rec.autos.simulators

In case you are not aware.  Every position, from 1 to 43 gets points.  This
causes some heroic work by teams and drivers.  Anyone rember Dale Earhardt
up on his roof because of contact between he and Jeff Gordon at Daytona a
couple of years ago.  He's in the ambulance and notices that the wheels are
still on the car, asks one of the track workers to see if the car will
start.  It does, he jumps out of the ambulance, drives it back to the pits.
The team wraps the car up with duct tape, and he finishes the race.  Why.
Because no matter where he finishes, he gets some points.  If he just rides
in the ambulance he's near the bottom.  If he finishes the race, he gains a
few more points.

As for the sportsmanship thing, anyone rember Sterling Marlin's crewman
leaving a wrench in the roof one race, and he stopped at the end of pit lane
a another team ran out and pulled it out.  He surely would have gone down a
lap or two if the team hadn't pulled out the wrech, but the team that pulled
it could have gained positions on him if they would have left it.

That's just a couple of  reasons I love Nascar.

Dean

In terms of racing, I think the draft anabled by close, consistent
driving is the most interesting part of it. A dimension that just
doesn't factor much in F1. In fact, the draft might be the subtlest
skill to master in racing. In CART, you also see unbelievable speeds
(over 240 MPH).

All that said, I don't much enjoy ovals- except maybe the huge ones
(Michigan, Indy, Talladega)

Dave, you sure do contradict yourself.

First you say:

Then in this message you say:

Then you contradict your first message with:

Now, do you agree that there are in fact non-oval racing in NASCAR or
not?
Make up your mind.

And if this doesn't sound like you think us Americans are afraid to
turn right then I don't know what your smokin':

- James "Gunslinger" Wohlever

Techware Computer Services
http://techware.gtinsider.com

Send ATTACHMENTS (Files) to:

Perhaps one way to look at this would be to examine the way in which the
Powers That Be in F1 have tried to make that sport more and more TV-friendly
over the past decade.  I think (my opinion only, of course) that this has to
be discussed on at least two levels: hard-core fans who get *really*
involved in the whole sport--the strategic decisions made by teams before
and during a race as they cope with potential and real variables such as
unexpected tire wear, a brightening sun and the rise in track temps., or a
"knowledge" of a opposing car or driver's weakness; and the (more important)
casual audience (probably bigger--ad revenues, etc.) who "just wanna see the
race" and the crashes--or the pi***s and glamour  (ABC's coverage of
Monaco, with its strident emphasis on the "prestige" of the place, used to
make me near ill--sooo tacky).

What I mean here, is that Nascar seems to have its act together: it can
appeal to both bases quite easily.  The *** folks can speculate on when
so-and-so's going to pit, or how a sudden yellow flag has thrown a monkey
wrench into everyone's plans, the things I mentioned above; while the casual
ones can "ooh and ah" at the close racing (not to dismiss it--only to state
that it's a more "immediate" attractor than the strategy bit), and,
dismaying as it is, hope to see a bit of a smash-up.

I think F1 has had a very difficult time appealing to both, and made a very
wrong move by appealing to the TV audience by re-implememting re-fueling.
Perhaps a right move for Tv, but a wrong move for the sport.  Let me explain
. . .

For me, F1 used to be--before refueling--*extraordinarily* intellectually
interesting.  The most immense thrill was second-guessing who would conserve
their tires best, as the car was SO much heavier during the first part of
the race, or who had set their car up best for the most critical parts of
the race, as the fuel-load lightened and the handling and track changed.
Expert commentators (I'm in the USA so I mention David Hobbes here, and to a
slightly lesser degree Derek Daly, as exemplary hosts in this respect) could
lay out the options and the stakes, and it was completely fascinating to see
how a race unfolded within those parameters.  An example: I was just
rewatching the 1990 Mexican GP the other night, and the sheer drama of
watching Prost (in that lovely violin-bodied 640) start ripping through the
field from 13th starting place after about 40% of the race had gone by--he
had set his car up to handle absolutely perfectly on a lighter tank, lap
after lap he'd reset fastest lap--and simultaneously watching Mansell and
Prost catching Senna as Senna's tires went away (he eventually suffered a
blow-out; the team had gambled that he could do the whole race w/o a tire
stop), and *then* watching Berger (who had stopped for tires very early
after running his own absolutely ragged)manage to challenge Nige ferociously
during the last couple of laps (maybe some here will remember Berger's wild
move on Mansell and then Nige's re-pass on Berger around the *outside* of
the Peratalda [sp?] on the penultimate lap)--the tension of it all was
completely amazing.

But the thing is, without a skilled commentator and a viewer with a little
patience and intellectual interest in the strategy, F1 was simply boring to
many TV viewers.  Soooo . . ., pitstops,  TeeVee !, artificial drama,
grooved tires--the misplaced emphasis ( I think, anyway--IMO, you know. . .)
on getting (all bow down) PASSING back into the game by any means possible.
So now we have the sprint races between pit stops for more fuel.
(Obviously, I'm oversimplifying here--I realize that there are strategic
considerations as teams adjust precisely *when* they'll make a stop, and how
that plays out against other team's decisions--but for the viewer, that's
opaque: it comes as a surprise, unlike the situation where you know that all
the cars have to leave the line with enough fuel on board to last the race.)

Everyone screams "passing."  But F1 was *never* about trading the lead back
and forth.  I believe (I may be wrong on this) but there are points awarded
in Nascar simply for leading a lap, two laps, etc.?, right?  It really is a
completely different racing style, or a better word, perhaps, system.  I
want to be careful here, treading on eggs.  I would say, though, that
passing in F1 is a more (getting speculative here) permanent endeavor.

In short, there's a contradiction between TV's efficacy in attracting casual
F1 fans and its ability to satisfy the hard-core F1.  That contradiction
doesn't seem to be present in Nascar.  I'd be interested to know if my own
F1-centered experience as a fan is similar to any Nascar fans' experiences.

This thought-piece: I apologize for its length and convoluted nature--these
are some things I regularly think about in the pre-season.

It's a cause for concern, init?

--David K.,
Isolated F1 fan in Nashville, TN

I have no idea.

I live in the U.S. and have never been able to force myself to watch a
NASCAR race for more than 15 minutes.

Boring. Low tech. Slow. Left turn. Straight. Left turn. Straight. Yippeee.

The majority of the people who follow the sport are not my type at all too.
Beer, crashes, and bad accents are what most of them are about.

The cars are low tech and sloppy. The tracks in the series are almost all
ovals. It's not that ovals can't be fun to watch occasionally with open
wheel cars such as in CART, but not with NASCAR cars. And not EVERY race.

The drivers look like keg salesman and I doubt their talents.

F1 is the opposite of NASCAR and that's the form of racing I love. I doubt
there's a driver in NASCAR that Schumacher wouldn't completely embarrass in
every race. The two series are world's apart and I can't wait until March
10th.

David G Fisher

Take these goofy laws, for example. "Laying drag". That means to me, that
some guy just walked into a bar wearing a dress (in drag) and was trying to
get laid. Nothing to do with cars. "Speed contests" or "Engaging in a speed
contest". Well, obviously the cops are*** out in the wrong places to
catch people doing that. They should setup a radar trap on the backstretch
of Daytona, or any oval/road course track in the world, and by golly they
will finally be able to catch someone taking part in a "speed contest". How
silly we Americans are!!

But yeah, we have no roundabouts here in the USA because none of us
Americans, myself included, have the intelligence to figure out how to drive
on one without wrecking. And i think our Euro friend, while replying to your
message, meant to say "right hand" turns instead of "left hand turns" when
referring to Watkins Glen. Shoot, I'd rather see Nascar run more on road
courses myself. And alot less of holding 2 events on the ovals all the time.
Run daytona only one time per year, make it mean something. Same with Dega,
Pocono, Atlanta, etc. Use 34 individual tracks, instead of the standard 16
tracks twice and the 2 road courses once. I'd like to see 17 ovals and 17
road courses myself, hehe. But that would only happen when hell freezes
over. I'd like to see Nascar also run on Laguna Seca and Road Atlanta, in
addition to the standard Glen and Sears Point.

Anyways, any racing series is always gonna have it's diehard fans. That's
all good and healthy and very cool. But relating to Nascar vs Formula 1,
they both have their merits. I'm a Nascar fan, so naturally I enjoy watching
the boys running doorhandle to doorhandle for a couple hundred laps. And I
also enjoy watching the finesse and precision of Formula 1. I seen where
someone mentioned the time interval thing and cars spaced out alot in F1.
Yeah, sometimes that happens, but it's still a race. Guy in the lead might
run on his worn tires for too long and the guy behind catches up and they
run wing to wing for a couple laps, that's when it gets interesting
especially, hehe. For what it's worth, this past season in F1, I saw
everything from the "catepillar" of single file fields on some tracks, all
the way up to alot of 2 and 3 wide on alot of tracks. I gotta admit, it
takes some serious balls to get 3 wide on some of the F1 tracks. Any Nascar
fan should like the first 10 laps of an F1 race if they want to see close
quarter and side by side racing. I remember that Malaysian Gran Prix being
that way early on, running 2 and 3 wide through the turns even, hehe. Same
thing happens in Nascar, just take this last race for example, the "Rock".
How many cars finished on the lead lap? Something like 9 to 14? Barely one
fourth of the whole field. So unless my fave driver is in that lead pack of
cars, it's a boring race to watch for me, cause then my driver is at least 1
or more laps down and out of contention, which is exactly what happened,
doh, hehe. So he had no chance, unless someone up front got stupid and
caused one of those espn award winning smashups and my driver happened to
get through it, hehe.

What's the boring race series for me to watch? Indy cars, believe it or not,
lol. I think it's a novelty to see them run on ovals, but open wheel cars
belong on a road course. I also think it's a trip that Mario Andretti holds
the world race speed record for average lap speed, with an amazing 234mph
average during qualifying at Michigan. Michigan?? Isn't that a Nascar track?
Hmmm, I don't recall a Nascar vehicle breaking the 200mph barrier there yet,
hehe.  (friendly ribbing of you other Nascar fans ;o) What I would like to
see, as far as Indy cars and ovals. Let's see them tame Talladega. If they
can do 234mph average over a lap at Michigan, what can/could they do at the
almighty Dega? 240? 250? 260??

First off, before Indy folks jump in my case, lol, I think Indy belong on
road courses more as a matter of safety, rather than a skill type issue. Too
many drivers have been killed, along with spectators at some tracks. I know
when Ayrton Senna got taken from us, shocking that I watched it and thought
"Damn, that looked bad, but he'll be ok", but my heart broke when they
updated his tragic condition later on. And after seeing the latest young man
die, Greg Moore, during an Indy car event on an oval, I'd rather them  stick
to road courses where hopefully they'll be slowing for a curve if they
happen to get in a wreck. F1 sure seems to be alot safer in recent years,
Nascar too, but I'd be in favor of the idea going around about putting
bodies on Indy cars when running on ovals. Even if it means they're running
nothing more than a GT type car. At least then the driver has a chance with
a full roll cage and extra body/framework between him and those bare
concrete walls.

Anyways, getting bummed out here, have fun with the debate folks, not
picking any one side in this issue, just trying to relate to both sides in
the hopes some common sense will come out of it.   ;o)

Destin

Seriously?

Don McCorkle
Libertarian Motorsports

 Well here in Canada (and in the States, I think) we called them "traffic
circles" and we used to have a bunch of them. They took up a lot of valuable
real estate (prime sales sites!! :) ) and were becoming obsolete in the
early 1960's as traffic density soared.  Since most of our cities were laid
out as a grid work originally  the traffic light controlled intersection
worked better for the mid level intersections with cloverleaf overpasses
working best on major arterial roads.
David

~daxe

--
/Chuck Kandler  #70
/ChuckK on Won.net & WinVROC
/K&S Racing
http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195
/The box said "Windows 0x5f or better", so I installed LINUX!

--
/Chuck Kandler  #70
/ChuckK on Won.net & WinVROC
/K&S Racing
http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195
/The box said "Windows 0x5f or better", so I installed LINUX!

the giving way to the right thing was a joke i read somewhere.  on a
roundabout you have to give way to the right. it refers to giving in to
right wing politics.  ok

oh and i did mean right hand turns :0

this is the end

dave

David G Fisher skrev i meldingen ...

David, Schu was quoted that he'd never do NASCAR. Was too dangerous for him
he said :-)

And what's the thing you love about men acting (and looking) like girls?
I have seen many of the F1 drivers of the eighties. 1,60 metres. 60 kilos.
It just isn't normal IMO.
<g> Mmm, Schu in the Jacuzzi, carefully studying his flexed bicep in the
mirror....rrrracing!

Anyway, your trolling was only partially successful. I just don't get the "I
like this hate that" attitude. If you can't enjoy several forms of
motorsport, you're not a fan, not even an enthusiast.
I enjoy F1 (although I think the past couple of seasons have been a bit
naff), CART, NASCAR, Sportscars, Rallying...but I have seen a lot of races
that rate way above any F1, Cart or NASCAR race. Guess where?
At my local track Rudskogen (famous!!!). At a wet and grotty Mallory Park.
Or local boys racing Fiats at Mondello in Ireland. Or at the Southside
Speedway Modified races. Not to mention special saloons, lower
Formulae-classes. Or even Rallycross! Racing is what it is about.

A scenario I love just as much as any F1 race:
Three lads I have never heard of, local track, modified saloons. 20 laps.
Trading paint, cutting kerbs, swapping positions. On the knife edge, engines
screaming their guts out. Dirt flying, crowd biting nails and
yelling...Cars? One Holden Commodore, ex AU GpA, One Sierra Cosworth, Ex
BTCC, one Volvo 240 (trademark of scandinavian racing!). Three brilliant
drivers. Race is settled in the last corner where they all swap places,
Holden leaving *** all the way up to the finish line, Volvo pushing the
Sierra wide, and in the end helps it cross the line first, 3 first cars
cross the line about 0.5 secs apart.

Oh, and that were just the first 3 runners...

People just don't know what they're missing! Go a bit deeper thatn the
Hollywood F1 scene, please!

Matt /rant

Lighten up, mate. Please :-)

--
Cheers!
Graeme Nash

==
A European who loves F1, CART, NASCAR, Touring cars and any other motorsport
that isn't drag racing or tractor-pulling :-))
==