slow down the 3500lb while
> > downshifting, A real ***, not the F1 semi auto crap. That's 2 times a
> > lap and only about 10 seconds in between corners. I don't know how many
> > laps, but he's doing it for about 3-4 hours straight, believe me he's
> > working much harder at Martinsville then Schumie will ever do at any f1
> > track. Don't forget the incar temps in a Nascar is VERY high and all the
> > carbon Monoxide and other toxic fumes get stuck in there. Plus NASCAR's
> > have a lot of power, probably more Torque then a f1.

> You were doing well until that last sentence. F1 engines generate gobs of
> torque. They have to to accelerate from an endless series of slow corners.

Actually, when one considers the stratospheric 16,000+ rpm of the F1
engines, and the similar peak horespower ratings between the two engine
types, I'd be surprised if the F1 engine torque values are higher than a
Nascar engine.

Stephen

by **d95..** » Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:00:00

Yes the tracks look the same in a way, but in a way, so does most of the
modern tracks in e.g. F1 too. The modern, safe, stadium type track look
all alike to me. I can hardly tell the difference between the (new)
Nurburgring, Magny Cours, Malaysia etc. Sure, they have a little bit
different character, but they are all boring.
In the old days, each of the old tracks had it's distinct character -
the monstrous Nordshleife on the Nurburgring, the vast straighs in the
Belgian countryside of Spa, the slipstreaming at Monza etc. Most of that
is all gone now...

(though it's great to see that most drivers actually live long enough to
retire these days)

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

by **Gregor Vebl** » Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:00:00

> > > > For example,
> > > > do you think Jeff Gordon will ever deal with the sheer braking loads
> > in NASCAR
> > > > like Schumie encounters every week in F1?

> > > Actually I think Gordon does, and probably more of it. Take a track like
> > > Martinsville or Pocono, Gordon will have to hit the brake with around
> > > 160-180 lbs of pedal pressure per corner to slow down the 3500lb while
> > > downshifting, A real ***, not the F1 semi auto crap. That's 2 times a
> > > lap and only about 10 seconds in between corners. I don't know how many
> > > laps, but he's doing it for about 3-4 hours straight, believe me he's
> > > working much harder at Martinsville then Schumie will ever do at any f1
> > > track. Don't forget the incar temps in a Nascar is VERY high and all the
> > > carbon Monoxide and other toxic fumes get stuck in there. Plus NASCAR's
> > > have a lot of power, probably more Torque then a f1.

> > You were doing well until that last sentence. F1 engines generate gobs of
> > torque. They have to to accelerate from an endless series of slow corners.

> Actually, when one considers the stratospheric 16,000+ rpm of the F1
> engines, and the similar peak horespower ratings between the two engine
> types, I'd be surprised if the F1 engine torque values are higher than a
> Nascar engine.

> Stephen

The torque may indeed be greater in the NASCAR than the F1 engine, but
you have to remember that this is just the torque of the engine and not
the torque on the wheels (which is what matters), as there is a gearbox
in between. If you do a more thorough analysis you will see that, if you
can have any gear ratio available to you (a continuously variable
transmition or closely spaced gears), the maximum torque on the driven
wheels depends only on the power of the engine and not its torque. A
good spread of torque (or, more accurately, power, which is torque
multiplied by the rotational velocity of the engine) over the RPM is
important only in situations when you cannot change gears (as in exiting
the corner) or they are widely spaced. In CVTs, maximum torque becomes
completely irrelevant.

rec.autos.simulators

Oval racing, my point

Oval racing, my point

Oval racing, my point

Oval racing, my point

Oval racing, my point

Oval racing, my point

Oval racing, my point

Oval racing, my point

Oval racing, my point

Oval racing, my point

Oval racing, my point

Oval racing, my point

Oval racing, my point

Oval racing, my point

Oval racing, my point

Oval racing, my point